NationStates Jolt Archive

Question for all Europeans on this forum: Is anti-semitism really on the rise in Europe? If so is it on the rise in the white community, the muslim immigrant community, or both?

I don't know. I really don't know what their big deal is with the Jews. The Jews never seemed any worse than anyone else to me. For all the claims made by neonazis that they want to take over the world, it was the nazis that tried to take over the world and kill millions of people.

I don't know. I really don't know what their big deal is with the Jews. The Jews never seemed any worse than anyone else to me. For all the claims made by neonazis that they want to take over the world, it was the nazis that tried to take over the world and kill millions of people.
Actually, the Jews were just starters. The hard core Nazis had plans to eventually kill or enslave every non-German on the planet.

Well, from my observations, anti-semitism realy never gets more serious then the occasional Jew Joke (occasionally started by a Jewish friend)

Well, from my observations, anti-semitism realy never gets more serious then the occasional Jew Joke (occasionally started by a Jewish friend)

Coughholocaustcough

Well, from my observations, anti-semitism realy never gets more serious then the occasional Jew Joke (occasionally started by a Jewish friend)
Haven't noticed much more then that either. Allthough on occasions like the, May 4th remembrance, muslims like to shout some anti-jewish stuff.

Coughholocaustcough
So? What of it?

I wouldn't say it is significantly on the rise here.
There has been a lot of attention to the attacks on Jewish graves in France (generally by Muslim immigrants). This then causes ill informed people to call France and all of Europe anti-semetic, this is then supported by Israel's current government who hope to gain from this by getting Jews in Europe to emmigrate to Israel to help reinforce the Jewish population in Israel at a time when the Jewish Israeli birthrate is slowing as the Arab Israeli birthrate is still large.

The fact is, there are also racist attacks against Muslims and other minority (and majority) groups by very small amounts of people, as there is everywhere. However, certain extreme movements within the Israeli government and elsewhere draw attention to those against Jews by using the emotionally charged "anti-semetism" term. Many of these same people also discracefully call European governments "anti-semetic" for critising Israel's actions against the Palestinians, when of course, these critisisms are not aimed at the Jewish religion, but at the Israeli government.

Question for all Europeans on this forum: Is anti-semitism really on the rise in Europe? If so is it on the rise in the white community, the muslim immigrant community, or both?


Mostly muslims, but they refer to them as "Englishmen", "Frenchmen", "Dutch" etc, so they can make whites look bad. In order to be an Englishman, you must actually be English, not just a citizen of England, but a person of English ancestry.

holocaust



Still riding that one eh?

When will they come up with something new to harp on?


I don't hear Armenians still up in arms over the 2 million White Christian Armenians that were wiped out by Turks during WW1.

I don't hear the boers still up in arms over the 30,000 or so women and children killed in the very first concentration camps in the world by English in the Boer War.


I'm sorry but shouting "Holocaust" isn't going to do it anymore. Jews will have to learn to deal with criticism of Israel in ways other than shouting "Anti-semite", "Holocaust", etc.

Coughholocaustcough
Do you really think that I observed the holocaust :rolleyes:

I'm sorry but shouting "Holocaust" isn't going to do it anymore. Jews will have to learn to deal with criticism of Israel in ways other than shouting "Anti-semite", "Holocaust", etc.

Funny, I don't recall ANYBODY mentioning Israel in this thread...

besides you. :rolleyes:

I live in a town with more than 10,000 jews in it. I've never heard or seen any anti-semitic behaviour. You would think, that with so many jews around, there might just be a few, but no, not a single remark.

Other than the very funny joke:

Q: "Why do jews have such big noses?"
A: "Because air is free!"

altho i like to point out in the uk frition between the asian and carribian commities in the uk is very tense at the moment

Compared to anti-American... no.. :sniper:

Still riding that one eh?

When will they come up with something new to harp on?


I don't hear the boers still up in arms over the 30,000 or so women and children killed in the very first concentration camps in the world by English in the Boer War.


I'm sorry but shouting "Holocaust" isn't going to do it anymore. Jews will have to learn to deal with criticism of Israel in ways other than shouting "Anti-semite", "Holocaust", etc.
Well said.

The Boers are still pissed off at the English though, it's just not so prevalent anymore.

Actually, the Jews were just starters. The hard core Nazis had plans to eventually kill or enslave every non-German on the planet.

correction non-germanic.

Question for all Europeans on this forum: Is anti-semitism really on the rise in Europe? If so is it on the rise in the white community, the muslim immigrant community, or both?

The neocon/Zionist lobby has made serious efforts to equate anti-Zionism (opposition to Israeli religious nationalism and colonialism) with anti-Semitism. But it's bullshit. There is, unfortunately, a rise in anti-Semitism among Muslim populations in Europe, but there has been a far more serious rise in Islamophobia since September 11.

Vas.

Coughholocaustcough

Letila, please. The holocaust was a human catastrophe and one of the most dangerous things to have happened since is how its legacy has been ceded completely to a bunch of right-wing American Zionists. Mass murder should be accepted as being wrong, whoever's being murdered and whoever you are. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were stridently anti-Zionist Jews, so, probably, were a massive proportion of European Jews murdered by the Nazis.

I'm opposed to all forms of ethnic prejudice, but I'm also bothered by the politically correct knee-jerk reaction to moderate prejudice. It's inflamatory and self-defeating. To equate a joke about Jewish people with the Holocaust is ridiculous. I'm Irish - does that mean anyone who makes a dumb Paddy joke thinks the Irish famine was a good thing? You've got to keep things in perspective.

Vas.

Recently 2 suspected Mossad agents were arrested, charged and jailed for passport fraud. NZ then suspended diplimatic relations with Isreal after they wouldn't appologise for it. Since then 2 Jewish Graveyards have been destroyed at night. Some people are blaming anti-semites, the national front are blaming the Jews claiming they are after 'sympothy' after the arrests, and the rest of us just think the whole thing is horribly sick.

The neocon/Zionist lobby has made serious efforts to equate anti-Zionism (opposition to Israeli religious nationalism and colonialism) with anti-Semitism. But it's bullshit. There is, unfortunately, a rise in anti-Semitism among Muslim populations in Europe, but there has been a far more serious rise in Islamophobia since September 11.

Vas.

*nods*

Being Dutch and living in Europe, I can second that. Contrary to the US, European nations have siginificant Muslim populations and this is one of the problems arising from that situation. Its not all muslims, I should add. Its mostly youths without prospects who (is my theory) seek attention by doing this kind of stuff. (Like chanting "Jews at the gas" during the minute of silence on our national day of remembering WWII or putting swastika's on graves.)

And, indeed, Islamophobia is a much more extreme developement though one could argue rising anti-semitism amongst European immigrant muslims to be a response to that.

It is, in my opinion, seperate from the critical attitude of European governments and peoples towards Israel.
This attitude is
a) shared with pretty much the rest of the planet except the United States and maybe some of its vassals.
b) not directed against "jews".

Want to see some real old fashioned anti semitism and racism? Go to France.

Want to see some real old fashioned anti semitism and racism? Go to France.

*points to his post above*

Not true. I haven't exactly seen French people chanting "HEIL HEIL" and destroying Jewish shops. Sharon even apologised (sortof) for inviting all Jews to move out of France. The situation is far more nuanced then that.

Want to see some real old fashioned anti semitism and racism? Go to France.

yeah, thats pretty much it for europe. Only France is seeing major increses in anti-semetism. Everywhere else its generally fine although islamaphobia is insane at the moment and actually i think more so in America then Europe, just check out this (http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711)

C.M
all the examples you gave had small numbers compared to the SIX MILLION Jews who got killed. there were only twelve million Jews. It means that HALF of the Jews got killed. My great-grandparents all got killed in the war. you have the pure (ignorance? audacity?) do tell Jews to get over it. you shouldn't have the right to join a civilised discussion like this. i have seen some of your posts on other threads and they are ALL racist to the extreme.
even on a thread titled "what is your National Airline" you posted KKK air.
even a democracy has it's limits and in my opinions you breached those limits severely.

PR of Sanctaphrax

I second what the other Dutch guy (or girl) said.

There are occurences of anti-semitism, but they are mostly related to muslim immigrants or very small extreme right wing minorities. I'd say in general muslims receive a lot more hatred than jews.

There are neo nazis who spout their racist drivel, but each time they show up in public, there's a counter manifestation of people who protest against xenophobia. These counter manifestations invariably attract more people.

Besides, regardless of whether or not any jewish graves have been violated in the US, there's quite a bit of anti-semitism there too. Read the Yahoo news boards if you don't believe me.

In general, I have more sympathy for Israel than for the Arabic nations, just like I have more sympathy for the US than for any banana dictatorship. What I resent in both cases though, is the ease with which many Israelis and Americans label any form of criticism on their country as hostility and hatred.

Both claim to defend free speech, but both really only allow you the freedom to agree with them.

In general, I have more sympathy for Israel than for the Arabic nations, just like I have more sympathy for the US than for any banana dictatorship. What I resent in both cases though, is the ease with which many Israelis and Americans label any form of criticism on their country as hostility and hatred.

What the authorities (and some of the populations) of neither realise is that they tend to come in for more criticism because there's an expectation that they'll be better than that. Anti-democratic activity in a nominally democratic country is more of an aberration than in a non-democratic country, if you see what I mean.

Vas.

Yes, I agree.

I keep voicing my criticism of current American politics because I believe there are Americans who may listen and if there are enough of them, things will actually change. And I believe some things that are going on at the moment are in flagrant contradiction with the values the US have always claimed to defend.

There are worse things going on in other countries, but those countries don't claim to be holier than thou.

*cough* Lets keep on the subject please. This thread is about European Anti-Semitism, not US foreign policy.

Ok, sorry, but the link was made because much of what some people call European anti-semitism is really only criticism of Israel's politics. My original point was that those two shouldn't be confused.

[edit: and my other point was that I believe Europe is not significantly more anti-semitic than the US]

(Yes, yes, we are in agreement on that. It was just a friendly warning not so much for you as for the people who might run away with that comment and start another EU-US flamewar. I avoid these forums usually because of that.)

