Always good to have someone throw in a good ad hominem. Good job. I was about to give up hope.

I loved as much as you’ll receive carried out right here. The sketch is tasteful, your authored
subject matter stylish. nonetheless, you command get
bought an nervousness over that you wish be delivering the following.

unwell unquestionably come further formerly again as exactly the same nearly a lot
often inside case you shield this increase.

one lies and the other swears to it.

sometimes laughter is the only resort.

Elitecommie is a sad case, I could feel sorry if she were more willing to challenge herself critically. Maybe too old to change, certainly too heavily invested in the delusions her elders have drummed into her that make her feel good about belonging to a genocidal tribe.

Sam, I’ve seen ‘fixers’ like you in the flesh. Jews seem to plant them everywhere — I’ve seen them in NYC, in Chicago, in Cleveland, in DC.

they — as you — have become caricatures. and pathetic. you are not just on a losing trajectory, Sam, you’re increasingly irrelevant.

don’t let the door hit you—-

Well,

it is nice to my comments are on occasion – comprehensible and helpful.

I just read through the exchanges you [and Iffen] had with SolontoCroesus, and I am glad to say that your responses were of great value.

S2C’s purpose here is to attempt circulation of a wholly bizarre account of the two wars and the circumstances which led to them. It has been evident he does not enter these discussions from a place of honesty or rationality, abstruse speculation being his defining mark. His custom is to drop a set of Jewish names [bankers, advisors to politicians etc] and in doing so, strive to produce the impression of a “voila!” moment.

The casual reader might well get entrapped in this web, but not for long: the implausibility of his tales proving quite sufficient to steer all but the already biased reader back to the path of normal thought.

excuse me. Totally unintentional. I thought it was meant for me — some previous.

Excuse me.

sked and answered

The comment was for the benefit of S2C. He maintains that some Jewish guy was in sole possession of these archives for several years. During said possession, this Jew burned the midnight oil creating forgeries and destroying important documents with the “wrong facts” thereby almost single-handedly creating the “Myth of the Holocaust.”

sked and answered

Excuse my delay here — I had generally considered the matter to have run ot course.

You have stated that and done so several times.

Your problem is several fold.

1. Not all Jews were involved in banking

2. the financial burdens placed on Germany and Austria had everything to do with starting the war and put in place by the allied powers in which most policy makers were christian

3. the allied powers Jewish – put said sanctions on Germans, not as gentiles

4. clearly the Jews involved also punished by policy German Jews and while some Jews as with some Germans might have faired better – the policies hurt Jews as well and i would contend most German Jews.

5. Germany attempt to punish German Jews for non-Jewish policy did nothing to change the systems of embargo and reparations payments.

Given your response you seem content to embrace a bizarre logic. Certain Jews did X and Germany took out their frustrations on loyal Germans. But it is progress.

Very few Jews were part of the anarchists and Communists polity. Not only that, German gentiles were involved in bot in larger numbers. In understand that the presence of one party to any phenomenon, is not enough to make a cause and effect. There are to many other factors involved — i.e. the allied powers run by Christians or gentiles that enforced the standard.

Just answer the questions: what is or has been the source for your beliefs and knowledge about the Jewish situation in World War II?

Maybe he is relying upon the “archives of Nazi Germany” seized by the Allies.

Ha, ha, ha.

Life is good.

But that would not deny a singular fact, the firing on Fort Sumpter, that changed the rhetoric into a war of blood.

Suh, the refusal of the occupying Federal Army to vacate the sovereign soil of the State of South Carolina “changed the rhetoric.”

Please try to maintain a non-partisan approach to the facts.

Incorrect. Mr. Libbey Scooter first in the second row, Chief of Staff of BP Dick Chenny is also Jewish.

Curiously 2% of a population represents over 80% warmongers on this list. This time they’re trying to start a war with Iranians.

Sincerely, William Kristol

Richard V. Allen / Gary Bauer / Jeffrey Bell / William J. Bennett
Rudy Boshwitz / Jeffrey Bergner / Eliot Cohen / Seth Cropsey
Midge Decter / Thomas Donnelly / Nicholas Eberstadt / Hillel Fradkin
Aaron Friedberg / Francis Fukuyama / Frank Gaffney / Jeffrey Gedmin
Reuel Marc Gerecht / Charles Hill / Bruce P. Jackson / Eli S. Jacobs
Michael Joyce / Donald Kagan / Robert Kagan / Jeane Kirkpatrick
Charles Krauthammer / John Lehman / Clifford May / Martin Peretz
Richard Perle / Norman Podhoretz / Stephen P. Rosen / Randy Scheunemann
Gary Schmitt / William Schneider, Jr. / Richard H. Shultz / Henry Sokolski
Stephen J. Solarz / Vin Weber / Leon Wieseltier / Marshall Wittmann

http://zfacts.com/node/307

It’s very simple: after WWI with advent of the Nazi party and subsequent same adoption by the German public, Jews were scapegoated for Germany’s problems.

EliteComminc,

Haven’t I stated that?

Big Jew bankers screwed over Germany and its people and Little Jews did the dying for it.

Big Jew bankers were what ailed Germany after WWI.

Clearly the Little Jews paid the price for what their Big Jews did.

The Rothschilds skated.

The Little Jews were the “scapegoats” for the Big Jews.

It is conventional wisdom that war reparations were unfairly put on the Germans by the central bankers in the US, UK, and France. Those private banks were and are controlled by Jews. This was NO small matter. There was cause for enmity against Jews.

The Little Jews were not liked because of their political activates and thus an easy target and scapegoat. Just like in America today – their politics went counter to the accepted national German culture.

The Nazis rounding up Jew families – killing them and sending them to work camps was TOTALLY wrong.

That is the conventional wisdom of the vast bulk of mankind.

Think Peace — Art

p.s. On another thread the question is being asked, on the event of a major economic crash “what is going to happen to US Little Jews?”

I could not in good conscience say that every accusation of atrocities are accurate. I have no doubt that advantage could have been taken. But overall the case is just too overwhelming. Far too many service members telling too many first hand experiences. Far too many confessions of German prisoners who operated the camps, who engaged in rounding up Jews, far too many records — far too many films and photographs.

I am not closed to hearing opposing contentions, I sat through a film in which a chemist contended that it would be impossible to kill the number noted via the methods claimed. Challenges to the chemical residue, size shape . . .

But in the end upon scrutiny most of these counter positions fall by the wayside. The magnitude of the deaths, and discrimination may be hard to believe, unless one is aware that in history, human beings have engaged in mass deaths and atrocities against their fellows, as to make one numb. But I remain convinced that it occurred. That does not mean, I condone or excuse every act of Israel today.

Laughing, I could go back to my history courses in college and dig up my professors at ACU, FHSU or elsewhere. but I just don’t buy that it is necessary. I could go dig up the various documentaries of forty or fifty hours of WWII and WWI history — but it’s not as if these issues are new or are secrets.

I hate to evidence the known about this conflict

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Western_Holocaust_camps#Prewar_camps

http://remember.org/nordhausen

In the attempt to confuse by detail, there is always this over arching dilemma. There is no explanation for the over whelming numbers of Jews in camps all over Europe.

Some of the names sound familiar but as a course of focus, I would not contend that I am familiar as you intend the term. And given my position it is wholly unrequired. I am sure, I could dig into my boxes of texts and yank out any number of opposing researchers — — but too many different avenues of challenging the case of a non-holocaust scenario are just too overwhelmed by the data sets, which includes the Germans themselves. Do I think it is possible for a nation to be self deceived ? I do. I don’t think that is the case for Germany.

Here’s the second video, about US soldier’s and what they saw at the camps

The number of surrendered German soldiers killed by US soldiers varies from “15 or 17” to 500 or 1000.

Nobody was really punished. The massacres were covered up.

no worries, mate.

sorry I was so obnoxious.

turns out Elitecomminc will answer some questions. Class act.

In a previous discussion on this site, I noted the testimony of nonjewish US soldiers. For me their experience is valuable evidence.

You may find these videos of interest.

Spoiler alert: Allies Bombed Nordhausen camp, then shot up survivors of the bombing, then took photos of the massacre and blamed it on the Germans.

The photos of the massacre at Nordhausen were used as evidence against Germans at Nuremberg.

I noticed you referenced the Inconvenient History website.
This is from the same organization

https://codoh.com/library/document/4055/

Elitecomminc, Do you mind naming some of the documentaries, and who taught the history courses?

Can you pinpoint just one documentary or history course where you learned that “Jews were scapegoated?”

You may find this video interesting: in it, Dr. Stanley Fish, former Dean of Liberal Arts at a college in Illinois, states that no professor who attempted to teach anything other than the accepted narrative about the holocaust, would not be hired, or would be denied tenure, or if tenured, would not be able to publish.

I’ve listened very carefully to several series of lecture on the holocaust, the most recent being Dr. David Engel’s “Understanding the Holocaust.” Engel is a professor of holocaust studies at New York University and a scholar at US Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Can you identify these people and their significance to the topic at hand:

Louis Brandeis
Rabbi Stephen Wise
Felix Frankfurter
Henry Morgenthau, Jr.
Erich Mendelsohn
Vladimir Jabotinsky
Chaim Weizmann
David BenGurion

Do you know who the Ritchie Boys are?

From where did present-era Zionism emerge?

Are you aware of a book called The Fire, by Jorg Friedrich?

Who discovered that Nazis were making soap of Jewish flesh? When?

Can you state WHEN WWII started?
When was the Holocaust?

Can you state when USA declared war on Germany? When did Britain declare war on Germany?
When did Jews declare war on Germany, and why?

Build up the point where the receptionist stuck her head in the door and said, Coffee anyone?!!!

S2C – Sorry I interrupted your grand finally – (smile) – Peace — Art

despite your complaints, I am answering each question, if I missed one, it was unintentional. I have also addressed the issues.questions I note as relevant. Neither a a lack of response nor providing answers you don’t agree with or approve is a sign of obfuscation. We simply disagree. I note as relevant

More than any other source, I would lay claim to hours and hours of documentaries and actual history courses. In this lengthy discussion, i think there has been more than adequate evidence for my positions. As to any demand that i answer questions or answer them in accordance with your expectations — I must decline to extend into a frame I an not addressing.

It’s very simple: after WWI with advent of the Nazi party and subsequent same adoption by the German public, Jews were scapegoated for Germany’s problems. It’s not really more complicated than that. There is ample evidence that was the case, some I have provided — though it’s not hidden, and one doesn’t need a dissertation to get the material. I am certainly willing to acknowledge that some Jews might contend there was no persecution, but the volumes of data contradict them. As i noted, the most devastating accounts, outside of Jewish prisoners are the accounts provided by allied troops as they moved through Europe.

