The Jewish holocaust was an attempt, unparalleled in scope and thoroughness, to exterminate an entire people. Though plenty of “undesirables” were targetted as well ( gays, Rom, etc. ), it was the focus on the Jews that really drove the Nazi killing machines. To blithely dismiss it is a bit unfathomable to me.
Actually I’d say films of one sort or another have been made of all of the above.
Yes, many millions of Slavs died ( many of my relatives among them ). But there was a difference in that for the most part there wasn’t this rushed, systematic attempt to exterminate them all before the end of the war.
Well, because some of them are still alive for one thing. However this is sort of irrelevant, as these are rather separate issues.
Tamerlane , The Jewish holocaust is certainly one of the saddest and most vicious assaults on an ethnic group in the history of the world. However, to say it was unparalleled in scope and thoroughness is not objective. The United States government carried out what was probably the most thorough and effective holocaust in history against the natives of this continent. The Jewish culture survived and even continues to thrive while there is barely a trace left of the native Americans.
I don’t discount the Jewish holocaust at all but to consider it unparalled in scope and thoroughness shows a lack of consideration for other similar tragedies in history.
having previously stated with his attribution to me, as indicated by the quotation marks in which he enclosed his distortion of my remarks:
(Bolding mine.)
He then makes the odd accusation:
Thus demonstrating that he is either not bothering to actually read my posts or is incapable of understanding English text.
(Bolding added.) The eighth (and only gentile) great-grandparent is a woman, her daughter the grandmother is a woman and her daughter the mother is a woman and that is pretty indicative of maternal descent.
This is the exact inverse of the “Fred” scenario: in my first scenario, a person with seven Jewish great-grandparents would not be deemed Jewish in law (while being considered an ethnic Jew by most people unfamiliar to Jewish Law) and in his second scenario (as amended with my remarks on Inuit or Yanomamo ancestors) a person with seven Gentile great-grandparents might be considered Jewish, although to a person unfamilar with Jewish law, they would appear to be ethnic Inuit or Yanomamo and not Jewish.
This is not really diificult to understand (although it does require the ability to read for comprehension or a preference for understanding over bluster and vituperation).
Hank, I have not been changing my perspective, it only appears that way to you because you keep mischaracterizing my comments and setting up different straw men to demolish as you flail around with your distortions.
I disagree it shows a lack of consideration and I’m going to stick by my characterization.
The Amerindian near-genocide in North America was by comparison a flailing, intermittent and often uncoordinated “effort” that extends over a period of centuries, from well before the United States was founded and until at least the late 19th century was characteristic more of slowly, but ever-expanding series of border wars ( in which the Europeans almost always won ) between rival cultures. Even after the last vestiges of armed resistance were stamped out and the remaining Amerindians became essentially wards of the U.S., the significant damage done by U.S. agencies was as often the result of misguided attempts to assimilate Amerindians into the “white culture”, or was the result of neglect ( both benign and malevolent ) or internal corruption. And even at its worst, the American view of the Amerindian always remained conflicted - dismissive, callous, and antagonistic at various times on the one hand, but also often mixed with a certain admiring romanticism, sometimes even grudging respect.
The Jewish Holocaust was different in tone, style, and temporal scale - Carefully coordinated, absolutely cold-blooded mass assembly-line style slaughter in just a few short years. A slaughter which included a substantial number of its own citizens.
Both were utter tragedies. But I find the Jewish holocaust far more difficult to grasp on an intellectual level. The sheer organization of it was breathtaking ( obviously not in a good way ). I do think it is at least partially unique in this respect and I don’t think saying so in any way lessons the horror of what happened in post-WW I Armenia, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or any of a number of similar ( but not identical ) tragedies we could rattle off.
Did you even actually follow the link? His latest book contends that the official explanation for 9/11 was a lie. My question is simple: Is someone who contends this a nutcase? I have read 2 of the books you suggest. They were indeed interesting and insightful, in no way similar to the delusional ramblings of yourself or the esteemed Mr Icke.
Thank you for clearing that up, and I hope you understand my need to. Your answers were a little ambiguous, such that they might have come from someone who believed that the Holocaust was a myth generated by the International Jewry and its media.(Incidentally, what is your opinion of such people?)
You will find that many here, including myself, share your opinions on certain subjects. However, you will find no such agreement if you refuse to separate reasonable opinions from paranoid ramblings which are clearly as nutty as an Icke-cake, nor if you frame your opinions in such vitriolic language that it edges towards hate-speech. For example, I would advise against phrases such as
since they question whether you can truly care about those other victims of genocide or repression you mention. I disagree strongly with current Israeli government policy. Yet I would never say “Holocaust Schmolocaust” or the like.