(Yes, yes, we are in agreement on that. It was just a friendly warning not so much for you as for the people who might run away with that comment and start another EU-US flamewar. I avoid these forums usually because of that.)

I would hope we're being reasonable enough about this. The current boy-who-cried-wolf cries of "anti-Semite" are from the right-wing boosted by the current administrations of the US and Israel. To criticise the laws separating Israeli Arabs from their Palestinian husband or wife, or to call for the rerouting of a wall that's causing starvation among Palestinians by cutting them off from their farmland, or to condemn the assassination of a wheelchair bound man, or to condemn the use of helicopter gunships for crowd control - these are not anti-Semitic statements. They're anti-oppression statements. The sooner the Israeli authorities realise that, not only are these criticisms justified on any rational basis, but that their actions are feeding anti-Semitism among those less educated in the difference between Judaism and Zionism, the sooner a resolution can be found.

Vas.

http://www.cmaq.net/node.php?id=17656

anti-semitism is inflated by the media.

Still riding that one eh?

When will they come up with something new to harp on?


I don't hear Armenians still up in arms over the 2 million White Christian Armenians that were wiped out by Turks during WW1.

I don't hear the boers still up in arms over the 30,000 or so women and children killed in the very first concentration camps in the world by English in the Boer War.


I'm sorry but shouting "Holocaust" isn't going to do it anymore. Jews will have to learn to deal with criticism of Israel in ways other than shouting "Anti-semite", "Holocaust", etc.
Actually, many Armenians are still upset about the Armenian holocaust. Some are planning to sue for reparations.

C.M
all the examples you gave had small numbers compared to the SIX MILLION Jews who got killed. there were only twelve million Jews. It means that HALF of the Jews got killed. My great-grandparents all got killed in the war. you have the pure (ignorance? audacity?) do tell Jews to get over it. you shouldn't have the right to join a civilised discussion like this. i have seen some of your posts on other threads and they are ALL racist to the extreme.
even on a thread titled "what is your National Airline" you posted KKK air.
even a democracy has it's limits and in my opinions you breached those limits severely.

PR of Sanctaphrax


So 2 million Armenians don't matter?

30,000 boers don't matter?

20 million in the USSR don't matter? (I didn't mention this but I am now)

It'd sure matter if your family was included in those numbers.


And what I post in IC has nothing to do with Ooc general. Get that through your head! noob!

yeah, thats pretty much it for europe. Only France is seeing major increses in anti-semetism. Everywhere else its generally fine although islamaphobia is insane at the moment and actually i think more so in America then Europe, just check out this (http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711)
It's only natural to be nervous when boarding a plane along with a number of Arab men. After all, the suicide hijackers weren't a very racially diverse lot. I live in New Jersey. We have a large muslim population. I haven't seen any discrimination against muslims. Most people just get on with their lives.

Actually, many Armenians are still upset about the Armenian holocaust. Some are planning to sue for reparations.


Yes I know and what does that tell you?

The jews got Israel, reparations, and world recognition. Most idiots in America can't even find Armenia on the map!

Nobody remembers the Armenians genocide.

http://www.cmaq.net/node.php?id=17656

anti-semitism is inflated by the media.
And we all know who controls the media.

Yes I know and what does that tell you?

The jews got Israel, reparations, and world recognition. Most idiots in America can't even find Armenia on the map!

Nobody remembers the Armenians genocide.
I do. I'm American. Don't assume that we are all ignorant.

at what point in my post did i claim that the other wars and genocides "don't matter." murder is murder. unless the person commited terrible crimes (sheikh Yassin) then a life has been lost. these people however such as Sheikh Yassin are trying to bring the world to destruction and will not be missed.

How do you define 'Semitic'? Webster's online dictionary defines it as:

Sem`it´ic
a. 1. Of or pertaining to Shem or his descendants; belonging to that division of the Caucasian race which includes the Arabs, Jews, and related races.

The Palestinians are as much 'Semitic' as anyone from that region of the world, as are the Syrians, Jordanians, etc.

at what point in my post did i claim that the other wars and genocides "don't matter." murder is murder. unless the person commited terrible crimes (sheikh Yassin) then a life has been lost. these people however such as Sheikh Yassin are trying to bring the world to destruction and will not be missed.



Actually there were approximately 15.8 million jews in 1938.

Not the 12 million as you claim.

It's call world almanacs, read one!

at what point in my post did i claim that the other wars and genocides "don't matter." murder is murder. unless the person commited terrible crimes (sheikh Yassin) then a life has been lost. these people however such as Sheikh Yassin are trying to bring the world to destruction and will not be missed.



Not everybody may realize this, he is referring to the blind Hamas spiritual leader who was confined to a wheelchair! The man was slaughtered when Israeli helicopter gunships (That the USA gave them) blew him along with the car he was in, to pieces.



http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/world_full_story.asp?service_id=618

How do you define 'Semitic'? Webster's online dictionary defines it as:

Sem`it´ic
a. 1. Of or pertaining to Shem or his descendants; belonging to that division of the Caucasian race which includes the Arabs, Jews, and related races.

The Palestinians are as much 'Semitic' as anyone from that region of the world, as are the Syrians, Jordanians, etc.

This thread is about anti-semitism. The same (i think) dictionary you quoted defines anti-semitism as:

hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.

Usually people can judge by context what anti-semite means. How often do you see news like: "USA asks Syria to curb support to extremists - in no way is this anti-semitic action though" ;)

I understand that this thread is about anti-semitism. But the term 'Semite' applies to a broad swath of humanity, not just European Jewry.

So 2 million Armenians don't matter?

30,000 boers don't matter?

20 million in the USSR don't matter? (I didn't mention this but I am now)

It'd sure matter if your family was included in those numbers.

And yet you criticise the Jews for "harping on" about 6 million dead? You seem to have defeated your own argument.

And yet you criticise the Jews for "harping on" about 6 million dead? You seem to have defeated your own argument.


The thing is the mention of the 20 million in the USSR didn't even make it into my high school history books. Not even a paragraph. The holocaust had 3-5 pages in the history books, then there were the videos we had to watch, and an entire 2-3 weeks in English Literature class.

The thing is the mention of the 20 million in the USSR didn't even make it into my high school history books. Not even a paragraph. The holocaust had 3-5 pages in the history books, then there were the videos we had to watch, and an entire 2-3 weeks in English Literature class.

Gasp! American High School textbooks didn't mention the suffering and sacrifice experienced by the people of the Soviet Union? I can scarcely believe it. Why, you'd almost think there was some rivalry between the two old allies or something.

It still doesn't mean that Jewish people, or gypsies, or Trades Unionists, or communists, or homosexuals, or any of the other groups rounded up by Hitler's twisted little psycho squads and cold-bloodedly murdered in the biggest calculated act of mass murder ever perpetrated in the history of humanity shouldn't dwell on the fact. As you said yourself,

It'd sure matter if your family was included in those numbers.

It still doesn't mean that Jewish people, or gypsies, or Trades Unionists, or communists, or homosexuals, or any of the other groups rounded up by Hitler's twisted little psycho squads and cold-bloodedly murdered in the biggest calculated act of mass murder ever perpetrated in the history of humanity shouldn't dwell on the fact. As you said yourself,

Point taken.

Well I think we should all remember the suffering and such, but people need to not use the sympathy the world gives them in attempts at political gains.

Point taken.

Well I think we should all remember the suffering and such, but people need to not use the sympathy the world gives them in attempts at political gains.

Oddly enough, I agree. I think the current racist, right-wing government of Israel tries to deflect criticism of its racist, right-wing policies by screaming "anti-semitism" at its critics -- just as supporters of Bush's government scream "anti-American" at any of their critics. The idea of disliking a "nation" or a "race" is the ultimate act of folly, since these concepts have no basis in reality. People are merely people, and the worst problems in the world start when tiny handfuls of hate-filled halfwits with crippling inferiority complexes start trying to make sweeping generalisations about human beings because of their country of origin, or their religion, or their ancestry, or the particular shade or hue of their skin. If science and history teaches us nothing else, it is that we are all very much alike, and that there is no one geographical area, or one lingusitic or cultural group which is better or worse than any other.

"nation" or a "race" is the ultimate act of folly, since these concepts have no basis in reality

Nation and race are real concepts. They have a basis in reality, they're also something most people accept as real.

Nation and race are real concepts. They have a basis in reality, they're also something most people accept as real.

Just because people think they are real doesn't lend any credence to them. I seem to recall a time when people thought blood was created as it came out of the body, or that life was immaculate created. Both have since been proven very wrong. Just because people are folly enough to believe something does not make it true and does not lend it any credibility in reality.

Just because people think they are real doesn't lend any credence to them. I seem to recall a time when people thought blood was created as it came out of the body, or that life was immaculate created. Both have since been proven very wrong. Just because people are folly enough to believe something does not make it true and does not lend it any credibility in reality.


I can tell you a nation is real because I live in one, it is called the United States of America. We have culture, language, history, borders, governments, etc.

Anybody who says "nation" isn't real, is obviously on drugs.


I can tell you race is real because forensic experts can determine the race of skeletal remains through DNA testing. Also race can be determined by analyzing the bones and their size/length ratio etc.

Both are real concepts, the only ones who'd argue otherwise are the "We're all the same" the internationalist United Nations/New World Order crowd.

Actually, the Jews were just starters. The hard core Nazis had plans to eventually kill or enslave every non-German on the planet.

Why did they make alliances with Japan and Italy then?

Why did they make alliances with Japan and Italy then?


Exactly, they also had croatians, russians, french, dutch, english pows, american pows, etc, all sorts in the Waffen SS. They even had bosnian muslims!

The notion that germany wanted to kill any white who wasn't german, is just a lie by communists to drive people away from national socialism.

Nation and race are real concepts. They have a basis in reality, they're also something most people accept as real.