I resist the demand that i list every book, because a matter of this magnitude is akin to acknowledging slavery. As i noted previously, in my view, it is a strange place to find myself having to prove what is taught in every international history course, documented vociferously in video, still photographs, written testimony, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and . . . eyewitnesses — ultimately the Nuremberg trials in which the those in engaged in said persecution admitted as much.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Nuremberg_Trials

http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/documents#ef_doc_groups

even contentions of allied complicity in the persecution
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/revhist/otherdox/nurember.htm

Now I think there are some legitimate complaints about the fairness of the Nuremberg trials. No doubt. But that alone does dismiss the data that Jews were persecuted. I would question the impartiality of using Jews to bring the case and organize the process. But that too is a tangential issue to the issue as I presented it. I don’t doubt the following complaints:
http://www.e-ir.info/2013/08/19/the-nuremberg-trial-a-beautiful-idea-murdered-by-ugly-facts/

But whatever its flaws, its hard to contradict this level of data:
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1233&context=twlj
http://inconvenienthistory.com/2/3/3118

it’s interesting to uncover other documentation and even contentions that the holocaust never happened. This is not a new debate. And despite the challenges, the evidence that Jews were persecuted after WWI and blamed for a series of condition that could not have caused — I have to conclude that said persecution occurred. In a previous discussion on this site, I noted the testimony of nonjewish US soldiers. For me their experience is valuable evidence.

What it proves is that nobody -out of those who even noticed- wants to engage on either point.

1.) You said, “‘Tammy’ is right.” That’s a mouthful. About everything? The usurpation of Islam by Abu Bakr is an opinion (“Tammy’s”). The opposing opinion is that there is evidence that during his lifetime Mohamed designated Abu Bakr as his successor. If you start a “discussion” by saying “we’re right and you’re wrong,” it’s small wonder you got no takers. Personally, I don’t have energy for the subject, but that doesn’t ‘prove’ anything.

2.) The “all the targets are Shia” thing. Ain’t so. Someone gave a few examples. There are more.
Afghanistan – Not Shia
Tunisia = NOT Shia
Egypt = Not Shia
Sudan = NOT Shia
Somalia = Not Shia
LIBYA – NOT Shia
Palestine = Definitely NOT Shia
Yemen – marginally or Not really Shia
IRAQ = Not Shia
SYRIA – Is Allowite Shia? What did Shia have to do with it?

I don’t think you’re a troll, and you have every right to discuss Islam. It’s just as relevant as all the Judaism talk, or the Jesus freaks. But it takes 2 to tango. Sometimes Talha rattles on interminably with some Christian or other. Good for him, and whoever reads that stuff. No offense, I’m just of the opinion that all this religious stuff is just a smokescreen and propaganda tool to manipulate populations. And also to fool the slightly less ignorant westerners who hear about Sunnis and Shias and think they’ve discovered something profound.

You “guarantee” blah blah blah because you interrupted the process. Thanks.

A number of years ago my firm was working on a very large case; half the lawyers in the city had a piece of it, and after months of work, they came to our firm’s conference room to get the deal done. Our senior partner was making his pitch — he’d worked on it for a week; start out slow and low, heighten tension, build up to the —-

Build up the point where the receptionist stuck her head in the door and said, Coffee anyone?!!!

less than helpful, Art.

S2C,

I guaranty you that you two arguing over the word “scapegoat” will solve nothing.

Neither one of you will ever change your positions.

Big Jew bankers screwed over Germany and its people and Little Jews did the dying for it.

If the Little Jews do not wise up – they will find themselves to be the scapegoats again.

Simplistic and crude as it sounds – that is the broad truth of the matter.

Think Peace — Art

p.s. I hate Hitler and do NOT believe the “six million lie.”

less than helpful, Art.
ill-informed as well.

name-calling and generalization-bombs are the antithesis of clear thinking.

I think the the evidence is overwhelming that that period has clear evidence that Germans via the Nazi party singled out Jews for the cause of what ailed all of Germany.

Big Jew bankers were what ailed Germany after WWI.

Clearly the Little Jews paid the price for what their Big Jews did.

The Rothschilds skated.

The Little Jews were the “scapegoats” for the Big Jews.

The stupid Little Jews still have not figured that out.

Think Peace — Art

I’m trying my best, Elitecomminc,

I asked simple questions, you set out to diagnose “MY problem.”

Just answer the questions: what is or has been the source for your beliefs and knowledge about the Jewish situation in World War II?

Did you derive your knowledge from books? If so, What books did you read?
Do you derive your knowledge and beliefs from television and/or movies? Which programs/movies?
Did your elders tell you or teach you about the topic?

PS I am NOT willing to “acknowledge” that a persecution of Jews occurred because I have read the documents produced by Jews that conceded that Germans were not persecuting Jews.

The documents were collec ted & published by Leonard Stein. I have a photocopy of 2 books no longer available in the public library where I first saw them.

FACTS and EVIDENCE, E, not the voices in your head.

Here’s your problem —- while I understand all the political and influential intrigue. The singular acts to cause for war are well documented. Sure, one could garner a series of tangential factors to any historical phenomenon. And all could have some tangential relevancy. but these kinds of analytical dynamics unless directly relevant to events to cause remain – tangential.

I could blame the Civil war on a failure to get in writing a definitive clause barring even protests against slavery. But that would not deny a singular fact, the firing on Fort Sumpter, that changed the rhetoric into a war of blood.

Sure one could note the political machinations of various players in WWI. But the one that mattered, the one that precipitated events was as assassination, regardless of what Jews, Christians or Muslims and atheists were doing — Princip and other assassins didn’t declare,

“In the name of Yahweh, set Serbia free.”

That was a nonfactor in those and subsequent events that led to war. Yo make your case, you need to link those events to your tangential, otherwise they serve background, interesting background, but not much else.

—–

My advance was predicated on those factors of WWI and it aftermath as to scapegoating Jews uniquely. even if one wanted to link a specific set of Jews, the behavior of Germany in assailing the entire Jewish population would qualify as scapegoating.

I am going to eschew the a discussion on the depth, breadth and scope of the persecution of the Jews, and acknowledge that it occurred. By the time, I was in elementary school, i was informed about the vents of the holocaust. And I am just not in a position to call military service members conspirators in deceiving the US public on what they saw and experienced.

The issue of a Jewish homeland just is a nonfactor in my view. In fact, with respect to Germany, the reason that so many German Jews missed the writing on the wall is because they fully considered themselves German and wanted to stay German with a willingness to set out to prove it.

I am not defending in any manner what the Jews did in obtaining a homeland. It is a huge problem. I am not supporting the Israeli gambit with Great Britain and France to attack Egypt, the Jews in my view confirmed the worst fears of every state and people’s in the region. I do give Israel points for what she is doing in regards to Palestine — I am not sure how anyone in good conscience can do so. I am unsure ho anyone can square the promises of god given Israel’s behavior — especially given the demands of what it means to be “God’s chosen”.

And I reject that any US citizen should be a second class to Israeli policy by our own governance.

And I don’t have to jump through logical, hoola hoops — (deeply flawed logic in my view) to critique Israeli behavior and intent today, while acknowledging their right to exist.

EliteComminc,
I’m afraid I’ve taken a counterproductive approach to this conversation, and also allowed a bad attitude to creep in.

Can we try this? —

How did you learn about Jewish situation in Germany in the era of the world wars? What are the sources for the information on which you base your knowledge and beliefs?

With respect —

Ellitecomminc —

1. Start with a calendar/chronology
2. Identify the major characters
3. Trace their actions, matched to the calendar/chronology

get back to me when you’ve managed to un-muddle WWI vs WWII vs Versailles vs German Revolution vs Weimar vs Rathenau vs Hitler, and blockade vs reparations vs boycott vs Jewish Economic war on Germany vs soap from Jewish flesh vs firebombing of Germany vs gas chambers that did not exist vs firebombing that did.

4. Add in the zionist project that overlay the Russian Revolution, the assassination of the Tsar, the Holodomor, Trotsky, Bolshevism, Wilson’s attempt to eradicate Bolshevism, Bolshevik attempts to impose Bolshevism on Germany, FDR’s embrace of Bolshevik / Stalinist Russia, Churchill’s anti-zionism, Churchill’s financial woes, Churchill’s volte face

5. Very many histories, especially of WWI but also of WWII, totally ignore the activities of zionism; many Jews distance themselves from zionism. But absent zionism, WWI would have ended much sooner — so argues Niall Ferguson; and WWII would not have happened at all.
Zionists wanted those wars — correction, zionists passionately wanted and needed WWII — to concentrate their project. Zionist Jews — I named several of them, above, — started WWII with a twin purpose: to destroy Germany, and to establish Israel.
Perhaps you are not a Levitic Jew whose mind frame is focused on destruction, but the people who started WWII were, and they still are.

6. A little light reading:

In South Africa, Dr. Weizmann, in his moves to discomfort Mr. Bevin, turned at once to General Smuts, whom the reader met long ago. By chance I was in South Africa at that moment. A well-known Zionist emissary came speeding from New York by air and when I read of his arrival I foresaw what would follow. (This man appeared before a Zionist audience and told it that “the Jews need not feel themselves bound by any frontiers which the United Nations might lay down”; the only remonstrance against this, seen by me, came from a Jewish objector, who said such words boded ill for future peace).
General Smuts received this airborne visitor and then announced “recognition” at once, being beaten in promptness only by President Truman and the Soviet dictator Stalin, (who in this one question were perfectly agreed): This was, I believe, General Smuts’s last political act, for he was defeated at an
[455] election two days later. His son strongly warned him against recognition, holding that it would lose him votes. General Smuts brushed the advice aside (rightly, from the electioneering point of view, for his opponents no doubt were ready to bid for the Zionist vote and South Africa contained no Arab voters).
General Smuts’s renown throughout the British Commonwealth (and his unpopularity with most of his fellow Boers) rested entirely on the popular belief that he was the architect of “Anglo-Boer reconciliation” and a champion of the great-family concept. In this one question he deserted the hard-pressed government in London with the unquestioning obedience of long-instilled discipline. I achieved an old ambition to meet him at that time. His days were ending and he too now disappears from this tale, but before he died he, like Dr. Weizmann, had seen “the abyss” which he had helped dig: “in the problem of Palestine” (he told his son later in the same year, l948) “there is tragedy at our doorstep . . . No wonder Britain is getting sick and tired of it all. Failure in Pa!estine will not only be a British failure. Other nations have also taken a hand, including America, and they have also failed. Pa!estine . . . is one of the great problems of the world and can have a great effect on the future of the world . . . We have thought to let the Arabs and Jews fight it out, but we cannot do that. Power is on the move, and Palestine lies on the road”.

