Fallacies of Philosemitism: 1930s Germany to Present

[Callafangers]

To bombsaway:

Rearmament is a preventative measure, and your quote about Lebensraum being "the task of the political leadership one day to solve this problem" aligns with my position fully. As for your second quote, "Raeder 27" is not a valid citation. Please let me know where I can find this in-context.

To Numar:

You’re conflating a lot here. Being wealthy in and of itself or having influence can’t just be lumped together with corruption.

You are correct that wealth, alone, does not necessarily equate to corruption however you would be hard-pressed to claim that Jews have upset so many nations over time simply due to being excellent at acquiring wealth, alone. It is the evidence of how powerful Jews have coordinated over time which becomes front-and-center, and which is undeniable.

[On treating Germany and Jews each as collectives:]

Unfortunately, doing so upends a couple hundred years of punishing people for crimes that they as individuals have committed, rather than imposing collective punishment.

I’ve written here before on the challenge posed to both European society and to Jews specifically by the Jewish question (in the 19th century understanding of the term — that is, whether could Jews fully participate in European society and remain distinct in some way).

During the French Revolution, the issue was put rather succinctly by a member of the National Assembly, ie, that Jews were entitled to equality as individuals but to nothing as a group. Note that this agreement implies two things: that Jews not seek group rights and that society generally — and government specifically — not treat Jews differently.

The minute you look at an ecumenical political movement, whether mainstream or extreme, and identify it as “Jewish” because there are Jewish people participating, but you’ve violated that agreement.

This is a long way of getting back to the case of Germany and who wronged whom first. Assume that 1871 Germany made the same deal to Jews that France did nearly 100 years earlier. Assume that in particular because that’s what actually happened. Who broke the deal? I’d argue that certain segments of German society never honored it in the first place. You’d argue the opposite. I’m asking for proof.

The issue is that Jews have never honored the "deals" with any other nation. This is inherent to their ideology that they may not do so. Even if some outliers come about, these have clearly been insufficient to drive a collective shift toward sincere patriotism of their host nation. If it ever had, as mentioned before, there would be some substantial history of Jews exposing and holding publicly accountable other Jews, given that the involvement of many Jews in corrupt schemes at high levels over time is utterly irrefutable. But, as mentioned before, no such history exists. Only once an individual Jew receives mass public exposure (independently of Jewish efforts) do other Jews in general step in to ostensibly condemn these acts (e.g. Bernie Madoff, Sam Bankman-Fried, Jeffrey Epstein).

While white youth and adults in 2020 marched globally against an exaggerated [or false] sense of collective guilt on the part of other whites of past and present, no such protests/activitism at any scale has ever happened on the part of Jews. This is strange, no?

You might argue that "segments of German society" did not honor their 'individualism pact' from 1871 but Jews have remained steadfast collectivists in every single nation they have occupied, anywhere. This is their trademark; it is their collective nature which has strengthened them over the many generations, and which made a political movement like Zionism achievable to begin with.

You claimed Jews started WWI and that they were responsible for German economic misery after the war. Please offer some evidence.

See here:

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... rs-part-1/

And here:

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... rs-part-2/

For a more comprehensive analysis, see here:

https://ia601705.us.archive.org/5/items ... 019%29.pdf

[TlsMS93]

Weren't they? You've got to be kidding. Now you know what a Jew is, please define it, even they are eager to hear your excellency make a decision on this.

You made the allegation, dummy. You prove it.

Again, even Wikipedia acknowledges the Jewish origins of these early Soviet rulers, and this after an attempt to suppress it.

What is your view on what a Jew is?

What you say will have implications for even the number of Jews killed in the so-called Holocaust.

[Numar Patru]

Again, even Wikipedia acknowledges the Jewish origins of these early Soviet rulers, and this after an attempt to suppress it.

Let’s be clear: Are you saying there weren’t non-Jews involved at all or are you saying a majority was Jewish?

What is your view on what a Jew is?

Depends on the context. In the USSR, people were defined nationally by what their fathers were.

[TlsMS93]

Again, even Wikipedia acknowledges the Jewish origins of these early Soviet rulers, and this after an attempt to suppress it.

Let’s be clear: Are you saying there weren’t non-Jews involved at all or are you saying a majority was Jewish?

What is your view on what a Jew is?

Depends on the context. In the USSR, people were defined nationally by what their fathers were.

No, but most of the Soviet rulers in the beginning were Jews, this has changed over time, obviously.

I want a comprehensive definition and not what each country defines.

A Jew who has left Judaism continues to be one, as the Talmud says. You apparently take religious affiliation into account, but even for practicing Jews, anyone who abandons the faith continues to be a Jew.

[Numar Patru]

You are correct that wealth, alone, does not necessarily equate to corruption however you would be hard-pressed to claim that Jews have upset so many nations over time simply due to being excellent at acquiring wealth, alone. It is the evidence of how powerful Jews have coordinated over time which becomes front-and-center, and which is undeniable.