No, they're entirely imaginary. If I'm standing on one side of an imaginary line, I'm in country X. And yet on the other side of that imaginary line, I'm in country Y and a whole bunch of things which are fine and legal in X might get me locked up in Y; or vice-versa. If I'm born on one side I might get drafted by X and have to fight against people born on the Y side of the line; or vice-versa. Nations, like currencies, are based on faith: they only exist as long as enough people believe in them (and, usually, can back that beilef with force of arms should anyone challenge it). The same applies for "races". The closer you examine the concept, the harder you try to define what makes a person part of race A and not part of race B, the crazier the distinctions become until you either give up and admit that it's a false concept, or go nuts and keep on believing in it.

I'm a member of the human race. How about you?

I can tell you a nation is real because I live in one, it is called the United States of America. We have culture, language, history, borders, governments, etc.

Anybody who says "nation" isn't real, is obviously on drugs.

A nation isn't a "thing" in itself, it's an artificial creation adding borders where none exists in nature. It's only as real as the people who accept its existence agree it is. Numerous "nations" are illusory as their borders are not respected, particularly in Africa and Latin America, but increasingly in Europe as the European Union exposes the ridiculousness of the nation state.

Oh, and by the way, the United States isn't a nation, it's a federation of states.

Vas.

I'm a member of the human race. How about you?

I'm a member of the white race which is a sub-division of the species human (Homo sapien)

I can tell you a nation is real because I live in one, it is called the United States of America. We have culture, language, history, borders, governments, etc.

Anybody who says "nation" isn't real, is obviously on drugs.

Well, I'm not on drugs (although it is Friday evening, so I will be soon), and I tell you a "nation" is an arbitrary concept that has no existance outside the mind. Just like those little bits of paper that have a "value" -- they're only worth what they say as long as enough people keep believing in them. Therefore, a "nation" has no concrete objective reality.


I can tell you race is real because forensic experts can determine the race of skeletal remains through DNA testing. Also race can be determined by analyzing the bones and their size/length ratio etc.

Both are real concepts, the only ones who'd argue otherwise are the "We're all the same" the internationalist United Nations/New World Order crowd.

Not objectively, they can't -- since "race" is not an objective scientific concept. It is possible to make arbitrary distinctions, and say "people with skulls and bones that conform to THIS large set of measurements and a bunch of other statistical data belong to what we'll call 'race A'" -- but it doesn't mean that "race A" has an objective concrete reality oustide the scientists' heads. This is why most scientists don't talk about "race".

We ARE all the same, more or less. The genetic variation across the entire human race is, for such a widespread animal, minute. You and I are more closely related than two chimpanzees from different groups separated by 40 miles of jungle. You and an Australian Aborigine are more closely related than two chimpanzees from different groups separated by 40 miles of jungle. You and [insert any human being on earth] are more closely related than two chimpanzees from different groups separated by 40 miles of jungle. Such are the findings of modern genetics.

*nods*

Being Dutch and living in Europe, I can second that. Contrary to the US, European nations have siginificant Muslim populations and this is one of the problems arising from that situation. Its not all muslims, I should add. Its mostly youths without prospects who (is my theory) seek attention by doing this kind of stuff. (Like chanting "Jews at the gas" during the minute of silence on our national day of remembering WWII or putting swastika's on graves.)

And, indeed, Islamophobia is a much more extreme developement though one could argue rising anti-semitism amongst European immigrant muslims to be a response to that.

It is, in my opinion, seperate from the critical attitude of European governments and peoples towards Israel.
This attitude is
a) shared with pretty much the rest of the planet except the United States and maybe some of its vassals.
b) not directed against "jews".

Actually the US has the second largest muslem pop. to Indonesia. But whose counting really?

I'm a member of the white race which is a sub-division of the species human (Homo sapien)

"White" isn't a race, even within the biologically incorrect concepts of race. I'm Irish, I've got very white skin, but I'm not "White".

Vas.

A nation isn't a "thing" in itself, it's an artificial creation adding borders where none exists in nature. It's only as real as the people who accept its existence agree it is. Numerous "nations" are illusory as their borders are not respected, particularly in Africa and Latin America, but increasingly in Europe as the European Union exposes the ridiculousness of the nation state.

Oh, and by the way, the United States isn't a nation, it's a federation of states.

Vas.

Not exactly right. The United States is a Republic. If it were a federation there would be no central authority. Each State would have its one say on all matters much like the original US formation of government before the constitution (the articles of confederacy). Needless to say it did not work. With the help of Madison and some other rabid federalists mixed with ultra liberal minds at the time a federal system was implemented. Oh and wth does 'Vas' mean?

I agree entirely with Jeldred on nationality. And will also be on drugs in about, ooh, half an hour. Before I do retire to an alehouse, I'd like to highlight the worrying trend for media outlets to be accused of anti-semitism simply on the basis of political coverage of Israel.

The Guardian (UK newspaper) was the victim of an attack in an International Herald Tribune editorial, stating that it was anti-semitic as well as anti-zionist. The latter claims is possibly justificable for some fo its contributors, but I have no problem with this - it's a political standpoint. It is absurd, however, for The Guardian to be accused of something so heinous.

Ach, bollocks to it. I'm going for a few drinks. Toodle-pip.

Nation and race are real concepts. They have a basis in reality, they're also something most people accept as real.

Race is not a real concept. Race is imagined look to Rwanda. Hutus and Tutsies were impossible to distinguish by outsiders. But the imagined staple of "race" divided the Tutsies to hack crowds of hutus with machetes. Just one more thing to create division, war, poverty, and ultimately heartache.

Not exactly right. The United States is a Republic. If it were a federation there would be no central authority. Each State would have its one say on all matters much like the original US formation of government before the constitution (the articles of confederacy). Needless to say it did not work. With the help of Madison and some other rabid federalists mixed with ultra liberal minds at the time a federal system was implemented. Oh and wth does 'Vas' mean?

It's short for Pope Vassilly Deferens the First, Last and Always, the Delegated Vanguard of the Peoples of Dischordiac. Oh, and you're right about the US, my initial answer was short and sharp to reject the claim of "nationhood", which it ain't.

Vas.

The Guardian (UK newspaper) was the victim of an attack in an International Herald Tribune editorial, stating that it was anti-semitic as well as anti-zionist. The latter claims is possibly justificable for some fo its contributors, but I have no problem with this - it's a political standpoint. It is absurd, however, for The Guardian to be accused of something so heinous.

Ah sure, Noam Chomsky's always being called anti-Semitic. And he's Jewish (self-hating supposedly).

Vas.

Ahhh

Race is not a real concept. Race is imagined look to Rwanda. Hutus and Tutsies were impossible to distinguish by outsiders. But the imagined staple of "race" divided the Tutsies to hack crowds of hutus with machetes. Just one more thing to create division, war, poverty, and ultimately heartache.


It was actually the Hutu who killed the Tutsi.

And they were both the same race (black) but different tribes (Ethnicities) of black.

It was actually the Hutu who killed the Tutsi.

And they were both the same race (black) but different tribes (Ethnicities) of black.

Again, "black" is only a "race" in the imagination, as is "white". Even in the scientific realm, terms like "species" are becoming vague as genetics begins to overturn the old classifications (which derive from the work of Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century, and are based more on external appearance than actual relationships).

For example, a recent study (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0520_030520_chimpanzees.html) suggests that humans and chimpanzees are so closely related that chimps should be classed as members of the genus Homo. An alternative view is that humans should be reclassified as part of the chimp genus Pan. I've never been too satisfied with the name Homo Sapiens Sapiens, as I don't think we're all that wise. Other suggestions, such as Homo Ferox are a little too negative. I prefer Pan Narrans -- the storytelling chimpanzee.

Since it's in no way a fixed, objective measure, it follows that I'm free to call myself anything I like. It also follows that terms such as "race" are entirely subjective, and have no existence outside of the mind. They are opinions, not facts.

And they were both the same race (black) but different tribes (Ethnicities) of black.

Ethnicity is a socio-cultural phenomenon with minimal actual connection to mythical races.

Vas.

by the way, CM
Yassin was the spiritual leader of the biggest terrorist organization in Israel.
he could have stopped the entire intifada if he'd wanted.
he wasn't blind but he was confined to a wheelchair.
he was a TERRORIST. he was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews.
now you claim we were wrong to kill him!!!
i ask you is he the kind of person who will be missed???

by the way, CM
Yassin was the spiritual leader of the biggest terrorist organization in Israel.
he could have stopped the entire intifada if he'd wanted.
he wasn't blind but he was confined to a wheelchair.
he was a TERRORIST. he was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews.
now you claim we were wrong to kill him!!!
i ask you is he the kind of person who will be missed???

Once you deny your enemy justice and due process, once you decide to be judge, jury and executioner, you say goodbye to the moral high ground. Mossad could have arrested Sheik Yassin at any stage, the Israeli authorities decided not to - they decided that a helicopter attack would scare the shit out of the Palestinian people. Do you know what a military attack designed to cause terror is? It's terrorism, when it's by a state, it's state terrorism.

Oh, and by the way, what Hammas, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs, and Islamic Jihad and whoever else is carrying out attacks are doing is not the Intifada. And intifada is a general uprising, the rise in suicide attacks is due to the failure of the general uprising to change anything - a response to the brutal Israeli attempts to suppress what was a popular and largely unarmed uprising of the people.

The Israeli occupation of Palestine is illegitimate, they have no right to be there. The settlements, in particular, are both illegal and fucking stupid - putting a bunch of religious fanatics in the midst of your "enemy's" land will simply exacerbate the situation. How would you feel if your neighbour decided that, for their own safety, they needed to seize your back garden and build a shed in it?

Vas.

Actually, the Jews were just starters. The hard core Nazis had plans to eventually kill or enslave every non-German on the planet.

I'm no Nazi (despite the name :) ) But isn't that just American propoganda from World War 2?