So he spoke privately, but not publicly. Apparently politicians, like the clown in the opera, feel they must ever wear the mask in public: Like Mr. Truman, he did what Dr. Weizmann commanded without delay and even in 1949, for the benefit of a Zionist audience, said he was “happy to have been associated with at !east one thing in my life which has been successful”.

The retreat from London became a rout. Dr. Weizmann records that the New Zealand representative, Sir Carl Berendsen, then “won support from Australia”, and soon the “top-line politicians” in Canada followed suit. When the British Dominions followed Mr. Truman and Generalissimo Stalin the smaller states thronged to give “recognition”; they could not refuse to tread where these great ones had rushed in, and thus “the Jewish state” took shape “de facto”, the fact being the massacre at Deir Yasin.

Although he became its president, this is in truth the point at which Dr. Chaim Weizmann passes from the narrative, after fifty years of an activity, essentially conspiratorial, in which he encompassed the capitulation of all political leaders of the West and left “tragedy”, like a foundling, on its common doorstep. I would not know where to look for a more fascinating life and another writer might be able to depict it in heroic tones. To me it seems to have been given to a destructive purpose and Dr. Weizmann, whose years were nearly done when he reached his triumph, found triumph a bitter, perhaps a lethal cup.
So I judge, at all events, from his book, the last part of which is of absorbing interest. It was published in 1949, so that he could have brought his account to the point now reached by this one, at least. He did not. He closed it in 1947. Now,
[456] why did he do that?
I think the answer is obvious. In 1946 he had warned the World Zionist Organization against “terror” and depicted “the abyss” into which “the old evil” must lead, and had been deposed in consequence. Then he had become president of the new state set up by “terror”. I think he wished to leave his warning to Jewry on record and could not bring himself to discuss the deeds of terror and assassination in which the new state was born, so that he pretended to have ended the manuscript before they occurred.
He put the date of completion as November 30, 1947, the day after his triumph at Lake Success (when President Truman, at his prompting, telephoned the American delegation to vote for partition). Evidently he wished the book to end on that note. The reversal of American policy, and the deeds against which he had uttered warning, soon followed, and as the book was not to appear until 1949 he had plenty of time to
— 305 —
D. REED :: The Controversy of Zion
express his opinion of them. All he did was to add an epilogue in which he did not even mention the determining deed at Deir Yasin, the contemptuous answer to his warnings. Moreover, he again went out of his way to say that this epilogue was finished in August 1948; this saved him the need to make any reference to the next determining deed of terrorism, the assassination of Count Bernadotte, which occurred in September 1948. Obviously Dr. Weizmann quailed. He had identified himself with both massacre and murder by accepting and retaining the presidency of the new state.
For that reason his earlier warnings are of the greatest significance; he could have deleted them before publication. For instance, he charged “the terrorists” (into whose hands he delivered the future of Palestine, and of much more than Palestine) with trying to “force the hand of God”. This, obviously was the heresy of Zionism, and of all those who supported it, whether Jew or Gentile, from the very start, and of Dr. Weizmann more than most others. He added, “the terrorist groups in Palestine represented a grave danger to the whole future of the Jewish state; actually their behaviour has been next door to anarchy”. It was anarchy, not neighbour to anarchy, and Dr. Weizmann’s life’s effort was anarchic. Even in this argument he was not moved by moral recoil; his complaint was not against the destructive nature of anarchy itself, but merely that it was inexpedient, “because the Jews have hostages all over the world”.

I responded
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/surrounded-by-neocons/#comment-2159541
jacues sheete replied

You’re talking to the voices in your head, E.
Perhaps you could quote the passages you are responding to; you jump from one brain burp to the next with no reference to something that I, as opposed to another UF commenter or your favorite propagandist, supposedly said.

Good day.

I see there are no takers. No one has the guts to answer my questions. That proves my point. Thank you.

1. if you reference banking and you do more than once — you are talking about the financial system — as in your advance and that of Germany to punish Jews — it was their control of the banking and industry that benefited themselves and damaged German gentiles. You used the term as part of one of your citations, as I recall

— boycotted Jewish business for only one day followed by
— but the most wealthy businesses were left untouched and in fact Germans collaborated with them . . . Admittedly, it was a very bizarre inclusion because it undermine your case.

I think this is a case of either Jews were scapegoated and blamed, despite not being at fault, for Germany’s woes and clearly by your own statements they did. Or they were not scapegoated, because the blame and punishment they received was justified. Now I would grant you that is a tough corridor to navigate in but those are the choices. Unless, you just want to fall back on — iy was just a big misunderstanding.

2. I certainly won’t challenge that the discussions about the holocaust can certainly elicit hysterical discussions. Almost as hysterical as the hair pulling that goes on in recognizing that the Germans by way of the Nazis unfairly singled out all Jews based on false accusations. Singling out the innocent for failures of others engaging in the fallacy of division by singling out Jews when a much larger population is also at fault — customarily referred to as scapegoating.

As previously noted the record of how WWI started is pretty clear and the primary incident the murder of the Arch Duke was a christian. Nearly all of the principle deciders were people of the christian faith. That act along with the German agenda of finally taking out Russia and the various alliances of mutual defense was the cause of the war. which ultimately led to Germany’s loss,, the subsequent penalties allotted to Germany and Austria for starting the war. And ultimately Nazi ascendancy which included blaming Jews and eventually killing them en masse – often referred to as the holocaust. Jews were not the only target, but they were the largest and next to blacks the m ost visible. That is the case with or without the hysteria.

It was not a jewish financial system that was used to punish Germany. It was reparations, embargoes by land and sea, it was the devastation of war in which nothing was gained. The financial system via loans and wall street investments via some bizarre loan to pay loans schema devastated all of Europe and the US . Germany and Austria given the other penalties were hit worse (if that was possible) — but that was hardly a jewish cabal millions of Jews suffered as well. German Jews died as well as Germans. I am unclear how many other financiers ended up being killed, but its clear that a substantial number of jews were persecuted — singled out specifically. I think the persecution of Jews became a well known fact in very short order. It wasn’t even an open secret it was policy. And certainly Jews wanted other states to intervene to stop it. But such protests were not limited to Jews. The Nazis started the war. Which was openly about restoring German pride, prestige, honor, glory, and establishing once and for all — German superiority. As for Jews in regard to the war effort, had Germany, not thought they were doing the world a favor by persecuting Jews. German Jews would have been happy to join the effort to restore their homeland. Had Nazi Germany not invaded so many states and renege on agreements, I suspect that no state would have gone to war on the Jewish question – I hate to admit as much. I doubt most countries would admit it. But on the matter of German aggression that seemed to have no end in sight threatening other states – eventually someone was going to fight back and included in that fight would be the treatment of Jews and others.

Excuse me, but I would hope that everyone if not most of us would be disturbed by the killing or persecution in any way of civilians.

3. The three heads of state you reference did not go to war on behalf of Jews. It was to stop German, Italian and Japanese aggression. The US couldn’t even muster supporting the war effort, so the Jewish influence you claim is at fault, didn’t fair well. I am familiar with some of the names you reference on other aspects of Germany post WWI, none of them are responsible for either war.

You have pressed me on whether Germany deserved what they got after WWI. It’s a kin to the question I was once by a Japanese academic concerning the atomic bombs.

Germany and Austria started the war. The Serbian matter provided excuse to resolve other issues. They missed opportunities the question went on too long and eventually they found it unsustainable and they quit, they lost.

It doesn’t matter what I think about the reparations and punishments. It’s enough for me to know that the British leadership thought the penalties unduly harsh and ill advised. If great Britain, one of my favorite states, thought that about one of their toughest rivals and lost nearly 900,000 personnel — it’s good enough for me.

I acknowledged both understandings of the terms and I applied the appropriate understanding to the issue concerning Jews after WWI.

If you want to understand how they both work.

Jews were the sacrificial goats/lambs for the failings of Germany. and as such lambs or goats served as the expiation of Germany’s faults/failings/ or sins.

They both work. Hence the term scapegoat.

No. it is not the opposite. trying to minimize that German Jews, as well as Jews that came under German authority during the period in question is just strange. In addition launching an argument that Jews destroyed Germany but in punishing Jews Nazis destroyed the least consequential financial threats, while leaving the most destructive systems in place and collaborating with them – in a bid to demonstrate that Jews were in fact not singled contradicts the entire premise of a case on several levels.

1. Jews were singled out,

2. unless Nazis found them useful which undermines any case that Jews were damaging to Germany because according to one of your primary premises — the Jews weren’t scapegoats as they got what they deserved — punishment . but the most devastating entities damaging Germany were left in place

3. The Nazis played the German people by collaborating with the same destructive forces they sought to destroy because they were in fact a threat to German existence — making Nazis traitors to Germany, the German people, and the principle of Aryan supremacy as they defined it.

Your desire to go dancing into another set of weeds, previously old testament scripture, then a small treatise about my intellectual incapacity because I was brainwashed and now on to Zionisn – which is the desire for the homeland established by God’s gift of a specific territory, that is as old as the Jews departure from Egypt and has been a hope for millions of Jews. What that means as to exact territorial claims in modern day is uncertain in my view.

But that has very little to do with the issue on the table, if anything about the status of Jews after WWI.

Laughing — I don’t mind a change of subjects, but one should dimply say, I want to change subjects. I would grant that the Us relationship on the matter of Israeli territory is problematic for the US. Israel is an established state. We support her right to exist. I think how much influence Israel has on US interests is a valid concern. And on the issue of statehood, no US citizen should come second to any other state – period.

It’s this king of twisted contradicting argument that makes valid concerns about Israeli polity more difficult to advance than it should be.

Did you mean to write, Bada Bind?
—

Snidery aside, the phenomenon is precisely the opposite: the present, observed behavior of Jews in Israel present living, breathing, technicolor evidence of the essential nature of the Levitic mindset that is at the heart of zionism, from which can be better understood the Jewish/zionist behavior and intentions over the course of the world wars.

(Modern) Zionism predated WWII by nearly 50 years.

One would have to assume that the present Zionist leopard developed its spots only with the emergence of the Likud party, or of Bibi Netanyahu.

But there are two problems with that thesis:
1. The Netanyahu/Milikovskys were “present at the creation” of zionism and instrumental from the beginning of WWII to the present.

2. Leopards don’t change their spots.

If the discussion focuses on whether- or who- is a “scapegoat,” it seems reasonable to seek to define the term.

Scapegoat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article describes scapegoat in its traditional historical sense. For scapegoat in the more modern social psychological sense of scapegoating, see Scapegoating.