What’s the evidence for this coordination? Bear in mind that the mere fact that a person is Jewish is not probative.

The issue is that Jews have never honored the "deals" with any other nation. This is inherent to their ideology that they may not do so. Even if some outliers come about, these have clearly been insufficient to drive a collective shift toward sincere patriotism of their host nation.

This is just profoundly ahistorical, not to mention unsourced in regard to the alleged ideological reason. While I don’t deny that certain Jews might have rejected “the deal,” particularly among the Orthodox, it simply does not negate the deal overall.

Your mere use of the term “host nation” is bad faith, by the way.

If it ever had, as mentioned before, there would be some substantial history of Jews exposing and holding publicly accountable other Jews, given that the involvement of many Jews in corrupt schemes at high levels over time is utterly irrefutable.

Your problem is that you see Jewish representation among some corrupt groups of people as being evidence of inherent Jewish corruption rather than emblematic of Jewish success in societies in which they are given equal rights, which necessarily comes with some number who will abuse that success. It is again your planted axiom of Jewish insidiousness.

While white youth and adults in 2020 marched globally against an exaggerated [or false] sense of collective guilt on the part of other whites of past and present, no such protests/activitism at any scale has ever happened on the part of Jews. This is strange, no?

Only if one assumes all Jews are responsible for each other.

You might argue that "segments of German society" did not honor their 'individualism pact' from 1871 but Jews have remained steadfast collectivists in every single nation they have occupied, anywhere.

Again, provide some examples.

This is their trademark; it is their collective nature which has strengthened them over the many generations, and which made a political movement like Zionism achievable to begin with.

Zionism is quite an outlier, actually, and is increasingly less so, as younger generations of Jews see it for the noxious nationalistic baggage that it is. What most Jewish communities in free societies experience is the dissolution of community bonds, increasing intermarriage, etc. Ironically, it was the Nazis who stopped that trend. Ever notice just how much effort the Nazis had to make to define who was Jewish? Not as difficult in other places. There’s a reason for that.

Rather than citing me Dalton, bring in one or two of his strongest arguments, in your opinion.

[Numar Patru]

No, but most of the Soviet rulers in the beginning were Jews, this has changed over time, obviously.

So the majority, according to you. Fine. Prove it. Don’t say “Wikipedia.” Cut and paste what you think is persuasive.

I want a comprehensive definition and not what each country defines.

Gee, you really want me to do what no Jew has successfully done in 3,000 years of Jewish history?

A Jew who has left Judaism continues to be one, as the Talmud says.

Reference?

You apparently take religious affiliation into account, but even for practicing Jews, anyone who abandons the faith continues to be a Jew.

Again, depends on the time and place. Trotsky was Jewish according to the Soviet government because his father was. In the USSR, a person was Jewish if their father was.

Jewish religious law says a person is Jewish if their mother was. The Soviet Union disagreed of the father wasn’t Jewish.

Israel goes by the Nuremberg Laws — a person with one Jewish grandparent is Jewish — with one amendment: as long as they are not actively practicing a non-Jewish faith. So Israel claims an atheist who was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church, who had one Jewish grandparent on their father’s side, and who has never identified as Jewish or practiced Judaism is a Jew. There are literally thousands of such “Jews” in Israel.

See the problem?

[Stubble]

Back to topic, jews are a corrosive element and an alien influence wherever they go. If the dataset were not 100%, I could try hand waving this away. The fact still remains however.

They are collective in action, ethnocentric and subversive.

They are also arrogant.

When jews come to power, genocide follows.

These are just realities.

Everything we are told the 'nazis' were, the jews are. Look at the situation in the middle east.

They are expansionist, they are genocidal and they believe they are the 'master race'.

Saying that the first Soviet was not primarily jewish is to ignore the facts. Saying that the secret police were not primarily jewish is to ignore the facts. Saying that these jewish soviets were not responsible for the holodomor is to ignore the facts.

Hitler had seen what this element does, and contrary to popular belief, while he did bring great strife on the German people in the wake of the loss of ww2, he had saved Europe.

Had German not stood up to jewish bolshevism, the world would have become a drastically different place. Communism (jewish bolshevism) would have spread like a fire and engulfed the earth.

Now, there is truth to the sentiment that saying 'all jews' is painting with a broad brush. It's also fair to mention that it isn't always jews, and that it isn't just jews. It would be a miscarriage to ignore the fact that there are always jews.

The destruction of the family unit, pornography in schools, etc etc etc. Jews.

https://odysee.com/@Granola_Nazi:9/Culture-Cleaner:7

[bombsaway]

To bombsaway:

Rearmament is a preventative measure, and your quote about Lebensraum being "the task of the political leadership one day to solve this problem" aligns with my position fully. As for your second quote, "Raeder 27" is not a valid citation. Please let me know where I can find this in-context.