Once you deny your enemy justice and due process, once you decide to be judge, jury and executioner, you say goodbye to the moral high ground. Mossad could have arrested Sheik Yassin at any stage, the Israeli authorities decided not to - they decided that a helicopter attack would scare the shit out of the Palestinian people. Do you know what a military attack designed to cause terror is? It's terrorism, when it's by a state, it's state terrorism.

Oh, and by the way, what Hammas, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs, and Islamic Jihad and whoever else is carrying out attacks are doing is not the Intifada. And intifada is a general uprising, the rise in suicide attacks is due to the failure of the general uprising to change anything - a response to the brutal Israeli attempts to suppress what was a popular and largely unarmed uprising of the people.

The Israeli occupation of Palestine is illegitimate, they have no right to be there. The settlements, in particular, are both illegal and fucking stupid - putting a bunch of religious fanatics in the midst of your "enemy's" land will simply exacerbate the situation. How would you feel if your neighbour decided that, for their own safety, they needed to seize your back garden and build a shed in it?

Vas.

Totally agree with you. The worst people are the 'settlers' and by 'settlers' I mean 'squatters', who disregard international law and are the most right wing bunch of nuts I have ever seen.

he could have stopped the entire intifada if he'd wanted.




Who would want to stop arabs rising up for their rights?

Ariel Sharon has a 1500 acre estate, if he wanted to, he could put over 3,000 1/2 acre houses on their and move all the Zionist settlers out of Gaza and onto his land. But key word "If he wanted to"

He will do that no more than Yassin stopped Intifada.

I don't hear Armenians still up in arms over the 2 million White Christian Armenians that were wiped out by Turks during WW1.


You obviously don't know many Armenians.

I grew up in a town with a huge Armenian population and on their remembrance day, they had flags on cars, candlelight ceremonies, lectures in schools, marches, etc. They were just as vocal as the Jews.

However, there is an official day set aside for remembrance of the Armenian genocide. I don't know if there is one set aside for the Holocaust, but if there is, it's not well known. This may explain why they're only vocal around that time of year and the Jewish community is vocal year-round. But what do I know?

I'm no Nazi (despite the name :) ) But isn't that just American propoganda from World War 2?

No, after the Jews and the Roma would have come the Slavs, who were living on the Nazi "lebensraum". The French and British would have been Germanic enough, probably, but I wouldn't have held out much hope for us Irish.

Vas.

[QUOTE=Communist Mississippi]I don't hear Armenians still up in arms over the 2 million White Christian Armenians that were wiped out by Turks during WW1.
[QUOTE]

You obviously don't know many Armenians.

I grew up in a town with a huge Armenian population and on their remembrance day, they had flags on cars, candlelight ceremonies, lectures in schools, marches, etc. They were just as vocal as the Jews.

However, there is an official day set aside for remembrance of the Armenian genocide. I don't know if there is one set aside for the Holocaust, but if there is, it's not well known. This may explain why they're only vocal around that time of year and the Jewish community is vocal year-round. But what do I know?

I have read that there are actually Armenian terror groups demanding Turkey give reparations and apologize etc.

We must remember that the population of Armenia is about what 5 million today? There were 2 million killed. The jewish population of the world was about 16 million and percent wise, less were killed. I'm not saying either is more or less significant than the other. I'm just saying that percent wise, Armenia was ravaged and we in the western world hear little if anything about it.

No, after the Jews and the Roma would have come the Slavs, who were living on the Nazi "lebensraum". The French and British would have been Germanic enough, probably, but I wouldn't have held out much hope for us Irish.

Vas.

It wasn't because of Lebensraum that hitler wanted to get rid of the slavs, he just considered them sub human along with roma and Jews. The rest of the world? I don't think that is necessarily backed up by fact.

I have read that there are actually Armenian terror groups demanding Turkey give reparations and apologize etc.

We must remember that the population of Armenia is about what 5 million today? There were 2 million killed. The jewish population of the world was about 16 million and percent wise, less were killed. I'm not saying either is more or less significant than the other. I'm just saying that percent wise, Armenia was ravaged and we in the western world hear little if anything about it.

Agreed - The Armenian massacre was disgusting.

It wasn't because of Lebensraum that hitler wanted to get rid of the slavs, he just considered them sub human along with roma and Jews.

Well yeah, it worked the other way around, he considered Slav lands German lebensraum because the Slavs were "sub-human" and thus unworthy of keeping it.

The rest of the world? I don't think that is necessarily backed up by fact.

Not necessarily everyone, but had they won in Europe and formed an alliance with certain sections of the British establishment like they had with Vichy, the Irish definitely would have been next. Churchill regarded the Irish, like the Kurds whom he massacred, as being sub-human as well. Hitler would have most likely given free reign to such ideas in Britain. The 1940s, coming just after the Irish War of Independence in 1922 and the Economic War in the 30s, were a time of massive resentment of Ireland among upper class Britain.

Vas.

Just another example of modern propoganda, Churchill is idolized despite his disgusting racist beliefs.

Just another example of modern propoganda, Churchill is idolized despite his disgusting racist beliefs.

And yet those who attempt to make that point symbolically (Mayday 2000 and the green mohawk) are condemned. The irony of Tony Blair condemning Saddam Hussein for gassing the Kurds while lionising Churchill - the first person to gas the Kurds - is sickening.

Vas.

No, after the Jews and the Roma would have come the Slavs, who were living on the Nazi "lebensraum". The French and British would have been Germanic enough, probably, but I wouldn't have held out much hope for us Irish.

Vas.
Nope. It wasn't Germanic. It was Aryan. And as far as I know the Irish were considerd Aryan. Or at least close enough.

Nope. It wasn't Germanic. It was Aryan. And as far as I know the Irish were considerd Aryan. Or at least close enough.

The Aryan "race" in Nazi terms means the Nordic and Germanic peoples, which do not include the Irish, who are mainly Celtic. Anyway, as I outlined, if the Nazis had conquered Europe, the people who would have been given charge of Britain were those with a serious grudge against the Irish (mainly those who'd lost out when deValera put a stop to payments of rent for Irish land). Ireland would definitely have been retaken by murderous force.

Vas.

The Aryan "race" in Nazi terms means the Nordic and Germanic peoples, which do not include the Irish, who are mainly Celtic. Anyway, as I outlined, if the Nazis had conquered Europe, the people who would have been given charge of Britain were those with a serious grudge against the Irish (mainly those who'd lost out when deValera put a stop to payments of rent for Irish land). Ireland would definitely have been retaken by murderous force.
It also included peoples like the French (also good deal of Celtic), Finns and Hungarians. Hardly Germanic.
And what makes you think that an English man would be left in charge?

It also included peoples like the French (also good deal of Celtic),

Incorrect, apart from the Bretons, the French are mainly descended from the Latin, Frankish and Norman peoples.

Finns and Hungarians. Hardly Germanic.

The Nazis generally regarded Germanic and Aryan to be one and the same, if they regarded the Finns and Hungarians as Aryans (and I'm not sure they did) then that's because they regarded them as Germanic, or at least Nordic.

And what makes you think that an English man would be left in charge?

Vichy.

Vas.

I don't hear Armenians still up in arms over the 2 million White Christian Armenians that were wiped out by Turks during WW1.
They are, there just aren't that many Armenians around, and they're not as powerful as the Jews. Our Armenian mayor made sure every student knew all about the Armenian genocide though.

They are, there just aren't that many Armenians around, and they're not as powerful as the Jews.

Aah, certainly correct! The Jews have the most powerful pressure group in the world. The jewish lobby in Washington is one of the most important in the world, if not the most important. This is one reason why the US almost blindely backs Israel in the Palestine-conflict.

In fact, it doesn't matter if the president of the US is democratic or republican... the truth is that you cannot be elected without the support of the jewish lobby, which has almost unlimited financial resources. Many jews around the world contribute. BUT that doesn't mean that every jew supports the Israeli government in his "tackling" of the problem. There's a large so-called left-wing movement in Israel. Also, in Europe there's many critisism about the way the Israeli government is handling this issue. This doesn't mean that you're antisemitic.

It's not because you're against the American government, that you can't stand the American people!! People should be aware of that. On this forum there's too much ignorance of each others background. There's always a reason. The real purpose of a discussion is to talk about the issue, to find out its basis and to try and solve it.

Incorrect, apart from the Bretons, the French are mainly descended from the Latin, Frankish and Norman peoples.


Getting a little bit off topic here, but I think it's more correct the French do descend from the Celts (as well as from the other peoples you mentioned), but most of them adopted the Roman culture. The Gauls were Celts, after all.

Getting a little bit off topic here, but I think it's more correct the French do descend from the Celts (as well as from the other peoples you mentioned), but most of them adopted the Roman culture. The Gauls were Celts, after all.

In fact, the whole discussion about race shouldn't be an issue anymore. All over Europe these 'races' are mixed. Most of the Europeans are kaukasian. (I hope I spelled it good)

You're right, there's still a division between Roman and 'celtic' culture. You can see that very well in Belgium. That country is divided by a so-called 'language border' between the northern dutchspeaking part (Flanders), more or less celtic, and the southern frenchspeaking part (Wallonia), which has clearly a roman influence. You can tell by language. Roman: French, Spanish, Portugese, Italian, ... Celtic: German, Dutch, Danish, Swedish (??), ...

Actually the US has the second largest muslem pop. to Indonesia. But whose counting really?
Untrue. Indonesia does have the most muslims, but a country like Pakistan (random pick) has 159,196,336 people and the population is 97% Muslim according to the CIA world factbook. Do the math.

Scientists (http://www.islam101.com/history/population2_usa.html) generally accept the estimate of from 5 million to 8 million. That is to say at least 5 million people in North America claim Islam as their religion and/or practice. (1991) The World Almanac reports that Muslims in the United States number approximately 5,220,00. The total worldwide Muslim population is generally estimated at slightly more that 1 billion.

Don't pull "facts" out of your ass when you cannot back them up or when they are not even close to the truth.

---

With the "absolute numbers" disspelled, lets look at percentages. All figures from your very own CIA. Your country, my country and France. To compare the US to two random Western-European nations.