The Scapegoat by William Holman Hunt, 1854.
A scapegoat is an animal who takes on the sins of others, or is unfairly blamed for problems. The concept originally comes from Leviticus, in which a goat is designated to be cast into the desert (via a cliff) with the sins of the community. Other ancient societies had similar practices. In psychology and sociology, the practice of selecting someone as a scapegoat has led to the concept of scapegoating.

And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats: one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for Azazel.

— Leviticus 16:8, Jewish Publication Society (1917)

—
from The Chumash:

It’s this king of twisted contradicting argument that makes valid concerns about Israeli polity more difficult to advance than it should be.

Bada Bing.

In your long commentary concerning the German financial system and businesses, you make reference that the boycott was only for a day and more importantly the Nazis did not boycott or destroy the the wealthiest Jewish businesses. Uhh excuse me, but this admission undercuts the original arguments, that the Jews were responsible for the financial ruin of Germany.

Perhaps you have confused my “commentary” with that of another. I do not believe I discussed the “German financial system” in any substantial way, and I know without a doubt that I did not mention or even use the word “boycott.”

Jeffrey Herf wrote a book titled “The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda and the Holocaust,” that relied to an almost hysterical degree on a 50 + – word statement Hitler included in an 18,000 word speech, in which Hitler said, “If [ that’s IF, and is, CONTINGENCY to follow] IF Jews AND OTHER FINANCIERS continue their economic war on Germany, they will be annihilated.”

Herf, the patron saint of hysteria, claimed that was tantamount to a statement of determination to exterminate every Jew everywhere.

What Herf failed to note in his book was that Jews HAD declared an economic war on Germany; that their widely stated intent was the economic/financial destruction of Germany; that according to articles in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency archives, that Jewish-led financial war on Germany was causing great hardship to the German people and government.
If I had chosen to assert that “Jews were responsible for the financial ruin of Germany,” I would probably have included Her’s hysterical harangue. But I didn’t so I didn’t.

—
re a reference to “scapegoating” as used in Hebrew scripture: You chose to insist that “Jews were scapegoated.” It’s not a concept that I raised. But since you raised it, and since the concept has great salience in a Jewish context, it does not seem at all unreasonable to observe that in no instance where “scapegoat” appears in Hebrew scripture were Jews the party that ended up dead, but the opposite is the case.

Don’t put words in my mouth, Elitecomminc; I never said “Jews deserved what they got.”
I notice you did not respond to whether Germans deserved what happened to them.

It is an irrefutable fact — unless, of course, one turns the calendar inside out and upside down, that Jews led the propaganda campaign the ginned up WW TWO — that’s WWII, the one where an alleged holocaust occurred — that Jews began the campaign in earnest to incite that war within days of Hitler’s ascent to the chancellorship and at least five years before any Jew had been so much as sent to a concentration camp and ~9 years before the first allegation — false tho it was — that Germans were killing Jews in gas chambers.

Jews started the war.
Not all Jews.
The names of the Jews who manipulated pushed prodded provoked blackmailed and paid off FDR and Churchill & Stalin to engage in a war to destroy Germany are readily listed.
If you have complaints about the number of Jews who died in that most horrendous debacle, take them to Brandeis University and demand recompense, for Louis Brandeis, and his sidekicks Stephen Wise, Louis Untermeyer, Felix Frankfurter + + + are far more responsible for the deaths of Jews — as well as millions of Russians, Germans, etc. — than any other persons on earth. They apparently thought Jews DID deserve to die, for they set the wheels in motion. They even selected the Jews who would die vs those who would be saved — check it out.

—
Much of your discourse is semi-coherent, a blend, I suspect, of pretty good but not truly facile familiarity with English, and, more importantly, a serious case of cognitive dissonance.

In your long commentary concerning the German financial system and businesses, you make reference that the boycott was only for a day and more importantly the Nazis did not boycott or destroy the the wealthiest Jewish businesses. Uhh excuse me, but this admission undercuts the original arguments, that the Jews were responsible for the financial ruin of Germany.

If as you say, the ruin of Germany is the fault of the Jews’ financial control, then the failure of the Nazis to fully expiate Jewish control was a ruse on the German people. Because in that same paragraph you go on to say that the Germans collaborated with the Jews in financial dealings giving evidence that the Nazis themselves used the Jewish attacks but as a ploy to partner in extorting Herman gentiles.
And that contradicts the entire enterprise that the Germans Jews were at fault and certainly not at fault alone as yourself make the case.

It’s this king of twisted contradicting argument that makes valid concerns about Israeli polity more difficult to advance than it should be.

Here’s the legitimate complaint against Israel and many Jews on the place of Israel in modern foreign and domestic affairs.

The fact that Jews were the victims of atrocities prior to and during WWII does not excuse their abuses against the Palestinians today. The violation of international laws in the region of Palestine is not justified by the holocaust. In the US the holocaust does not in any condone the use of spying against the US which has resulted damage to US interests and in several cases the lives of US citizens. Israel should be held to account for her behavior and policies as do all other nation states in accordance with international law and prudence regarding foreign relations.

The constant accusations by Israel and Jews to shut down and shut out criticism of Jews and Israel is tiresome and should be rebuked. The right of US citizens to criticize any state, especially foreign states including Israel should never be abridged or punished – ever, including the right or protesting Israeli policy foreign or domestic.

Criticism against Israel or Jews are not by definition antisemetic. Attacks by Israel against US citizens by way of personal, political and psychological or financial that includes official government entities should be considered an act of war against US citizens and treated accordingly.
Organizations that receive foreign subsidies for the purposes of lobbying for foreign entities including Israel should be registered accordingly.

Churches in the US are certainly entitled to their positions on Israel, whether said interests are in accordance with the best interests of the Us is another matter.

It is entirely possible to criticize Israeli behavior and not be engaged in antisemtic anything.

I think it is entirely reasonable and even sound to acknowledge the holocaust without agreeing to anything and everything Israel does today – without being an enemy of Jews.

Ohhh no. I think we understand each other very well. The difference is that you note events, players and circumstances as evidence of a conspiracy — – but when examined, only indicate the player, the event or the circumstance — and not the jewish conspiracy against Germans you desire.

No doubt I could do a better job of proofing —- but it’s clear we are on the same page, despite being disagreement. The aside about english aside.

I am hard pressed why you gave now employed scripture to make a case that German were in fact not used as scapegoats. The change of subject is pro causa nonsausa — a nonsequitor in the discussion.

I am going to reject your attempt to change the context. My reference to Jews as scapegoats is related soley to what transpired after WWI then proceeding throughout WWII. I think the the evidence is overwhelming that that period has clear evidence that Germans via the Nazi party singled out Jews for the cause of what ailed all of Germany. I explained in detail what it means to a scapegoat and along the course of our discussion I provided instances that indicated that after WWI Jewish Jews were singled out the cause for issues for which they were not — scapegoat.

Further I have to reject your repeated attempts to apply scapegoat generically outside of the frame of WWI for which the evidence is substantial — overwhelming that Jews were blamed for circumstances not singularly of their making.

I never reference scripture old or new in this discussion — because using scripture in the context in which we are engaging is irrelevant.

At no time have I waved anything. I did a general response as to relevance to the issue and then proceeded to respond in detail – point by point. You note historical — i never dismissed them as accurate nor challenged the source. I do challenge and find void that those historical references and players can be interpreted as you press. Your conclusions are woefully short based on your cites and the sources.

At best, you are speculating as are your sources. If there is any coloring of perspective it rests with your continued assumption that scapegoat is an overall descriptor of Jews as opposed to the very specific frame of WI – WWII. While i am delighted you are able to reference where the metaphor and practice is derived in relation to scripture. Your attempt to escape the faulty reasoning is n ot in referencing old testament scripture.

And the ultimate turn for a loosing contend is to attack the the motive, intelligence, character or inability to grasp the psychological realities or parameters of discussion. In short, and there’s nothing polite about it, is that our disagreement about Jews being the scapegoats by the Nazis and eventually the Germans after WWI is the result, not of the evidence, but my having been brain washed by some known or unknown force distilling truth and planting fiction.

Utter nonsense for the purposes of misdirection . . . is unclear.

______________________

I intend to address the primary flaw in your contend which as presented by you contradicts the case you are intending to make.

I generally tend to accept most comments without complaint unless they strike me as really off. In your case your comments just don’t make the case I think you are attempting to make.

1. that the Jews were responsible for the loss of WWI

2. that as consequence they deserved what they received via the Naxis and German population

3. because they deserved it they are the correct targets for Germany’s woes and as such not scapegoats

Your comments concerning the consequences of the allied embargo and other restrictions. And I note the other restrictions because the embargo alone is just part of the record.

In response to your query:

a. They implemented the policies in question based on allied policy toward Germany and Austria – not singularly as some manner of Jewish reprisal or schema. I think the evidence that a small number of jews in allied and central power states.

b. the impact of the allied embrgo, the imposition of reparations and the depression that followed the war and the collapse of the loans system, were devastating to Germany. Now your contend that more German gentiles dies than German jews is most accurate, but that is a numbers game. If I have ten green cows and three green cows, the impact of a flu will be experienced by more green cows. In this case, a population of Jews that suffered as result of the impacts man made or otherwise on the general population would be less by the numbers — that in itself is not indicative of a conspiracy by jews. Nor is there evidence that German Jews orchestrated the loss by Germany not the consequences. Now the other social condition that is used to indict Jews is problematic, not because the evidence suggests some king Jewish conspiracy but rather because of the manner in which it cast. were there Jews who managed to escape some of the harshest aspects on the consequences after the war. But that was true for more Germans than jews and it makes sense given the small number of Jews in the country — small as to German gentiles. In this aspect, those who benefited whether German Jews or German gentiles were able to have a less constricted life — I would be hard pressed to make a case that during times of crisis there are not those who leverage negatives to their advantage. I would certainly grant that some Germans did so — but not exclusively Jewish Germans, though given the numbers of Jews numerically it might appear that way — to do so would be referred to as

“scapegoating”. There’s not much in the way of evidence that German Jews behaved any less than Germans in general, whether they avoided the consequences to or not. Note: it is also important to consider where most German Jews live relative to where the most impact was felt.

Note: the evidence is not there to demonstrate that Herman Jews deliberately took advantage of German gentiles — this the press of the proportional contention.

c. Versailles treaty — I would note that most of the decision makers were not Jewish. But more importantly disproportionate to whom is The only players were the allied states — Germany note Austria had any voice at all — German Jewish or otherwise. The punishments handed to Germany and Austria were not based on whether the receivers were Jewish, but German.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Versailles-1919

http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar1_Redruth.htm

The impacts were intended to be long term. There isn’t much in the way that they targeted gentiles more than jews.

I gather English is not your first language, ECI, so I’ll try to be respectful.