He's still saying that living space is an objective, so that's expansionism

Here's Raeder

https://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/22- ... -boehm.php

Here's Schmundt

https://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/sch ... hmundt.php

Danzig is not the object at issue. For us, it is about expanding living space in the East and securing food supplies, as well as solving the Baltic problem.

You can call these documents fabricated or whatever, but what I'm saying is it is arguable the Nazis were scheming (in a way that their populace weren't aware of) to expand to seize living space and resources.

[TlsMS93]

No, but most of the Soviet rulers in the beginning were Jews, this has changed over time, obviously.

So the majority, according to you. Fine. Prove it. Don’t say “Wikipedia.” Cut and paste what you think is persuasive.

I want a comprehensive definition and not what each country defines.

Gee, you really want me to do what no Jew has successfully done in 3,000 years of Jewish history?

A Jew who has left Judaism continues to be one, as the Talmud says.

Reference?

You apparently take religious affiliation into account, but even for practicing Jews, anyone who abandons the faith continues to be a Jew.

Again, depends on the time and place. Trotsky was Jewish according to the Soviet government because his father was. In the USSR, a person was Jewish if their father was.

Jewish religious law says a person is Jewish if their mother was. The Soviet Union disagreed of the father wasn’t Jewish.

Israel goes by the Nuremberg Laws — a person with one Jewish grandparent is Jewish — with one amendment: as long as they are not actively practicing a non-Jewish faith. So Israel claims an atheist who was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church, who had one Jewish grandparent on their father’s side, and who has never identified as Jewish or practiced Judaism is a Jew. There are literally thousands of such “Jews” in Israel.

See the problem?

So the German classification of Jews made them Jews? Even the classification of the so-called Holocaust victim seems to have a question mark here

If you and no one else are able to define what it means to be a Jew, it is difficult to establish anything about them, including their participation in the so-called Holocaust

Sanhedrin 44a

I will not discuss what each nation evaluates to judge what is Jewish or not, but this small detail makes all the difference. How can they then claim that 6 million died with so much divergence in what it means to be Jewish?

[Numar Patru]

Had German not stood up to jewish bolshevism, the world would have become a drastically different place. Communism (jewish bolshevism) would have spread like a fire and engulfed the earth.

Instead it just handed half of Europe over to communists for half a century. lol

[curioussoul]

Had German not stood up to jewish bolshevism, the world would have become a drastically different place. Communism (jewish bolshevism) would have spread like a fire and engulfed the earth.

Instead it just handed half of Europe over to communists for half a century. lol

That's not an argument. The Germans believed that solving the Jewish Question was of crucial importance for the future of the European continent. The fact that they failed at that task and were defeated in large part by the very same Jewry they attempted to remove from power in Europe only proves them right. Wouldn't you say?

[Numar Patru]

Had German not stood up to jewish bolshevism, the world would have become a drastically different place. Communism (jewish bolshevism) would have spread like a fire and engulfed the earth.

Instead it just handed half of Europe over to communists for half a century. lol

That's not an argument. The Germans believed that solving the Jewish Question was of crucial importance for the future of the European continent. The fact that they failed at that task and were defeated in large part by the very same Jewry they attempted to remove from power in Europe only proves them right. Wouldn't you say?

No, of course not. In addition to that being maybe the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, how exactly do Jews win the war by being expelled from their homes, amassed into concentration camps, and dying in large numbers?

Or is it that Jews are somehow invincible?

[Nessie]

The Jews had a tiny part in the defeat of the Nazis. It was an alliance of the USA, UK and its Commonwealth and Empire and the Soviet Union who defeated the Nazis. Italy surrendering had a larger influence on the defeat of the Nazis, than anything Jewish people did.

[Stubble]

Instead it just handed half of Europe over to communists for half a century. lol

That's not an argument. The Germans believed that solving the Jewish Question was of crucial importance for the future of the European continent. The fact that they failed at that task and were defeated in large part by the very same Jewry they attempted to remove from power in Europe only proves them right. Wouldn't you say?

No, of course not. In addition to that being maybe the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, how exactly do Jews win the war by being expelled from their homes, amassed into concentration camps, and dying in large numbers?

Or is it that Jews are somehow invincible?

The jews in Britain and America were under no such circumstances and to ignore their influence on the war through instruments like the focus is to ignore history.

So far as how the suffering of the jews of Europe was useful for them, you'd have to ask Theodore Herzl and you'd have to ignore the establishment of Israel.

[Numar Patru]

Israel would have been established without the war. The process was merely expedited. And Herzl? He was long dead. We’re talking about WWII here.

You think British and American Jews had enough power in 1939-1941 to pull those countries into a war? No way. It’s more likely these countries saw that Stalin would win and wanted to prevent him from swallowing up the continent. The USSR a didn’t need the UK and US to win. Again, it merely expedited things.

Now tell me it was Soviet Jews who really beat Hitler…