United States religions:
Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10%

Netherlands religions:
Roman Catholic 31%, Protestant 21%, Muslim 4.4%, other 3.6%, unaffiliated 40%

France religions:
Roman Catholic 83%-88%, Protestant 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 5%-10%, unaffiliated 4%

Note how "other" contains every single religion apart from the ones mentioned. Buddishm, Sikhs, Jehovas Witnesses and whatnot. So in the US Muslims are only a *part* of this percentage. (the absolute number mentioned above isn't from the same year so I am not going to calculate a percentage which would be off. Suffice to say, its lower.)

I'm also kinda proud of our unaffiliated 40%, but that is just a random comment. ;)

"Who is counting really? Not you, anyway.

Nope. It wasn't Germanic. It was Aryan. And as far as I know the Irish were considerd Aryan. Or at least close enough.

We all know the Nazis saw Germans as the ultimate, and we all also know they saw Jews as the lowest, who deserved to be killed (Their point of view, not mine :D) They did consider other races superior enough not to be killed, such as the French, Italians, Spanish, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Croatians, who are all definately not Nordic, Aryan, Germanic or whatever. They also said that while the Japanese were racially inferior they were brought up so well (to persue an honourable death for their country and emperor - one of the nazi's 88 precepts) that they should be respected and left alone.

The Aryan "race" in Nazi terms means the Nordic and Germanic peoples, which do not include the Irish, who are mainly Celtic. Anyway, as I outlined, if the Nazis had conquered Europe, the people who would have been given charge of Britain were those with a serious grudge against the Irish (mainly those who'd lost out when deValera put a stop to payments of rent for Irish land). Ireland would definitely have been retaken by murderous force.

The nazis put the British on the 'top level' for race, along with themselves, Scandinavians, Dutch and Flemish. Since the British are a genetic mix of Celtic, Norman, Angle and Saxon, we can derive that the Nazis must have considered all these groups as being on the 'top level'. I've done a bit of reading on the topic, and the nazis considered any Northern European the best, or at least deserving enough to have their homeland left intact unless it used to belong to Germany at one point. In no warped, twisted world would there have been a British or German genocide of the Irish, but maybe a reconquest of the Irish Free State. Then again, I've read that if Britain had to be invaded the peace would be considerably harsher to represent the German deaths in the invasion. Such a peace would have included handing Malta, Cyprus and Egypt to Italy, Gibraltar to Spain and Ulster to Ireland.

On another note, the nazis apologised for bombing Dublin in the war when they were aiming for somewhere else, so they at least had some respect for the Irish.


Oh, the reason behind the rise in anti-semitism in Europe is largely to do with the increase in Palestinian and other Muslims in the West. All Muslims, when considering the whole world, see themselves as brothers. So if Israel is bullying one the rest will come and stick up for them. I dont think anti-semitism by whites is a big deal. Its far far less than Islamophobia by whites.

Question for all Europeans on this forum: Is anti-semitism really on the rise in Europe? If so is it on the rise in the white community, the muslim immigrant community, or both?

Here's a question in response, why is anti-semitism such an important issue? You don't here about people being anti-black, anti-oriental, anti-muslim, these are none issues. But to be an anti-semite, oh, bloody murder! For a group of people who don't even make up 1% of Earth's population, don't you think they're getting a little too much attention?

Here's a question in response, why is anti-semitism such an important issue? You don't here about people being anti-black, anti-oriental, anti-muslim, these are none issues. But to be an anti-semite, oh, bloody murder! For a group of people who don't even make up 1% of Earth's population, don't you think they're getting a little too much attention?

They're all big issues... I guess this forum's about anti-semitism and not any other type of racism because of all the graveyard stories in France.

And besides, the Jews usually got screwed throughout history for some reason. Concider this neverending talk about antisemitism as our payback or something.

If you say so, I'm afraid that if I continue this line of thought I'll be accused of being an anti-semite....

I have read that there are actually Armenian terror groups demanding Turkey give reparations and apologize etc.

We must remember that the population of Armenia is about what 5 million today? There were 2 million killed. The jewish population of the world was about 16 million and percent wise, less were killed. I'm not saying either is more or less significant than the other. I'm just saying that percent wise, Armenia was ravaged and we in the western world hear little if anything about it.

And so this represents a failing on the WEST'S part. It does not mean that there has necessarily been any wrong-doing on the part of Jews recognizing and memorializing their own losses.

Here's a question in response, why is anti-semitism such an important issue? You don't here about people being anti-black, anti-oriental, anti-muslim, these are none issues. But to be an anti-semite, oh, bloody murder! For a group of people who don't even make up 1% of Earth's population, don't you think they're getting a little too much attention?

It's probably a combination of several factors, including the historical persecution (and presence) of Jews in Europe and North America. I doubt anti-semitism is really on many Asian people's radar, for instance.

Secondly, there is the "recent-ness" factor: Just 60 years ago, 1/3rd of the world's Jews were wiped out. (Compare this, for instance, with Western persecutions of blacks, Asians, Muslims: they differ in both scope- they were not massacred wholesale- and recentness. The genocide of the Native Americans is comparable in scope, but differs significantly in recentness. As the space between the Holocaust and today increases, one of the challenges Holocaust memorializers face is, in fact, trying to FIGHT the natural trend to forget things that haven't directly impacted OUR experiences. Holocaust memorializers want to ensure that what happened with the Native Americans, for instance, who a lot of people don't even think about, doesn't happen with the Holocaust. As I said before, this doesn't necessarily indicate a failing on behalf of Holocaust memorializers- I think it would be better if, on the contrary, more people were inspired to memorialize both their own culture's accomplishments, as well as tragedies. I think there should be a Native American Genocide Museum, as well as one for the Armenians, etc. I know there's a Civil Rights Museum, for instance, in the South.)

And, not only that, at the time, there were a lot of reports cirulating about the killings, and many people either ignored them, or didn't care. So guilt also likely plays a part.

I wasn't even alive when the holocaust allegedly happened. I wasn't alive when the "Native" Americans were allegedly killed (remember, there was no nation before the whites got here, just a loose collection of warring indian tribes, so we whites are the "Natives" of the nation, because we built the nation, the indians are natives of the land). And I wasn't alive when the jews brought the blacks over here as slaves. (90% of the slave ships were jewish owned)

I'm tired of being beaten up for things that either:

A) Probably didn't even happen (Holocaust)

B) I wasn't around when it happened (Alleged Holocaust, Indian genocide, slavery, etc)

C) Was actually the doing of another group of people! (African Slave Trade)





http://www.hiddenmysteries.com//redir/index322.html

WHO Brought the Slaves to America

by unknown


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHO Brought the Slaves to America is an expose with insights into the trafficking of humans to the Americas. Little known facts are brought forth from the hidden or concealed history of the United States.

Quotes:
"If the Negro people ever learn what the Jews did to the Black people of Africa there could be an uprising unequalled in American history."

"Eyrger and Sayller, with strong Rothschild connections in Spain, formed an agency called ASIENTO, which later operated in Holland and England. It was through these connections the Jews in Holland and England exerted influence and both of these countries cooperatied in helping the Jews provide Black Slaves for the Colonists."






http://www.radioislam.net/islam/english/toread/jewslave.htm



Overwhelming Evidence
The history that the old "Black-Jewish Coalition" clumsily avoids is the entire three century history of Jewish presence in South America and the Caribbean. But other highly acclaimed Jewish scholars have not been so blind:

·Lee M. Friedman, a one-time president of the American Jewish Historical Society, wrote that in Brazil, where most of the Africans actually went, "the bulk of the slave trade was in the hands of Jewish settlers."
·Marcus Arkin wrote that the Jews of Surinam used "many thousands" of Black slaves.
·Herbert I. Bloom wrote that "the slave trade was one of the most important Jewish activities here (in Surinam) as elsewhere in the colonies." He even published a 1707 list of Jewish buyers by name with the number of Black humans they purchased.
·Cecil Roth, writer of 30 books and hundreds of articles on Jewish history, wrote that the slave revolts in parts of South America "were largely directed against [Jews] as being the greatest slave-holders of the region."
·"I gather," wrote Jewish scholar Wilfred Samuels, "that the Jews [of Barbados] made a good deal of their money by purchasing and hiring out negroes..."
·According to the Jewish historians, all Barbadian Jews owned slaves - even the rabbi had "the enjoyment of his own two negro attendants."
·In Curaçao which was a major slave trading depot, Isaac and Susan Emmanuel report that "the shipping business was mainly a Jewish enterprise."
·Says yet another Jewish writer of the Jews of Curaçao, "Almost every Jew bought from one to nine slaves for his personal use or for eventual resale."
·Seymour B. Liebman in his New World Jewry, made it clear that "[t]he ships were not only owned by Jews, but were manned by Jewish crews and sailed under the command of Jewish captains."
·Moshe Kahan stated bluntly that in 1653-1658, " Jewish-Marrano merchants were in control of the Spanish and Portuguese trade, were almost in control of the Levantine trade...were interested in the Dutch East and West Indian companies, were heavily involved in shipping; and, most important, had at their disposal large amounts of capital."
·In Brazil, where most of our kidnapped ancestors were sent, Jewish scholar Arnold Wiznitzer is most explicit about Jewish involvement:

I wasn't even alive when the holocaust allegedly happened. I wasn't alive when the "Native" Americans were allegedly killed (remember, there was no nation before the whites got here, just a loose collection of warring indian tribes, so we whites are the "Natives" of the nation, because we built the nation, the indians are natives of the land)

What constitutes a nation? What rubric are you using to make this qualification?

(90% of the slave ships were jewish owned)

Prove it.


A) Probably didn't even happen (Holocaust)

Right. My relatives killed themselves. And burned their own bodies. And convinced the survivors to lie. That makes sense.

B) I wasn't around when it happened (Alleged Holocaust, Indian genocide, slavery, etc)

Exactly who has been "beating you up" for the Indian genocide? I'm not suggesting ANYONE be "beaten up" for things that they didn't do, INCLUDING the Holocaust. I don't blame today's Germans for what their grandparents did.