I must also say I did not track your commentary to its very beginning; in fact, you responded to my first substantive comment on this entire thread, which occurred only at #493/ 526. (Several commenters mentioned Douglas Reed, I started reading Controversy of Zion and tossed aside every other activity. The grandkid’s diaper is getting really stinky.)

Furthermore, I think we’re talking past each other.
I’ve presented quotations, events and persons who carried out acts; for the most part, each was accompanied by its source: if I presented Fake News or misinterpreted the Who What Where etc., call me out, smack me down.

Your insistence on identifying Jews as “scapegoats” suggests to me a deeply engrained — the new concept is “epigenetic” — belief system enforced over several millennia. It aligns with one of the core concepts Reed identified:

“Deuteronomy uses this doublespeak : the Lord makes the special people homeless among the heathen for their trsnsgressions; the heathen, who have no blame either for the [Judahites] exile or their transgressions, are their “persecutors”; ergo, the heathen will be destroyed.” (Controversy of Zion, page 21) h/t Zumbuddi

As I recall the bible stories, it’s not Jews who end up dead in “scapegoating” scenarios, it’s the “unblemished ram caught in the thicket” that loses his/her/its life in order that Jews may fulfill some obligation in order to obtain the divine promise. (In addition to Reed’s writing, I’m trying to process Joel Kovel’s thesis that Jewishness is dominated by Guilt, and to relate that to Reed’s analysis that Jehudites/Levites dispense entirely with Guilt by scapegoating/destroying the ‘heathen.’ Lather, rinse, repeat.)

Your resistance to answering relatively simple questions, and the cavalier way you wave away any sources that confound your beliefs, while relying on schlock regurgitations of the propagandized narrative, smacks of confirmation bias:

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias is a variation of the more general tendency of apophenia.

People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of psychological experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people’s conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way. However, even scientists can be prone to confirmation bias.

gotta go. The Kid really stinks.

I find that sometimes that one needs a simple response to a rather obvious condition of history. as previously noted, it’s a tad silly to dig up sites stating what is obviously part of the historical record, That I need to pull pages from Mein kompf, or list sites of what is common knowledge . . . even german historians

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/03/the_scapegoating_of_jews.html

http://www.blex.org/research/scapegoats.html

https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/why-were-jews-forced-to-scrub-the-sidewalks-of-vienna/

It is entirely possible that 1% of the population owned all the wealth, controlled all the government decisions that resulted in Germany losing war effort. But the evidence is scant scanter still that they worked to undermine their own country.

You have made one other comment that completely destroys your case. I will get to that later —

You are taking my definition of scapegoating as a historical jump, it precedes my comments on when and how scapegoating occurred. I think that is misleading, one hopes that it is not deliberate.

By the numbers

a. Completely irrelevant to the issue for how and why we get to WWI and the aftermath of scapegoating German jews. There is absolutely no dispute that German gentiles and German Jews worked side by side as Germans — regardless ideological differences. That is reality used by many Germans against the Nazi claims that jews undermined the German war effort in any manner. Bu all accounts Germans jews were loyal to Germany and behaved in Germany’s best interests.

b. The Balfour agreement, noted a place for Jews, a desire by many Jews from the time jews most teir nation — what Balfour also did was to recognize that about five other ethnicities should granted a home in Palestine sometime in the future. Since German jews were already treated as full citizens in Germany, what other states regarding jews would be inconsequential to Germany. Chaim Weizmann, was british, the british as did all the allied states blamed Germany and Austria for the war and consequently engaged in punitive actions to have Germany provide reparations as well as prevent Germaby from re-arming as they thought Germany jewish or not was to cause for a good deal of europe’s issues. That blockade was a not a jewish cabal, but a demand of the allied powers.

c. same response as “a” Since german Jews were already as equal citizens in Germany — what occurred as to jews in other states is immaterial.

d. If jews were loyal to Germany during WWI, it’s a safe bet that jews in other states, i.e, Great Britain, France and elsewhere would be loyal to the states in which they lived. So German Jews at war with french Jews, British Jews — makes perfect sense and undermines the conspiracy of some European jewish cabal/conspiracy singularly against Germans. So jews on opposites did not sit out the war, but fully engaged as soldiers and spies, even that meant they spied and fought against each other. Blaming german jews fighting for Germany against British jews fighting against Germany — hardly makes much sense to advancing German interests. so the case you are suggesting is that german jews deserved what they got because they fought against other jews. That is a very peculiar rationale.

e. I am unsure of the advance here that helps your argument. German Jews loyal to Germany demonstrating skills that would help Germany obtained positions in which said skills would benefit the country they were loyal too and for that loyalty and benefit — they were responsible for germany’s plight and therefore deserving of being singled out for retribution. i hate to say this, but this sounds like communist revolutionary style of thinking. They also blamed loyal citizens with skills they attempted to use to benefit the country only to discover that their loyalty and skills would be used against them. It is true that some communists were jews. It also true that some policemen and soldiers were jews that put down the same communist attempts. All thinking they were supporting Germany. Note: it was the aftermath of WWI that gave rise to both communists and Nazis. Since most in the government were non-Jews whether in leadership more as staff administrators, its safe to say that whatever failures existed were not singularly Jewish, or even most Jewish or had anything to do with being Jewish at all — — having yourself noted the environment — it’s perfectly clear that they were overwhelmed by the consequences of losing the war —

f. previously addressed.

Overall, I cannot get passed that your case here either is a nonsequitor to jewish fault or even participation and worse, completely contradicts that case for which these presses are being used to support. In short they make a case blaming Jews singularly or even mostly for anything that befell Germany after WWI or led to the cause of WWI. It does make a strong case that when the Nazis came to power that were willing to punish people who pro-Germany, even if that meant they would be in opposition to their kindred in other countries. I think that is a self defeating scenario.

c.

The History Place ???

Hello EliteCommInc.

Was the material I posted about Chaim Weizmann’s and Baron Rothschild’s activities among British war- and foreign policy- decision-makers true or false?
Did it have short-term or long-term impacts?
Were those impacts beneficial for Jews at the expense of Germans?

Did German Jews starve to death proportional to non-Jewish Germans in the course of the British blockade?
Is the starvation-death of 700,000+ of your citizens something that inspire in a government the determination to not let it happen again, or the opposite?

How about the material I posted about Versailles negotiations: is it true or false that Jews, particularly American Jews, played a disproportionately large role in shaping policies that emerged from the conference?
Did those policies have short-term or long-term impacts?
Were those impacts beneficial for Jews at the expense of Germans?

https://www.history.com/topics/kristallnacht

This is a nice attempt to convolute the record.

And its rather tawdry to take the my comments out of context and then proceed to make arguments as though they are a response, when in fact, thy are not. Your long exposition does nothing to refute why WWI occurred.

Nor does it explain away the rise of the Nazi party and their use of all things gone wrong on Jews in the country or jewish economists, bank owners and industrialists outside the country.

Number seven should simply state — that you think the jews en masse deserved what they got. I disagree because, very few Jews, if any were responsible for the loans taken out by the German leadership to pay off loans that were owned by the same people from which the original loans were purchased. —

That system repeated since then was bound to eventually collapse, regardless of whether the Jews or the Native peoples of Australia were operating the financial system. By punishing the Jews also subject to the same consequences and had nothing to to with the finance system in question —

that is often called scapegoating. And those jews didn’t deserve it.

In order to protect some of the vulnerable, is it permissible to keep them in ignorance?

Laughing. good grief . . . the record on what caused WWI is pretty clear. too much play is the record. Your comment is akin to saying if you want to call someone use the phone and responding with using the phone gets too much play.

The record of events as to cause and effect is on record. The communique’s, the locus and the nexus of what occurred and why is not a secret not it opinion — it’s spelled out in black and white.

The loans that Germany borrowed were primarily from the US. when the US currency dipped — so did that of Europe, and Germany already in the short was hit even harder — that too is on record. The roaring twenties was essentially an unfunded liability. And the Jews of Germany were hit as hard as everyone else. across Europe.

Ohhh good grief, I won’t even attempt to dissect the narrative here of how many jes owned the economy, or even that it matters. What is true that nearly all German Jews were in the same boat most Germans, experiencing the consequences of a conflict they lost and owners of an economy in trouble Suppose I grant that some number of Jews owned the economy, there’s no evidence that all jews did or even most Jews. Blaming all Jews for a supposed fault of but a few — that is called scapegoating. It’s also a failure in reason referred to as “overgeneralize”. as consequence for such overgeneralizing, a small group of Germans, the Nazi Party used as scapegoats Jews —

Further complicating the argument, rounding up the jews not responsible for the banking system, only exacerbates the problem – as the Jews one thinks are responsible are left in place and based on the rationale, continue to exploit the those depending on the system. In other words blaming the and punishing Jews would matter if the accusation is accurate and only if you actually blamed and dealth those Jews supposedly guilty of the offence being pressed. In other words, — the Nazis missed the target. The international jews which one’s claims actually own the system remain in place and syill control the market — the economy that the Nazis built still relied on banking and international commerce owned according to them by Jews —-

It’s a messy case and worse it is irrelevant. singling out those not responsible and blaming them is called scapegoating. A Jewish industrialist does not all jews make — stepping aside from the Jews are to blame for Germany’s woes —

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/holocaust.htm

I feel silly having to pull up sights about the rise of the Nazis and their contentions and subsequent attacks on Jews.

__________________

As for your attempt yo shift the corner and change the discussion from the obvious scapegoating of Jews by Nazis and eventually most Germans, I can only say — those are different discussions. Interventionists attacks against Muslims or specific Muslims may be akin to scapegoating, and it may even be that Nazis are are blamed far to easily and casually — for things they are not responsible for — I might even go so far as to say, that Israel cannot blame the Nazis for what they are doing in Palestine — but that two is a different discussion.

But the record that Jews as a people were singled out for Germany’s plight after WWI is not in dispute based on the historical record.

I would consider a discussion about communism a different discussion.

I can only remain where I came in on this issue.

as a US citizen the interests of the US come first and last.

chuckle

thanks JS

here I thought you’d introduced another new eptf to expand the UF vocabulary.

Supposed to be, “Sweet work there!” 🙁

We are surrounded by neocons for sure. And the type is nuttier than a ton of fruitcakes.

“We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you do will meet our needs and demands. We will for ever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build.

– Maurice Samuel, ‘You Gentiles’ (1924) p. 155
https://ia802305.us.archive.org/3/items/YouGentiles/yougentiles_text.pdf

Heaven help us; these unimaginable monsters are completely whacko. They need a world of their own alright. For now I’d be satisfied to see ’em all in straitjackets. What a despicable pack of punks.

Reminds me of what Oppenheimer said after the nuclear test…

Where do these droppings come from and why do they continue to multiply?