In short: Welcome, but please use your critical thinking.
I believe the official explanation for 9-11 certainly has many unexplained anomalies. I also believe that it is most probably a lie, the motivation for which could be a conspiracy by certain elements within our government, or it could be that they are trying to cover their asses and hope they don’t get fried for gross negligence. My conclusions are all based on critical thinking, not delusional ramblings. David Icke is a nutcase for rambling about shape-shifting lizards, not for writing a book that says that the official explanation for 9-11 is a lie. Even schizophrenics have their moments of lucidity. Lots of people believe that the official explanation for 9-11 is fishy, including many reputable people from the military and foreign governments. I think that anyone who automatically accepts the official explanation is extremely gullible.
Sorry about the vitriol, but I am an alchemist. Like all alchemists, I am committed to the Great Work, which is the transmutation of the mind and spirit of humanity. You may have heard of the phrase, the unity of opposites. I automatically take the most unsupportable position in an argument, and then proceed to justify my position. This process reveals and hopefully rectifies the inherent biases and judgments in our discourse. VITRIOL is an acronym that stands for
Visita Interiora Terrae Rectificando Invenies Occultum Lapidem
Visit the interior of the Earth, rectify what you find there and you will find the philosopher’s stone. I think “harmonize” is a better term than rectify. If you have been through est or AA or any other psychic healing process, you will recognize that it is about bringing out into the light of day your most repressed guilts or shames and accepting yourself for having them. Denial,anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.
I believe that the Philosopher’s Stone is actually
rhythmical entrainment, a process that can harmonize disjunct analog signals.
So you’re an alchemist? Why, that would be “one who studies or practices alchemy”. Gotcha.
“Alchemy” is a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal cure for disease, and the process of transforming something common into something special. How’s it going with that gold thing? Are you rich yet?
Vitriol is NOT an acronym. It comes from Middle English from Middle French from Middle Latin, meaning “a sulfate of any of various metals, esp. a glassy hydrate of such a sulfate.” Or, as you sorta indicated, giving where credit is due, “something felt to resemble vitriol esp. in caustic quality, esp of virulence of feeling or of speech”. The second meaning applies.
The SDMB has a word for a poster who automically takes the most unsupportable position, just to stir shit up. You might want to think about that.
That is the superficial, materialistic view of alchemy. The gold is not real gold, it is symbolic.
VITRIOL is an acronym as I showed you. Vitriol is the word that you found in the dictionary. Once again, your hyperliteral androidness shows through. If I told you that FAIR was an acronym standing for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, would you look up the word fair in the dictionary and tell me the definition?
I am not taking an unsupportable view just to stir shit up. I am doing it to clarify that which was obscured. The leaden denials dissolve in the vitriol.
And what is the word for a poster who stirs shit up?
As in, someone that would “automatically take the most unsupportable position in an argument, and then proceed to justify my position.”
As in, someone who in real life is employed as an Occupational Health Specialist specialising in Chemical Hygeine at the University of Hawaii, but would claim to be an “alchemist”.
It’s always weird arguing with someone who seems to hold off-center views. You argue and argue, and then they suddenly open the door and reveal that they aren’t even living on the same planet as everyone else. Like arguing about biogeography with someone for a long time, and then they suddenly start talking about Noah’s Ark.
Mystic, you could have saved us a lot of time if you had revealed your Alchemist background earlier.
You are wrong, sirs. A troll is a giant creature from folklore. I suppose you believe in elves and hobbits too.
Oh, you mean that different communities of knowers can have different definitions of words that are consensually agreed upon? Fancy that.
Hey, even alchemists have to practice chemical hygiene.
Function: noun
Etymology: Norwegian troll & Danish trold, from Old Norse troll giant, demon; probably akin to Middle High German trolle lout
Date: 1616
: a dwarf or giant in Scandinavian folklore inhabiting caves or hills
But the heart of the book is Corbitt’s description of the mysterious figure of Hy Larner, who, along with Meyer Lansky, controlled organized crime in the U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s. Corbitt’s first-hand accounts of Larner’s dealings with shady figures like Lansky, the Shah of Iran and Manuel Noriega, as well as with agents of the Israeli government, the Mossad and the CIA, provide some new evidence of the extent of organized crime’s involvement with the government.
I’m proud to note that I knew that, if not conveyed the knowledge very lucidly.
It’s good to know that you think that bigotry is “the most usupportable position”. Really.
And why on earth do you keep recommending books and such after admitting that their position is “most unsupportable”? I mean, if here we have someone who read a lot of books of this kind, and still thinks that their position is “most unsupportable”, it can be argued that reading the books is a waste of time.