C) Was actually the doing of another group of people! (African Slave Trade)

Feel free to prove this. Needless to say, I don't accept "Radio Islam" as a reliable source.

What constitutes a nation? What rubric are you using to make this qualification?



Prove it.




Right. My relatives killed themselves. And burned their own bodies. And convinced the survivors to lie. That makes sense.



Exactly who has been "beating you up" for the Indian genocide? I'm not suggesting ANYONE be "beaten up" for things that they didn't do, INCLUDING the Holocaust. I don't blame today's Germans for what their grandparents did.



Feel free to prove this. Needless to say, I don't accept "Radio Islam" as a reliable source.


http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/whobroughtslaves.html


Name of Ship
Real Owners
Nationality

Abigail
Aaron Lopez,
Moses Levy, and
Jacob Franks
Jews

Crown
Isaac Levy and
Nathan Simpson
Jews

Nassau
Moses Levy
Jew

Four Sisters
Moses Levy
Jew

Anne & Eliza
Justus Bosch and
John Abrams
Jews

Prudent Betty
Henry Cruger and
Jacob Phoenix
Jews

Hester
Mordecai and
David Gomez
Jews

Elizabeth
Mordecai and
David Gomez
Jews

Antigua
Nathan Marston and
Abram Lyell
Jews

Betsy
William De Woolf
Jew

Polly
James De Woolf
Jew

White Horse
Jan de Sweevts
Jew

Expedition
John and Jacob
Roosevelt
Jews

Charlotte
Moses and Sam Levy
Jacob Franks
Jews

Caracoa
Moses and Sam Levy
Jews

What constitutes a nation? What rubric are you using to make this qualification?



Right. My relatives killed themselves. And burned their own bodies. And convinced the survivors to lie. That makes sense.





Your relatives, well about 100,000 jews died of Typhus in the relocation camps that were established to keep them safe from the communists and to keep them from being forced to become partisans... Much like the japense were put into internment camps in the USA, for their own safety and for the safety of the nation.

But there was no typhus epidemic ravaging the USA like there was in Europe. Historians all agree the typhus epidemic ravaged Europe during the war.

The neocon/Zionist lobby has made serious efforts to equate anti-Zionism (opposition to Israeli religious nationalism and colonialism) with anti-Semitism. But it's bullshit. There is, unfortunately, a rise in anti-Semitism among Muslim populations in Europe, but there has been a far more serious rise in Islamophobia since September 11.

Vas.

Big up yourself, well said.

I understand that this thread is about anti-semitism. But the term 'Semite' applies to a broad swath of humanity, not just European Jewry.

In fact, you can't really describe European Jews as "Semites". They have lived and mingled with Europeans for thousands of years and are by all appearances 'white'. In fact most of the ones I have met have Germanic last names!

The only real semites today are natives of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Palestine.

Consequentially the only real "Anti-Semite" is Ariel Sharon and his supporters.

Your relatives, well about 100,000 jews died of Typhus in the relocation camps that were established to keep them safe from the communists and to keep them from being forced to become partisans... Much like the japense were put into internment camps in the USA, for their own safety and for the safety of the nation.

I refer to you to www.nizkor.com, should you be genuinely interested in learning about the Holocaust.

As far as your "universalway" proof, let's just say I'm not about to swayed by something that includes as sources:

- The International Jew
- Jewish Tribal Review
- The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews (published by the Nation of Islam)
- The Truth Establishment Institute, whose book reviews include the titles, "The Zionist Terror Network", "The Jewish Onslaught", and "The Founding Myths of Israel" (written by Holocaust "revisionist" Roger Garaudy) and who have "Radio Islam" posted in their links section.

Furthermore, the list you posted only contains 15 ships. Call it a hunch, but I'm going to go ahead and guess there were more than 15 ships operating throughout the 400-odd years of African and Carribean slavery.

Lastly, your assertion that Jews were somehow "behind" or "responsible" (implying they hold sole or primary responsibility) the slave trade has been debunked.

http://www.pitt.edu/utimes/issues/27/3295/19.html

Jews were never dominant in slave trade, Pitt historian says

Recent "spurious" claims to the con- trary, Jews were never a dominant force in the Atlantic slave trade, according to a statement co-authored by Pitt history professor Seymour Drescher and endorsed recently by the Council of the American Historical Association (AHA).

Drescher and Yale historian David Brion Davis, experts on the history of slavery and anti-slavery movements, wrote the statement disputing charges that Jews played a disproportionate role as traders and owners of African slaves.

Such charges have appeared most prominently in the anonymous book, "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews," published by the Nation of Islam in 1991, and in statements by some self-described Afrocentric academicians, including Leonard Jeffries, head of black studies at City University of New York's City College.

Drescher said he fears the anti-Jewish claims have been gaining acceptance in recent years thanks to uncritical media publicity and the growing popularity of Jeffries and the Nation of Islam's Khalid Muhammad on the college lecture circuit. The question of Jewish involvement in the Atlantic slave trade has not been a divisive issue here, said Drescher and Joseph Adjaye, acting chairperson of Africana studies. Two years ago, faculty from history and Africana studies discussed "a number of issues and grievances," Drescher said. "One thing we agreed on was that the role of Jews in the slave trade had been marginal." Laurence Glasco, a history faculty member who has team-taught a Pitt course on "Blacks and Jews" with Barbara Burstin of history and Jewish studies, said, "From what I've seen, there isn't a whole lot of tension between blacks and Jews on this campus generally." As for the issue of Jews and African slavery, Glasco said, "I'm sure there are people in certain circles in Pittsburgh who follow this and read the literature from the Nation of Islam and so forth, but I don't find much of that on the Pitt campus. Whether it will come here some day is another matter." Glasco, who is African-American, said he supports the Davis-Drescher statement.

In January, the AHA Council approved a resolution condemning "any statement alleging that Jews played a disproportionate role in the exploitation of slave labor or in the Atlantic slave trade." The council will publish its resolution and the Davis-Drescher statement in this month's issue of its newsletter. The Davis-Drescher statement reads as follows: "During the past few years there have been a number of egregious assaults on the historical record in institutions of higher learning and at educational conferences. These assaults implicate Jews as a dominant group in the Atlantic slave trade and the enslavement of Africans in the New World. The claims so misrepresent the historical record, however, that we believe them only to be part of a long anti-Semitic tradition that presents Jews as negative central actors in human history. In such scenarios, Jews are the secret force behind every major social development from capitalism to democracy, every major cataclysm from the Medieval pandemic of the plague through the French and Russian Revolutions to the collapse of Communism, and now, incredibly, appear for the first time as the secret force behind slavery. Unfortunately, the media have given the latest charges wide currency, while failing to dismiss them as spurious. As professional historians, who have closely examined and assessed the empirical evidence, we cannot remain silent while the historical record is so grossly violated.

"Atlantic slavery was an intercontinental enterprise extending over nearly four centuries. Ethnically, the participants included Arabs, Berbers, scores of African ethnic groups, Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutch, Jews, Germans, Swedes, French, English, Danes, white Americans, Native Americans and even thousands of New World people of African descent who became slaveholding farmers or planters themselves. Since Portugal and Spain barred Jews from their empires, and since, by the 16th century most of the Jews who weren't either killed or converted in Western Europe had fled eastward, it was impossible for Jews to play more than a marginal role in a vast system that attracted tens of thousands of pagans, Muslims, Catholics and Protestants. Even in Holland and the Dutch colonies, where Jews were allowed to make their main 'contribution' to New World slavery as merchants and planters, they always formed a minority. Similarly, Jews played only a nominal role in the slave system in the American South. Never more than a tiny fraction of the white population, they never formed more than a minuscule proportion of slaveholders."

You might also check this out from what I consider to be more reliable sources:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_3_33/ai_61372270

http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~plarson/smuseum/jas.htm

In my years of teaching about slavery and the slave trade, this is perhaps the most frequent and persistent of the questions I consistently receive. Most of the askers are either Jews or African Americans. The short answer is that persons of Jewish heritage played only a peripheral role in either the slave trade or as slave owners. The idea that some Jews participated in the slave trade and were slave owners often comes up in a context in which responsibility for the slave trade is placed mainly at the feet of Jews. This is wrong. We must question why there is such interest in Jews and the slave trade. Never once in my classroom has anyone asked, for example, if Norwegians or Danes or--for that matter--Christians--participated in the slave trade. Even asking the question implies some special relationship of Jews to enslavement. The vast majority of individuals involved in and benefitting from the slave trade were either Africans or Christian Europeans.

http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~plarson/smuseum/baj.htm

http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~plarson/smuseum/welcome.htm

United States religions:
Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10%

I'm sorry, I find it very hard to believe that only 1 in 10 Americans are athiests.

I also find it hard to swallow that over 84% (I'm assuming "other" also includes the many other Christian demoninations such as Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Quakers, Amish etc etc etc) of Americans are Christians of one form or another.

I'm not disputing your quote, but I am disputing the source's accuracy.

Either that, or the world should be a LOT more afraid of America than it already is :p [j/k]

Lastly, your assertion that Jews were somehow "behind" or "responsible" (implying they hold sole or primary responsibility) the slave trade has been debunked.

http://www.pitt.edu/utimes/issues/27/3295/19.html



You might also check this out from what I consider to be more reliable sources:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_3_33/ai_61372270

http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~plarson/smuseum/jas.htm



http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~plarson/smuseum/baj.htm

http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~plarson/smuseum/welcome.htm



Yes and the man Seymour Drescher *CoughJewCough* is a reliable and unbiased source when dealing with matters concerning jews being guilty or innocent. Talk about impartial!



Truth about Holocaust:


Institute For Historical Review
http://www.ihr.org/


Zundel Site:
http://www.zundelsite.org/index.html

You know, revionist historians kind of remind me of little kids who hide inder the sheets from monsters:

"If I can't see it, it doesn't exist"

You know, revionist historians kind of remind me of little kids who hide inder the sheets from monsters:

"If I can't see it, it doesn't exist"


I always thought by examining things more closely, we can only learn more. We have nothing to lose. Do we have anything to lose by asking more questions? Doing more tests etc?