There are those who are Israel Firsters and those who serve the cause of world domination. They are able to get along together as long as their interests coincide but as the latter group becomes closer to achieving its goal at some point they will come to see Israel Firsters as a threat and will act accordingly.

Seety work there, Sir! Brilliant stuff.

Jews acting on said embrace, fought on behalf of Germany in full vigor of winning the cause.

I think that the last public political defiance of Hitler was by Hindenburg. He stopped Hitler from ending the military pensions for Jewish German WWI veterans.

Great Britain sides with France and Russia.
The key here as stated by Princess Margaret –”troublesome Serbia.”

Scapegoating —

Very big leap between the first two thoughts and “scapegoating.”

Into that blank space between the outbreak of war in which Germany and England are involved, insert:

1. Acknowledgement that Jewish zionists had been extensively supported by Germany, and also worked side by side in German or Jewish settlement projects in Palestine. See Arthur Ruppin’s 1907 letter (which used to be archived on the Palestine With Provenance database but now is nowhere to be found except JVL) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-the-picture-in-1907-quot-arthur-ruppin

“We therefore find in Palestine a vast difference between German and Jewish colonists in regard to the card which they bestow on their live and other stock. This has nothing to do with inferior ability on the part of the Jews but with the circumstance that the German colonist has created what he possesses by his own labor, and he treats it with more care, foresight and affection. The superior stability of the German on the land, again, is connected with the organic way in which he acquired, and grew with, his possessions; the Jew obtained his as it were overnight. “

2. Chaim Weizmann — engages in prolonged and deliberate campaign to insinuate himself into upper echelons of British decision-makers; plays on one of the “three types of anti-semitism” he has identified, by which he maneuvers Arthur Balfour to convey to Baron Rothschild “a homeland for Jews in Palestine.” see The Balfour Declaration, by Leonard Stein Stein was Weizmann’s assistant throughout the campaign in Britain.

Baron Rothschild had, on his own account, courted Balfour so relentlessly that Rothschild’s niece thought Rothschild must work for the British lord). see Niall Ferguson, biography of the Rothschilds

Weizmann’s activities, especially, had the collateral effect of enabling intense enforcement of the British blockade of Germany, which caused the starvation deaths of over 780,000 German civilians. see C Paul Vincent, The Politics of Hunger, The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p231_Hall.html
Note that the Blockade remained in force for almost a year past German armistice, until Germany succumbed to pressure to sign Versailles Treaty.

In my view, Germans were quite right to view these actions as a “stab in the back.”
Moreover, while German civilians had starved to death, as E J Dillon pointed out in a footnote, Jews in Eastern Europe were provided with food, clothing and medical care — to be sure, from (presumably) Jewish charities — but Germans who had suffered were not only not beneficiaries of such largesse, they were vilified (one might almost say scapegoated) in the process of fundraising for Jews; Martin Glynn’s essay, The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop,” (October 31, 1919) http://balder.org/judea/American-Hebrew-October-31-1919-The-Crucifixion-Of-Jews-Must-Stop-Martin-H-Glynn-Six-Million.php
comes to mind.

3. As earlier passages http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/surrounded-by-neocons/#comment-2160082 from E J Dillon’s The Inside Story of the Peace Conference, state rather unequivocally, the validity of which is borne out by Edwin Black in “The Transfer Agreement,” Jews dominated at Versailles, obtaining for Jewish interests benefits and rights afforded to no other entity in Europe — or elsewhere. As Black puts it, “Jews returned from Versailles with a dual triumph: they acquired a homeland for Jews in Palestine, and guarantees for Jewish rights in European states where they dwelt.”
4. Not only did Woodrow Wilson betray promises made to Germany, he completely undermined the trust states of the now-dismembered Ottoman empire had placed in him to grant them self determination, to the extent that Wilson ignored the findings of the King-Crane Commission http://www2.oberlin.edu/library/digital/king-crane/intro.html
As Scott Anderson narrates in “Lawrence in Arabia,” numerous Jewish operatives functioned as spies and subversives throughout the Ottoman empire and not-yet-Jewish Palestine to ensure the failure of Turks, Arabs, Germans and also the British, in activities to advance Jewish interests.

5. An essay on the Yad Vashem website details how Jews obtained dominating positions in the Weimar government.
Some participants on this forum have exulted in the burst of creativity that marked the Weimar years. That creativity was not widespread: millions were destitute, the economy was impossible, the political situation was chaotic, Communists had targeted Germany for an emblematic takeover, a major steppingstone to Bolshevism’s international ambitions.
6. In one or another of Sebastian Haffner’s diatribes against his German (ex-)countrymen, he observes how the German ‘revolution’ stunned but also numbed the German people. Haffner also reflects bitterly on the assassination of Walter Rathenau — a misbegotten act, to be sure. In Haffner’s calculus, Hitler filled the vast void left by his heroic Rathenau. Many German people felt that Rathenau could solve Germany’s problems; an almost equal number did not. Among the latter were many German Jews: Rathenau did not rank very highly among Jews: he had an in-and-out relationship with his own Jewishness. In any event, National Socialists were more successful in quelling violence — not least, against Jews; in re-instilling a sense of civil unity; in achieving full employment, in stabilizing the economy and in ensuring that the German people were well-fed and well-housed. Rathenau and the Jewish administrators in Weimar had not delivered on those basic needs.

7. So — Were Jews “scapegoated” and did they “get what they deserved?”
Frankly, EliteCommInc, those terms and claims are tiresome.
Facts support the claim that German people suffered inordinately in order that Jews might gather up vast benefits. To call that fact-pattern “scapegoating” approaches Douglas Reed’s definition of the Levite concept of the Jewish god using gentiles to punish Jews for their transgressions, which punishment Jews call persecution, and for which they destroy the gentiles who carry it out.

As to the second part, did Germany get what it deserved?

Agree to all.

We are surrounded by terrorists too.

Records declassified this week by Britain’s Security Service, MI5, reveal an urgent terrorist threat that Britain faced in the 20th century. No, it wasn’t the Irish Republican Army or Islamist terrorist groups that would plague Britain later in the century, but rather extremist Zionist groups fighting the British after World War II to establish the State of Israel.

http://www.bollyn.com/#article_16007

. I have muy issues with the level of carte’ blanche support we extend to Israel — but whether or not they will survive —

Time will tell

I am unsure how to respond to an argument that there is no evidence to support that Jews were scapegoated for national failures after WWI.

Try this.:

Provide some credible evidence that Jews were scapegoated for national failures after WWI.

Serbia is key and her press for total independence.

That angle gets far too much play in my opinion.

As you say, the issues are complex and still argued over, but I think the real keys were economic, and the fact that the Brits wanted to maintain their dominance of trade against a rising Germany and also wanted to prevent a linking up between Germany and Russia are far more important keys. The issues regarding loans between countries is also far more important as well.

It’s important to understand these things because similar forces are at play today.

So the Nazi program that followed scapegoated them for a cause that was not singularly theirs – Germany’s loss in WWI and the subsequent global or western depressions that followed

And as I noted above, the Nazis in turn were and still are scapegoated. There was a huge conflict between Bolshevism and the rest of the world. The Nazis were against the Reds and we all should know how the Reds treated their enemies. They lie, exaggerate, smear, propagandize, demonize and do anything and everything to make their opponents look bad and act worse.

A lot of people were fed up with the virtual stranglehold Jews had on their economies so the Nazis used the Jew angle to gather strength against the Boshies. It’s too bad they had to resort to such rhetoric, but even if they hadn’t, there is no doubt in my mind that they would have been accused of being anti-Semite anyway.

We can see a similar phenomenon in play with all the stupid Muslim bashing by the neocon nutcases. In other words, if every Muslim in the world acted as if they were directly descended from angels, they’d still be demonized.

Hmmmm,

I am unsure how to respond to an argument that there is no evidence to support that Jews were scapegoated for national failures after WWI. If your point is to suggest that the Jews got what they deserved as to their behavior in some manner, that is a case I would be interested in hearing out.

Jews were not responsible for WWI.

I think it goes something like this —-

Those circumstances and events that led to that conflict are complex, in a fashion, but clear. Serbia is key and her press for total independence. An assassination plot that with traces to members of the Serbian government. The total support of Russia for Serbia. Serbia complies with Austrian demands accept one or two regarding the aftermath of the assassination. Austria declares war, Germany her ally declares war, failure to get assurances from Russia that she would stay put, Germany declares war on Russia. In a peculiar bid to w9in, Germany employs a strategy that would by definition put her on a war path with Belgium and France.

Great Britain and Germany already at odds over shipping rights, number of ships and merchant and naval intentions — Great Britain sides with France and Russia.

The key here as stated by Princess Margaret –“troublesome Serbia.”

Scapegoating — the assignment and eventually sacrifice of one not actually responsible for the cause of the sacrifice or atonement. I am not ignoring mass migration or immigration here or the issues that it presents — however, as previously noted — Germany fully embraced Jews as citizens — Jews acting on said embrace, fought on behalf of Germany in full vigor of winning the cause.

So the Nazi program that followed scapegoated them for a cause that was not singularly theirs – Germany’s loss in WWI and the subsequent global or western depressions that followed

My comment about making an issue, is not in reference to whether or not Jews are involved in interventionists strategies and agendas. Nor does my comment dismiss or ignore that the interventionists agenda has led to needless human destruction.

My point is that even minus Israel there would be an interventionists agenda.

Nor do any of my statements counter that on the issue of statehood — US citizens owe their first allegiance (not necessarily agreement on issues) to the US, without question.

Looks like the cat got at your ball of yarn, annamaria.

There were Armenians, Russians, Vietnamese, and other nations that suffered great tragedies and great loss of populations…

So did Germans, who were deliberately targeted for annihilation by Jews and their Anglo and American allies. one example: Theodore Kaufmann, Germany Must Perish http://www.ihr.org/books/kaufman/perish.shtml
More Germans — German civilians — died than even the most outrageously falsified # of Jews who died.

Germany is emerging as a much more moral nation than Israel. Whereas Germany has been paying reparations for the crimes that could not be investigated

whoa
whoa
whoa

1. Germany started out as a “far more moral nation” than ‘Jewry’ or Jehudites or Levites or the nascent Israel could even aspire to become.

2. What Germany is now is not really “German” in a real sense; it’s a brainwashed, soul-deadened empty shell. It has as much morality as a dog trained to do tricks. — Make that an elephant trained to do tricks: Elephants have long memories and an observable sense of empathy. Eventually, the German people may emerge from their brainwashed lassitude and reclaim their moral ascendancy, which will, indeed, be head- and- shoulders greater than Israel. That is why Germany was destroyed in the first place.

