The Holocaust - do we need to know? (page 11)

Kenneson

The crux of the matter is this. It doesn't matter how many (whether millions or hundreds of thousands) or how the Jews died, whether they were gassed, shot, starved to death, disease related, overworked, or what have you. That's really irrelevant. What makes it a holocaust was that they died because the Germans arrested them somewhere in their native countries and took them by force on trains to concentration camps (where they later died) or mass graves where they were shot, because they were Jews. They died because of co-ercion and a racist ideology, not because they were on vacation. Barbarism is still barbarism no matter how much you sugar coat it.

LittleToe

Realist:
Absolute tosh. You were quite happy to take up the banner of blood, until you realised that the tide wasn't going your way, because the counter-argument to that one is compelling.

"pure blooded" as you state is in this context nonesensical anyway as jews do not form a homogenous genetic group.

So what are you calling Jewish? Someone who represents some form of the Jewish religion?
Would you feel it were disproportionate if the majority of the leadership were Reformed Protestant, and the majority of the populate (a good number being SPanish speaking) were Catholic? What about the infusion of Eastern belief systems, especially in California? Is it appropriate that they are represented by Arnie, and is their beliefset represented in leadership?

I ask again, what are you calling Jewish?

Realist

little toe,

You were quite happy to take up the banner of blood, until you realised that the tide wasn't going your way, because the counter-argument to that one is compelling.

are you going insane? it was you who talked about blood issue.

my only respons to this was:

btw the 30% is not meant to be the "blood" percentage just the amount of people with german decent (it is unknown to me to what extend they are mixtures with other ethnic groups).

jews are a quite diverse genetic group with very different genetic/ethnic backgrounds (semitic from the middle east, various european ethnicities as these were forced to convert in the middle ages, a few black people, mixtures from interethnic marriages).

jews by the definition of jews are those born from a jewish mother. jewish imo are all those viewing themselves as jewish and identifying with jews as a group.

LittleToe

Realist:So you're saying that I can "claim" to be Jewish and that would be sufficient for you to be pissed off by me (especially if I joined an already disproportionate government)?

are you going insane?

Ah, my Germanic cousin, it is not I that is going insane. I'm not trying to revise history in an attempt to salve a national conscience. Nor was my nation involved even indirectly in attempts to selectively inbreed (it just happened by chance, due to living on an island )

it was you who talked about blood issue.

You know fine that I'm talking about genetics and heredity, here, a conversation which you were happy to engage in.

jews by the definition of jews are those born from a jewish mother.

So you can't go by surname, then?

Are you also saying that if they can trace their mom's female line back to Israel, even if no other genetic factor has included the Jewish genepool, that you'd still take issue with them taking office?

Realist

little toe,

So you're saying that I can "claim" to be Jewish and that would be sufficient for you to be pissed off by me (especially if I joined an already disproportionate government)?

again, you attack something i never said. i have no problem with jewish people (i have probably more jewish friends than you). I have a problem with them holding an extremely unproportional amount of power.

Nor was my nation involved even indirectly in attempts to selectively inbreed

both our nations have enough skeletons in the closet.

You know fine that I'm talking about genetics and heredity, here, a conversation which you were happy to engage in.

as a geneticist i have indeed no problem talking about human genetics or traits. however, in this context you were repeatedly referring to 'blood' and i answered repeatedly that the genetic factor is irrelevant.

So you can't go by surname, then?

a) that only someone born from a jewish mother is considered a jew is the religous definition as far as i know. it reflects the desire of the religous leaders to keep the group seperated from others - an essential factor when trying to keep identity outside your homeland.

b) in many cases the name can be misleading of course.

Are you also saying that if they can trace their mom's female line back to Israel, even if no other genetic factor has included the Jewish genepool, that you'd still take issue with them taking office?

what exactly is your argument here?

LittleToe

My point is that through religion, surname or birthright you have a broad definition of what constitutes a Jew.
Based on that definition you make an attack on the constitutionally agreed makeup of the USA leadership.

I would posit that you might feel more comfortable if the Germanic genepool had an improportional vote. The chances are that it already does, as I alluded to, yet THIS doesn't seem to concern you. However you appear (from this thread, and others) to be exclusively biased against the Jewish one...

You quack to the tune of the neo-nazi-history-revisionists, and yet portray yourself as ignorant of such a design.

i have probably more jewish friends than you

Are they aware of your views?

Golf

May I suggest you guys do some background check on the Khazarians.

Guest77

Realist

little toe,

My point is that through religion, surname or birthright you have a broad definition of what constitutes a Jew.
Based on that definition you make an attack on the constitutionally agreed makeup of the USA leadership.

the definition is very simple. everyone who considers himself jewish and who is a recognized member of the jewish community is a jew.

and oh am i so sorry for critizising the devine makeup of the US leadership.

I would posit that you might feel more comfortable if the Germanic genepool had an improportional vote. The chances are that it already does, as I alluded to, yet THIS doesn't seem to concern you. However you appear (from this thread, and others) to be exclusively biased against the Jewish one...

the germanic genepool in the US has not been siding with germany in the past. Thus i don't care about its contribution to the US gov. Also let me say this, if you do not prefer a US gov. that sides with your country than you are at best an idealistic fool.

To the second part of your sentence - the jewish contribution is way more unproportional than the germanic or any other and it causes the US to side with jewish interests in the middle east and elsewhere whether justified or not. Also if 50% of leading positions are taken by a minority of 5% then this naturally means that other qualified people are excluded from these positions. Therefore i have a problem with it.

If other groups have a problem with an unproportional germanic influence and pro german attitude of the US gov. (which i cannot discren at this point) than it is their very right to protest it.

You quack to the tune of the neo-nazi-history-revisionists, and yet portray yourself as ignorant of such a design.

Nazis side with nazi race ideology and advocate the elimination of what they view as inferior races. Debating aspects of the history - that was written by the victors - has nothing to do with siding with nazi ideology.

Are they aware of your views?

amazingly most of them have less problems with admitting the unproportionality of jews in the US gov. than you have.

Doubtfully Yours

I sort of dislike pounding on the same thing year after year. However, everyone must know this part of history.

DY

Golf

You ask, '...do we need to know?' Whether we do or not, what influence do we presently have over past history?

To those who want or need to know the puzzle of history, YES!

Guest77

The Holocaust - do we need to know?

Share this