In fact, you can't really describe European Jews as "Semites".

Says who? Based on what?

They have lived and mingled with Europeans for thousands of years

Lived and mingled, yes. Intermarried? Debateable.

and are by all appearances 'white'. In fact most of the ones I have met have Germanic last names!

Which proves WHAT, exactly? Jews have been living in Europe for, as you said, thousands of years. Skin tones change depending on environment, and I don't see how Jews living in Europe (many of whom spoke Yiddish, a combination of Hebrew, Aramaic, and a German dialect, and many of whom lived in German-speaking areas) having GERMANIC surnames- most of which were ASSIGNED to them less than 200 years ago- proves a damn thing about anything, including "Semitic-ness".

The only real semites today are natives of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Palestine.

Says who? Not Webster's, for one:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=semite

Main Entry: Sem·ite
Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French sémite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

Consequentially the only real "Anti-Semite" is Ariel Sharon and his supporters.

It seems you need a refresher:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Anti-Semitism

The political writer Wilhelm Marr is credited with coining the German word Antisemitismus in 1873, at a time when racial science was fashionable in Germany but religious prejudice was not. This term was offered as an alternative to the older German word Judenhass, meaning Jew-hating, but did nothing to lessen Marr's reputation as an anti-Semite. (See also the coinage of the term Palestinian by Germans to refer to the nation or people known as Jews, as distinct from the religion of Judaism.)

So far as can be ascertained, the word was first printed in 1881. In that year Marr published "Zwanglose Antisemitische Hefte," and Wilhelm Scherer used the term "Antisemiten" in the "Neue Freie Presse" of January. The related word semitism was coined around 1885.

Originally, the term referred to prejudice towards Jews alone, and not to people who speak semitic languages as a whole (e.g., Arabs). For nearly a century this has been the only use of this word. In recent decades, however, some people have argued that the the term anti-Semitism should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs, since Arabic is a semitic language but this usage has not been widely adopted.

So in fact, the words "anti-semitism" and "anti-semite" were actually coined over ten years BEFORE the word "semite"!

The fact remains that Jews are indeed considered semites under both contemporary and older definitions. Furthermore, anti-Semitism has historically, and largely continues to be, used in specific reference to hostility or hatred for Jews. To say that "the only real Semites are present-day Arabs" is nothing short of absurd, as is your Sharon comment.

It could be that the term "anti-semite" will one day come to be widely used to both Jews and Arabs. However, this has yet to occur, and the word generally has retained its initial definition: anti-semite = Jew-hater.

Ultimately, anti-semites will continue to exist, regardless of nomenclature. Alan Dershowitz has suggested that future anti-Semites be called "Judeopaths", for accuracy's sake.

I always thought by examining things more closely, we can only learn more. We have nothing to lose. Do we have anything to lose by asking more questions? Doing more tests etc?

Nothing at all. But all of the revionist hitorians I have read or heard seem to have a definite agenda - they are not unemotionally sifting through evidence trying to prove or disprove anything; they are searching exclusively for evidence that supports their point of view, and discarding evidence that shows them wrong.

If you can point me to a dispassionate and unbiased historian's research on the authenticity of the holocaust, I'd be much obliged.

Okay, first of all, I'm Jewish by birth, so it wouldn't make sense to be Anti-semitic...I'll say that right off. And I have no patience for the bozos in the Klan either who just want to hate on everyone without giving any thought to the issues behind the hate. But I will say a few things. First of all, the Holocaust DID see more Jewish people killed than any other minority group in Europe, but this was partly due to the larger numbers of Jews than of most minority groups. A lot of people don't know just how blood thirsty the Nazis were, but, for example, one of their programs involved putting small handicapped children into the ovens among the first to put them out of their misry and weed out the inferior genes. Anyone dumb enough at that time to be openly homosexual was also among the first loaded onto the trains, and if you were one of the few Negroes in Europe and a Nazi saw you, just forget it. Granted, Hiltler had the biggest prejudice against the Jews, but he was also a sociopathic nut out to kill anyone who looked at him crosseyed. And speaking of cross-eyed, I also learned at the Holocaust museum that at some point Hitler even started tagging and jailing people who WORE GLASSES just because their eyes weren't perfect. I'm not saying that Hitler wasn't a horrible and Anti-semitic man...I'm just trying to put the scope of his hate into perspective.
I also have this to say about Israel...us Jewish people have to accept that there is a difference between people who hate Jews, and people who simply flat out disagree with some of Sharon's politics. I'm not saying that I agree with the Palestinians either, but frankly, I'm not entirely proud of my heritage as of late in regards to this man's behavior. And I'm JEWISH! Yes, I think Anti-Semitism is wrong, but I think that it is wrong to keep people for expressing their true feelings about Israel's politics by calling everyone who disagrees with them an Anti-semite. That is all i have to say on the issue.
Blessed Be.

Yes and the man Seymour Drescher *CoughJewCough* is a reliable and unbiased source when dealing with matters concerning jews being guilty or innocent. Talk about impartial!

Are you implying the American Historical Association is composed entirely of Jews? Or perhaps that John Hopkin's Pier Larson is in fact, a crypto-Jew?

I'm not picking random Jews here to defend my case. I'm picking academics from reputable institutions. People like you are citing the Nation of Islam, Henry Ford, Jewish Tribal Review, the IHR, and Zundelsite.

Guess who I trust more?

Nothing at all. But all of the revionist hitorians I have read or heard seem to have a defnite agenda - they are not unemotionally sifting through evidence trying to prove or disprove anything; they are searching exclusively for evidence that supports their point of view, and discarding evidence that shows them wrong.

If you can point me to a dispassionate and unbiased historian's research on the authenticity of the holocause, I'd be much obliged.


Jewish Historian David Cole, who maintains that he wants to find out the truth for himself, he went to Auschwitz and taped the trip there, he used to say the holocaust didn't happen after he saw Auschwitz and asked numerous questions, sifted through boxes of data, and personally discredited many eye witness testimonies that had to do with "I was standing in this part of the camp and we couldn't see what was going on in part X", Mr. Cole went to where they claimed to be standing, and it was clear what they said they couldn't see, they could see, etc.

He was forced to withdraw his support for revision after the Jewish Defense League (The same group that mailed a bomb to an arab congressman) posted his name, photo, and address on their web site.

His documentary was called, "The Truth Behind The Gates Of Auschwitz."

I also learned at the Holocaust museum that at some point Hitler even started tagging and jailing people who WORE GLASSES just because their eyes weren't perfect. .

Himmler wore glasses, numerous field marshals and generals wore them. I'm sorry, but at that "museum" you were grossly misinformed.


I heard in 1999 that at some point on the day ushering in the new year on 2000, the world was going to blow into pieces from Y2K. You know what, that theory didn't quite pan out.

Hitler had a Jewish grandfather too...did you know THAT??? Who said this man made perfect sense?

Hitler had a Jewish grandfather too...did you know THAT??? Who said this man made perfect sense?



The SS doctors determined there was a 25% chance Hitler was 1/8 jewish. (Meaning his grandfather would have been 1/2 jew, and his father 1/4 jew) or something like that. But a 25% chance, let's just say I'd not bet my life on a 1 in 4 chance. So don't hold your breath is basically what I'm saying.

You are truly ignorant if you think I'd buy into that Y2K BS......next thing you'll ask me if the apocolypse is coming because the Jews have returned to Israel....gimme a break!

Jewish Historian David Cole, who maintains that he wants to find out the truth for himself, he went to Auschwitz and taped the trip there, he used to say the holocaust didn't happen after he saw Auschwitz and asked numerous questions, sifted through boxes of data, and personally discredited many eye witness testimonies that had to do with "I was standing in this part of the camp and we couldn't see what was going on in part X", Mr. Cole went to where they claimed to be standing, and it was clear what they said they couldn't see, they could see, etc.

He was forced to withdraw his support for revision after the Jewish Defense League (The same group that mailed a bomb to an arab congressman) posted his name, photo, and address on their web site.

His documentary was called, "The Truth Behind The Gates Of Auschwitz."

If you're going to take a look at Cole, you might as well take a look at his detractors- including himself:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/5338/psa/cole.html

Most significant:

I would like to state for the record that there is no question in my mind that during the Holocaust of Europe's Jews during World War II, the Nazis employed gas chambers in an attempt to commit genocide against the Jews. At camps in both Eastern and Western Europe, Jews were murdered in gas chambers which employed such poison gases as Zyklon B and carbon monoxide (in the Auschwitz camp, for example, the gas chambers used Zyklon B). The evidence for this is overwhelming and unmistakable.

And just as I must set the record straight concerning my views, it is also incumbent on me to set the record straight regarding the video "documentaries" and media appearances I did from 1991 to 1994. These "documentaries" are merely videotaped garbage filled with self-hatred and pseudo-intellectual nonsense. My "media appearances" were nothing but an embarrassment. My glazed look, specious reasoning, and talking-in-circles during my talk show appearances would have hopefully alerted any astute viewers that this was a man not in touch with reality.

It has been brought to my attention that Bradley Smith is still using one of my videos in advertisements he is running on college campuses. Therefore, I would like to make these additional points: This video is being advertised without my consent, and I denounce this video as being without worth. Bradley Smith is no historian, and denial is no "historical field". Students on college campuses should look elsewhere to find out about the Holocaust. To these students, I would say, look to books like Hilberg's "Destruction of the European Jews", Yahil's "The Holocaust", and Dawidowicz's "War against the Jews" for correct information. If your school library doesn't stock these books, have them order copies. Do not pay any attention to any "David Cole" videos, except to rightly denounce them as frauds.

Also see: http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/cole.asp

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/c/cole.david/

Hitler killed people in his camps who had 1/32 Jewish blood, meaning that even if you are right, and his grandpa was half Jewish, he fit his own definition for camp internment.