“… Your comments are of the form making issue where none exists. … the US never abandons Israel, yet sometime in the future Israel is alone — one obvious conclusion is that there is no longer a US to support her. I have issues with my country, but I would like her to be around for a while longer — my national loyalties are to her first, until I adopt another.”
— And how these issues do not exist in the context of this discussion of the neocon/ziocon pernicious influence on the US present & future? The slaughtered 4 millions human beings of all ages and the ruined Iraq, Libya, and Syria (see Oded Yinon plan) are certainly an issue. Also, what other “player” has similar influence on the US policy? There is no other country but Israel that has managed to affect the legislation in western countries re any questioning of WWII; people go to prison for asking legitimate questions about WWII. Why? – To protect the myth of “incomparable victimhood” of Jewish people? There were Armenians, Russians, Vietnamese, and other nations that suffered great tragedies and great loss of populations…
Germany is emerging as a much more moral nation than Israel. Whereas Germany has been paying reparations for the crimes that could not be investigated (due to the pressure from the world Lobby), Israel has been building night clubs and “cultural” centers on the ancient Palestinian cemeteries. This brings us to the heart of the problem: There are more Jews living abroad than in Israel. Those living abroad expect to have all the essential rights and more from the governments of countries of their residence. At the same time, the inhabitants of the Jewish State (a national state that maintains artificially Jewish majority) have been behaving in contradiction to the laws and rules of western civilization. Moreover, the majority of Jewish people living outside of Israel profess their loyalty first and foremost to the state of Israel. This is an issue.

Those factors led from a gradual to a full scale scapegoating of the Jews. Whatever one’s complaints about Israel, the re is little question that were singled out in Nazi Germany.

What you’ve provided is little, as in no, support for this pedestrian assertion.

A chronology; an examination of the context; a comparison of the conditions under which Jews in Germany vs indigenous Germans were living in Germany between, say, the 1880s to wars era; a recognition of the enormous impact of the Jewish population bubble and the massive migration of Eastern European Jews into Germany; Rothschild financial dominance in all European affairs; — all of these elements must be considered before resorting to “scapegoating Jews.”

Another significant fact regarding the Versailles rape negotiations that Dillon mentioned is that many of the translators at the conference were Jewish, and that somehow the translations sometimes were “embellished” in the interests of guess who?

Example.:

When misunderstandings arose as to what had been said or done it was the official translator, M . Paul Mantoux one of the most brilliant representatives of Jewry at the Conference-who was wont to decide, his memory being reputed superlatively tenacious . In this way he attained the distinction of which his friends are justly proud, of being a living record-indeed, the sole available record of what went on at the historic council . He was the recipient and is now the only repository of all the secrets of which the plenipotentiaries were so jealous, lest, being a kind of knowledge which is in verity power, it should be used one day for some dubious purpose.

But M. Mantoux enjoyed the esteem and confidence not only of Mr. Wilson, but also of the British Prime Minister, who, it was generally believed, drew from his entertaining narratives and shrewd appreciations whatever information he possessed about French politics and politicians . It was currently affirmed that, being a man of method and foresight, M . Mantoux committed everything to writing for his own behoof . Doubts, however, were entertained and publicly expressed as to whether affairs of this magnitude, involving the destinies of the world, should have been handled in such secret and unbusinesslike fashion .

-Dillon, The Inside Story of the Peace Conference, (1920), page 127 (and beyond)
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/The_Inside_Story_Of_The_Peace_Conference-Dr-EJ_Dillon-1920-526pgs-POL.pdf

The book is a gem for insights on how history, impressions and propaganda are made and we see the same things going on today with the neocons, politicians, bureaucrats and other criminals.

Those factors led from a gradual to a full scale scapegoating of the Jews.

I think the real scapegoats were the Nazis.

For instance, everyone “knows” that the Nazis boycotted Jewish stores, but how many realize that the boycotts lasted all of one day, while in contrast, New York Jews called for boycotting Germany for the duration?

No doubt Hitler used antipathy toward Jews to gain political power but it could be justified among other things by the boycott of Germany and the fact that some New York Jews declared war on Germany in 1933.

The typical Jewish histrionics, theatrics and exaggerations obscured a lot of things, not the least of which were the facts that big money Jews were mostly left unmolested in Germany, and the fact that there was collaboration between the Nazis and Zionist elements, as well as the fact that Jews actually profited as many still do, from howling about “anti-Semitism.”

The “Hitler was an anti-Semite” narrative is so over simplified that anyone claiming that as a basis for damning Nazis and Germans overall does little but expose his own superficiality and ignorance.

The Jews are a nation, but Israel is a parasitical entity that cannot survive without leaching off the West in various ways.

That Dillon book is a gem.

So is Reed’s “Insanity Fair,” which is full of detail and names that I had to check out so it took me a couple of days to slog through.

Among the interesting things it mentioned was the Crowe memorandum which is also a “must read” especially for those who think Germany was the sole cause of WW1. While it’s written as an apology of England and the Brit Empire, Crowe can’t help but admit that the problems were long standing and that it takes two to tango, or in this case it took more than two to tangle.

Reed can safely be labeled anti-Hitler but cannot be labeled* an anti-Semite by any means. He did make this observation among others.:

The new [Jewish] prosperity was born in rearmament, and that was begun in the name of anti-Communism and anti-Semitism. Abyssinia, Spain and China have already shown that the new armaments race spells death, not for Jews, but for indiscriminate millions of helpless Gentiles, Africans, Chinese and whatnot. The profits from the armaments race will go largely into the pockets of Jews, because of their preponderant share in retail trade… Such is Hitler’s achievement in the cause of antiSemitism.

I was talking one day to Z, a Jewish journalist expelled from Germany who has settled in Vienna, where he has a pleasant home and a motor car. He talked with bitter resentment of Germany. ‘Ah’, he complained, ‘the Poles murdered us, but the Germans have robbed us’, and it was quite clear from his tone which was the worse thing for him. Then he told me how his son was still working for a big German film company in Berlin and had thrice had his salary raised to induce him not to leave and emigrate, as he desired, wishing to join his father. The Jews. As I write, in Vienna, they are all about me, watching with non-committal, veiled, appraising eyes the comedy that is going on in Insanity Fair. They know that when Hitlerism has passed away they will still be trading in the Kärntnerstrasse.

-Douglas Reed, Insanity Fair (1938), chapter 17

http://www.controversyofzion.info/Controversybook/Douglas_Reed_Books_pdf/Insanity%20Fair.pdf

*Disclaimer: Sorry about the use of labels, but I feel it’s necessary here to parry, in advance, the almost certain (but false) howling about his being an anti-Semite. I hope this disclaimer satisfies any critics, but I have no illusions to that effect! 😉

I think this accurate. German Jews did enjoy full German citizenship, but that changed very rapidly as reparations, two economic depressions on top of the German leadership abandoning the war effort – amounting to a loss.

Those factors led from a gradual to a full scale scapegoating of the Jews. Whatever one’s complaints about Israel, the re is little question that were singled out in Nazi Germany.

Other populations were as well, but the others were not in population size as Jews and aside from blacks and the disabled were not as visible.

One thought: perhaps the opening premise is wrong; it’s not only about real estate, it’s about ideology, and control of the way people think, and about power.

Exactly.

I believe comment #492 is a response to comment #482, not comment #481. Somehow, the last two comments got blended together.

John Wear, a retired attorney living in Texas, is author of Germany’s War: The Origins, Aftermath & Atrocities of World War II” , contributes to CODOH, and publishes his own diligently stocked blog, Wears War on the Lies, Liars and WW2 https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2018/01/12/the-contradictory-testimony-of-jewish-survivors-other-eyewitnesses-at-auschwitz-birkenau-should-they-be-in-jail-with-monika-schaefer-why-not/#comments

Wear’s most recent article, about false testimony of Holocaust survivors, elicited this comment (among others):

WakeyWakey
January 14, 2018 at 5:09 pm
It is the most astonishing and outrageous slander and betrayal against an innocent nation in history in my opinion, especially when you consider one fact:

“Until the Talmudists stabbed Germany in the back with the London Agreement of October 1916, the Talmudists throughout the world were pro-German. Why were they pro-German? The German ‘Emancipation Edict’ of 1822 guaranteed Talmudists in Germany all civil rights enjoyed by Germans. Every country in Europe had quotas for Talmudists. The quota systems had existed for centuries in all European Countries. Under the quota system in European countries, Talmudists were limited in all activities to a small percentage of the Christian population of the country. The quota systems applied to all occupations….

After the Emancipation Edict in 1822, Germany was the only country in Europe which did not place restrictions on Talmudists under a quota system limiting their civil rights. Talmudists throughout the world were informed by cable from London about the October 1916 London Agreement. That information transformed them from pro-German to pro-British….

Great Britain placed at the disposal of Talmudists in London their secret codes and worldwide cable facilities to inform Talmudists throughout the world about Great Britain’s pledge to turn over Palestine to them as compensation for railroading the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain’s ally in their war against Germany……..On April 6, 1917, President Wilson and Justice Brandeis knew something the grass roots population of the U.S. did not know – they knew full particulars about the October 1916 London Agreement. They also knew the declaration of war by the United States against Germany activated this agreement and that Talmudists of the world would not have to wait long for Palestine….Wilson’s declaration of war was to satisfy his commitment to his blackmailers….Wilson was aware when he addressed Congress that Germany had not committed any act against the U.S. which justified a declaration of war….against Germany under international law. this author at that time knew President Wilson was informed to that effect before he made his plea to congress…..”Above from Jewish Insider who knew personally 7 Presidents, Benjamin Freedman http://whale.to/c/hiddenyyranny.pdf

At the point when the Zionists coerced Britian into their London Agreement, Britain had all but lost WWI and yet had been offered generous peace terms by Germany with no penalties whatsoever. The would have ended in 1916 with no American loss of lives, far less British and European lives, and no Jewish bolshevik coup d’etat against Christian Russia hence no USSR and no 66 million Russians slaughtered by the bolshevik regime.

Quite correctly Germany held the Talmudists responsible for their defeat and all their suffering and disadvantage that followed. “Talmudists throughout the world had tried in vain since 1919 to silence German resentment against them for railroading the United States into the war in Europe without justification or provocation….” The Talmudists in August 7, 1933 declared their so-called ‘holy war’ against Germany, an economic war that caused Germany’s export business suddenly ending as if by magic. This declaration of war against Germany by the Talmudists was declared “when not a hair on the head of a Talmudist in Germany had been touched. Germany was plunged into a depression….Talmudists hoped that way to stop Germans from continuing to talk about why they lost the war. Talmudists in Germany were finding it difficult to live that down..”