Hitler killed people in his camps who had 1/32 Jewish blood, meaning that even if you are right, and his grandpa was half Jewish, he fit his own definition for camp internment.

That has never been proven, only theorized.

If you're going to take a look at Cole, you might as well take a look at his detractors- including himself:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/5338/psa/cole.html



]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/5338/psa/cole.html


There is speculation that Cole was pressured into making this retraction to the JDL due to a thinly-guised death threat posted on the JDL website on December 30, 1997.

Point granted, but didn't this all start because Hitler didn't get into art school and Jewish students had the edge? I mean the guy was mad let's just leave it at that, Jewish or no. I mean can you imagine killing millions of minority people just because affirmative action kept you out of Harvard? Give me a break!

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/5338/psa/cole.html

There is speculation that Cole was pressured into making this retraction to the JDL due to a thinly-guised death threat posted on the JDL website on December 30, 1997.

Could be. From my perspective, though, it's a moot point: even if Cole's retraction isn't genuine, his assertions have already been debunked.

Check the Nizkor documents.

Point granted, but didn't this all start because Hitler didn't get into art school and Jewish students had the edge? I mean the guy was mad let's just leave it at that, Jewish or no. I mean can you imagine killing millions of minority people just because affirmative action kept you out of Harvard? Give me a break!


I've seen his paintings, they were good. Had the jews been more accomodating to his art, then maybe WW2 might have been totally different (I still believe Japan would have started a war with America, or their war with China would have erupted into other things. Or perhaps Stalin would have started the war)

They said because Hitler only painted landscapes and never people, that his art was lacking. But wasn't it the jewish art critics who always would say, "Different is good"... I rest my case.

Point granted, but didn't this all start because Hitler didn't get into art school and Jewish students had the edge? I mean the guy was mad let's just leave it at that, Jewish or no. I mean can you imagine killing millions of minority people just because affirmative action kept you out of Harvard? Give me a break!

The way I heard it, Hitler didn't get in because he could draw landscapes but all his people turned out as stick figures.

"Lack of talent" doesn't translate into "Affirmative action victim".

My only point was that even IF he WAS robbed of his chance to do art (which is a matter of opinion), mass genocide is only the answer of a lunatic. I'm not saying it definitely WAS a matter of affirmative action...maybe the Jewish artists were better. Or maybe the guy deciding on admissions had no talent. Or maybe Hitler sucked. At any rate, when you get screwed over, you go home and write a letter to the editor...you don't open death and internment camps.

The truth is no one knows why Hitler was exactly the way he was, theories have been abound over the years as to why it was, from a Jewish seller telling him his paintings sucked, to his father being Jewish (and we do know he hated his father), to him simply being a young impressionable mind in Vienna, the capitol of Anti-semitism in Europe at the time (and boasting a large Jewish population at the same time), to him just being born like that. But regardless of the reasons, it cannot be denied he was a sick, twisted, disgusted perversion of a human being who delighted in the mass murder of other human beings and the feeling power gave him (along with the morphine he was addicted to).

The truth is no one knows why Hitler was exactly the way he was, theories have been abound over the years as to why it was, from a Jewish seller telling him his paintings sucked, to his father being Jewish (and we do know he hated his father), to him simply being a young impressionable mind in Vienna, the capitol of Anti-semitism in Europe at the time (and boasting a large Jewish population at the same time), to him just being born like that. But regardless of the reasons, it cannot be denied he was a sick, twisted, disgusted perversion of a human being who delighted in the mass murder of other human beings and the feeling power gave him (along with the morphine he was addicted to).




Hmm... Hitler wasn't addicted to morphine. You're thinking of Goering.


By the way, a sample of his work and a story about the cancelling of the showcasing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3456169.stm

The truth is no one knows why Hitler was exactly the way he was, theories have been abound over the years as to why it was, from a Jewish seller telling him his paintings sucked, to his father being Jewish (and we do know he hated his father), to him simply being a young impressionable mind in Vienna, the capitol of Anti-semitism in Europe at the time (and boasting a large Jewish population at the same time), to him just being born like that. But regardless of the reasons, it cannot be denied he was a sick, twisted, disgusted perversion of a human being who delighted in the mass murder of other human beings and the feeling power gave him (along with the morphine he was addicted to).

Not to mention he probably had a lot of bitterness over only having one testicle.

But yeah, he truly had a twisted mind, and nothing's a better indication of that than trying to read his book. Ugh.

Hmm... Hitler wasn't addicted to morphine. You're thinking of Goering.


By the way, a sample of his work and a story about the cancelling of the showcasing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3456169.stm

Nice painting. But it doesn't disprove the "good landscapes, shitty people" theory.

Hmm... Hitler wasn't addicted to morphine. You're thinking of Goering.


By the way, a sample of his work and a story about the cancelling of the showcasing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3456169.stm


Here is a larger selection of his art.


http://www.tightrope.cc/hitlerart.htm

Hmm... Hitler wasn't addicted to morphine. You're thinking of Goering.


By the way, a sample of his work and a story about the cancelling of the showcasing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3456169.stm

His personal doctor frequently had to give him morphine and other such drugs from 1942 onwards until the end of the war, becuase Hitler developed an addiction to them. This is why whether or not he had Parkinson's is debated, becuase the most famous video that shows this is the final time Hitler saw off German soldiers (really little boys with big uniforms), his hand is behind his back and shaking uncontrollably, it can't be decided whether this is Parkinsons or him suffering withdrawal, since medical supplies were almost non-existent.

The paintings really aren't bad...the landscapes are kinda nice...Currier and Ivesish....I must say though...the people are a bit flat. Sword and Shield...I agree with you, since I had to read Mine Kamph in High School...I was crying by the end of it. It's hard to believe those pretty pictures were created from a heart so full of hate.

The paintings really aren't bad...the landscapes are kinda nice...Currier and Ivesish....I must say though...the people are a bit flat. Sword and Shield...I agree with you, since I had to read Mine Kamph in High School...I was crying by the end of it. It's hard to believe those pretty pictures were created from a heart so full of hate.

It really is a sick book to read, there is a "Sequel" to it as well, that was meant to be published but never was (never finished), it's not really the same though, since he wrote it under completely different conditions, and it really is more like a collection of notes. It details what was to be done after his visions illustrated in Mein Kampf, not quite as sickening, more like a madman's dream for the future.

Skin tones change depending on environment

Incorrect, skin tones change based on genetics only. The reason why darker people live in warmer climates is because they're skin tone is less likely to burn and therefore more attractive to potential mates. This evolutionary process takes much longer than a couple thousand years, therefore the only possible way for semitic people to have gotten lighter skin is through inter-marriage.

Generally speaking Jewish people look like the wider population that they live in, whether it be England, Morocco, Sicily, Yemen, or Lithuania. This is because of lots and lots of inter-marriage.

So in fact, the words "anti-semitism" and "anti-semite" were actually coined over ten years BEFORE the word "semite"!

Of course they were not, you cannot have an anti-semite before having a semite. Besides, the term originally refers to a language family that developed before Hebrew or Israel ever existed.


Furthermore, anti-Semitism has historically, and largely continues to be, used in specific reference to hostility or hatred for Jews.

Yes, but this was usually based on a racial definition not a religious one, for example the Nazis considered people of "Semitic" race that had converted to Christianity to still be "Jewish". No doubt if Germany had been full of Lebanese and Syrians they would have befallen the same fate as Jews and Gypsies.

Well, yes, Hitler's artwork looks quite good to me. Now can I have a sample of everyone else's that applied in the same year(s) he was rejected for comparison? No? Even if he was treated unfairly at art school, it is hardly a reason that any sane mind would turn into an unreasoning hate of so many ethnic and social groups.

Hitler was a charasmatic leader, but not a partiuclarly smart one, either. All of Germany's economic and military successes during Hitler's reign can be directly attributed to the competence or hard work of one or more of his subordinates.

Anyway, this is all aside from the point really, isn't it?

I wouldn't say it is significantly on the rise here.
There has been a lot of attention to the attacks on Jewish graves in France (generally by Muslim immigrants). This then causes ill informed people to call France and all of Europe anti-semetic, this is then supported by Israel's current government who hope to gain from this by getting Jews in Europe to emmigrate to Israel to help reinforce the Jewish population in Israel at a time when the Jewish Israeli birthrate is slowing as the Arab Israeli birthrate is still large.

The fact is, there are also racist attacks against Muslims and other minority (and majority) groups by very small amounts of people, as there is everywhere. However, certain extreme movements within the Israeli government and elsewhere draw attention to those against Jews by using the emotionally charged "anti-semetism" term. Many of these same people also discracefully call European governments "anti-semetic" for critising Israel's actions against the Palestinians, when of course, these critisisms are not aimed at the Jewish religion, but at the Israeli government.


Couldn't agree anymore.

Question for all Europeans on this forum: Is anti-semitism really on the rise in Europe? If so is it on the rise in the white community, the muslim immigrant community, or both?

It is certainely on the rise in the Muslim community. Not necessarily really anti-Jews but just casual racism against them. With the white community, I think you are always gonna get people that don't like the Jews in the white community, especially on the right and this can be seen through parties like the BNP.

Also, I would say anger at Israel, rather than Jews is on the rise as a lot of people become more pro-Palestinian.

...
I'm tired of being beaten up for things that either:

A) Probably didn't even happen (Holocaust)

B) I wasn't around when it happened (Alleged Holocaust, Indian genocide, slavery, etc)
...

Riiiiight. Probably didn't even happen, I bet grandpa was lying all along, I bet he made the number-tattoo himself.
I bet all the witnesses were lying, I bet the nazis caught and judged were lying just as well, I bet the crematoriums(sp?) and gas chambers left in Auschwitz are just a fake, I bet Aushcwitz itself is a fake, the holocaust probably didn't even happen, yes? I bet 6 million Jews, and millions of Gypsies, homosexuals, Soviet prisoners etc. just... faded away, or something.
funny, you are.

I bet he made the number-tattoo himself.

Actually thats an IBM born idea.