Above info and quotes from US Jewish Insider Benjamin Freedman, who knew personally 7 Presidents and whose family was intimate with the Baruch family. He became so disgusted with Jewish intrigue he renounced and exposed their manipulations and intentions through both world wars:
http://whale.to/c/hiddenyyranny.pdf

In a similar vein; that is, that Jews demanded and enjoyed privileges in European states that no other citizen in Europe enjoyed, this bit of information about the large Jewish delegation at the Versailles Treaty negotiations, from E J Dillon’s ”

“Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the Conference, the Jews had perhaps the most re- sourceful and certainly the most influential exponents . There were Jews from Palestine, from Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, Rumania, Greece, Britain, Holland, and Belgium ;
but the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by the United States.
Their principal mission, with which every fair-minded man sympathized heartily, was to secure for their kindred in eastern Europe rights equal to those of the populations in whose midst they reside.’

And to the credit of the Poles, Rumanians, and R ussians, who were to be constrained to remove all the existing disabilities, they enfranchised the Hebrew elements spontaneously.

But the Western Jews, who championed their Eastern brothers, proceeded to demand a further concession which many of their own co-religionists hastened to disclaim as dangerous-a kind of autonomy which Rumanian, Polish, and Russian statesmen, as well as many of their Jewish fellow-subjects, regarded as tantamount to the creation of a state within the state . Whether this estimate is true or erroneous, the concessions asked for were given, but the supplementary treaties
insuring the protection of minorities are believed to have little chance of being executed, and may, it is feared, provoke manifestations of elemental passions in the countries in which they are to be applied.”

and further —

“a privileged status was to be conferred on the Jews in eastern Europe and in Palestine, while the other states were to be in the leading-strings of the Four . This view was not lightly expressed, however inadequately it may prove to have been then supported by facts . . . . There was but one discordant voice-that of France-who was opposed . . . to the clause placing the Jews under the direct protection of the League of Nations, and investing them with privileges in which the races among whom they reside are not allowed to participate.“

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/The_Inside_Story_Of_The_Peace_Conference-Dr-EJ_Dillon-1920-526pgs-POL.pdf

A lot if people believe this. And I grant that it rare for a state to re-established after having suffered the losses that Israel has. They often contend that whatever compensation the Jews were entitled should have been carved out of Germany.

That contention aside the UN formally gave Israel her place. I would agree that Israel’s tactics and behavior on occupying that land is highly questionable and definitely ill advised. A lot of wrong to do a little right —

But the fact is that Israel is a nation state.

well,

one revises according to the data. “Neoconservative” is not really useful any longer. As democrats and liberals galore have cause to support regime and the ideas of the “New American Century” a reconfiguration of western agendas after the WWII and now at the end of the cold war.

The Middle East is just one target of the strategy. Your comments are of the form making issue where none exists. The Century for the New American Way is a global narrative, the Middle maybe a key player — oil — but she is but one detail among dozens of states. this whole business of being alone is why Israel vehemently attacks anyone, who doesn’t endorse everything she does. She is forestalling what may be an eventual reality — especially if one takes scripture seriously.

now let’s take the christian millennial view that the ends times will come and when it does Israel will left all alone. That means, no US. If one take scripture literally, then alone means — alone. Plenty of Jews manage to appreciate such scripture when it suits their agendas — such as self defense, whether self defense is offensive or defensive in nature. That means, there those in Israeli strategic circles who consider whet it would mean to be totally alone.

Now consider this, the US never abandons Israel, yet sometime in the future Israel is alone — one obvious conclusion is that there is no longer a US to support her. I have issues with my country, but I would like her to be around for a while longer — my national loyalties are to her first, until I adopt another.

Monica Schaefer has been arrested in Germany

https://codoh.com/library/document/5209/?lang=en

Sad and difficult questions.

One thought: perhaps the opening premise is wrong; it’s not only about real estate, it’s about ideology, and control of the way people think, and about power. Zionists are obsessed with cultural dominance; it seems to be encoded in one faction of Judaism that Jews must be supreme, must be acknowledged as supreme, and that all who resist that acknowledgment — or whose factual history demonstrates that they are different from, or older than, the Judaic dispensation — must be destroyed, in order that Judaics can claim the Throne.

I don’t know the characteristics of Sunni vs Shia (I stubbornly resist the view that the current battles were, at their core, about Sunni v Shia, but instead maintain that the people who are causing the wars and chaos deliberately sowed division between these two groups, playing on known weaknesses) — it may be that the “fiend” is aware that Sunni are more easily aroused or herded or bought or have more resources that the fiend needs and can tap; while Shia have a different interior strength and perspective that makes them more resistant.

You say you’re not Persian; does that mean not Iranian as well? After WWII, US looted Germany mercilessly, prizing above all, German intellectual talent. Iranians, predominantly Shia ??, are also more likely to be more talented than, i.e. Arab Muslims. Zio-US wants either to control or capture/spy on Iranian talent, or destroy it. (Similarly, ZioUSA destroyed relatively stable and prosperous Libya and also cultured Syria: their cultural advancement and stability were affronts to Israeli Zionists.)
ZioUSA has already established infiltration institutions in Saudi Arabia but not in Iran.

Isn’t the Taliban Sunni? (The target in the Afghanistan War)

Wasn’t the target in the Iraq Wars Sunni?

Haven’t we installed Shias as the rulers (ha) in Iraq.

To Dr. Unz, Dr. Giraldi and their readers:

I had a specific purpose in mind in discussing the Sunni/Shia conflict in the context of the Middle East wars and it was not to start a sectarian war between Shias and Sunnis on the Unz Review. Unfortunately, my purpose was hijacked and got totally off the track. Now that the storm over Tammy or Mohamed, or whoever, is finally over, and everyone has accepted the fact that I am not a troll, I would like to ask some serious questions. Rest assured, I am not going to say anything except ask questions and let all the knowledgeable people including Talha to answer if they so choose to do it. Dr. Unz and Dr. Giraldi feel free to jump in anytime you feel like it.

One last comment about Tammy. Unfortunately, He or she, I can’t make up my mind, took the discussion in a wrong direction. Her facts were correct, they were just not helpful in this context. Anyway, that’s over.

My questions:

If the war in the Middle East is all about real estate, and Israel’s hegemony, why is it that this war is being waged only in the countries that are Shia, have a majority of Shia population or perceived to be Shia?

Furthermore, why are the countries being attacked, bombed, sanctioned against, and blockaded and the people who are being killed, bombed, starved, jailed and tortured mainly Shias?
Why all these crimes are being committed by the Sunni regimes and all the terrorist Sunnis groups supported by the United States, a country that has never been attacked by any of the above people or countries?

Why is Turkey exempt from this mayhem? Turkey is a major threat to both Israel and Saudi Arabia. She threatens Israel’s hegemony and is a major challenge to Saudi Arabia as the leader of the Sunni world. Why hasn’t Turkey been the recipient of a share of this wrath? Don’t think that Turkey is with Iran and Russia on this. Remember, Erdogan does not like Assad and for a while was bombing Syrian targets. Turkey is a trojan horse in this conflict.

Why is the Shia population targeted by the Sunni terrorist groups and regimes in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia? Why is the United Nations and other developed and civilized nations silent over these and other atrocities? Doesn’t the charter of the United Nation require it to stop these wars? Admittedly, there is some Sunni and Christian collateral damage. I think Talha knows the real answer, if he would care to share it with you.

For a change I will just read your comments and try to learn from them.

P.S. For those who are inclined to block certain commenters, I just want to remind them that even a broken clock is right twice a day. I don’t block anyone. I glance through their comments and then either read them or ignore them. Every once in a while, someone will say something worthwhile. But then that is just me.

Let’s see if anyone can guess who uttered these words:

“It is time for us to act, and I believe the only way to act is not through moderation. I am not a moderate, I’m a fighter. And that’s why I’m proud to stand with the state of Israel. That’s why I’m proud to be a Christian Zionist. That is why I’m proud to be a partner of one of the greatest nations on earth and the foundation of the Judeo-Christian West.”

John Hagee? Guess again. Why, it was none other than former Trump strategist, Steve Bannon.

And people were hoping the Trump administration, filled with Zionists (both xian and Jewish), would take a less Zionist stance?

Fat chance!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/13/im-proud-to-be-a-christian-zionist-steve-bannon-gets-standing-o-from-leading-jewish-organization/

“… my comment is to the interventionist agenda — it would exist even if Israel did not or was not treated as an ally. Make no mistake, Israel is planning for a day when she has no allies including the US.”
— This is a revisionist position. The ongoing slaughter – the war crimes — in the Middle East had been planned before 9/11:

“Policy coup” in the US, accomplished by Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle, et al. There was no national dialogue before or after.
“The Neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine written in 1992, and the resultant Project for the New American Century manifesto written in 2000 laid out plans for foreign nation destabilization and nation-building by America. … A Pentagon document dated March 5, 2001, entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts” called for divvying-up Iraq’s oil wealth (http://youtu.be/SzX3DfZR_1c – at 06:15] and predated the March 20, 2003 invasion by 2 years and predated the 9/11 attacks by six-months.”
— The blueprint for the ongoing slaughter in the Middle East can be found in Oded Yinon Plan: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-jewish-plan-for-the-middle-east-and-beyond.html
“Back in 1982, Oded Yinon an Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, published a document titled “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.” This Israeli commentator suggested that for Israel to maintain its regional superiority, it must fragment its surrounding Arab states into smaller units. The document, later labeled as Yinon Plan, implied that Arabs and Muslims killing each other in endless sectarian wars was, in effect, Israel’s insurance policy.”
— The obnoxious idiots that had “arranged’ the US resources for the ongoing Middle East slaughter in the name of oil and Eretz Israel (and for their own psychopathic aggrandizement and enrichment) did not think about the future of the Jewish people around the globe and about the future of humanity at large. Moreover, the “arrangement” required a careful weeding out the principled and competent Americans from the position of influence, so that the Plan could be implemented without any hindrances. Enter the greatest idiot Douglas Feith, whose task was to “clear the field” from people like Colonel Patrick Lang (former Green Beret and outstanding specialist in Middle Eastern culture). The rot has inevitably spread to the US national security apparatus; see Russiagate and the obscene parade of liars and profiteers in the highest echelons of government. Note that the real dangers — like Awan affair — were overlooked by the pompous Hayden, Brennan, and Morell.
There is nothing left for Israel. The alleged clothes of superior morality turned to be an illusion. Israel’s leader Netanyahu is a scoundrel despised by his countrymen. The anti-Nazi vigilante (ADL, the Lobby, the Friends of Israel in UK) showed themselves a fraud in light of the US/EU support for Ukrainian neo-Nazis (the story of Israeli-Ukrainian citizen Kolomojsky is particularly educational).
What exactly the Israelis are planning to defend from “others” – moral emptiness of their state?