- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 5,095
- Reaction score
- 1,544
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
To imply that a single race controls all of the news outlets is a racist statement, and that's factually evident.
Wrong, the figure is just a bit under 6 million, around 5.9 million.
The claim that fewer Jews have perished is a claim that is identified with holocaust denial, and a claim that of course has no scientific or factual basis.
Such attack would be justified with the Iranian leadership's statements and steps towards a nuclear bomb and not with the Holocaust.
There is absolutely no logical reasoning behind your claim that the Holocaust should not be memorized and remembered.
Actually, the only other group that the Nazis have killed in the gas chambers besides the Jews are the Gypsies.
I don't see how that makes any difference. Were it just 5'000, it wouldn't change anything. It wouldn't make their extermination any less inexcusable.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Had the world known in advance that Hitler's plan was to exterminate a whole generation of Jews, would it have been wrong to thwart that plan with a preemptive attack on Germany before the really ugly stuff even started? Similarly, if it becomes clear that Iran would initiate a nuclear war with Israel, wouldn't the sensible thing to do be to try and stop it from happening?
I don't think he should have apologized at all. It may have been awkward and clumsy but he didn't say anything that was untrue. It's a fact that there is a strong Jewish presence in the media and it is also accurate that any attempt to view Hitler as anything but a red eyed boogey man who ate Jewish babies is met with an immediate attack with the "anti-Semite" slur. You cannot have a study of Hitler without paying the required nod of sympathy to the Jews without having some Jewish league or other come out whining about how you hate them for not giving them their perceived deserved place as the Earth's primary victims.
Look at what the Jewish coalitions did just for him making a clumsy statement...they came out in force, immediately calling him an anti-Semite and likening him to Mel Gibson, who actually did say some anti-Semetic things in his rant. To me, the word anti-Semite carries the same value as any of the other race cards played by Sharpton or Jackson or any of the other race baiters: absolutely nothing. If someone calls me an anti-Semite, racist, bigot, whatever...I just don't care any more.
IDk, considering over a hundred million people died to genocide or political oppression and only 6 million of them were Jews...
And if there were more movies on it rather than other genocides
And if american consciousness is formed by film...
I dont like the way he says 'jewish domination', but there is a heavy hand of jewish (and in the open and completely legal) interest in the news media,
Silly goober, you don't need to control all the businesses to control the industry. Most of the major news channels and newspapers are controlled by Jews and many of the others take their cues from those channels and newspapers. By extension Jews in effect control the media.
Also, there is nothing racist about stating something factual especially when it doesn't concern a race. While there is a distinct genetic group that corresponds to the Jewish population this does not make them a race.
Oliver Stone is correct to say Jews control the media and that, as a result, certain things are suppressed because ultimately many Jews are quite offended by any attempt to humanize Hitler or, as they see it, trivialize the Holocaust.
Raul Hilberg's Destruction of the European Jews estimated 5.1 million and while it was seen as a conservative estimate documentation has been found showing even his estimates for deaths inside some of the camps were substantially higher than the actual number of deaths. Many citing a figure closer to 6 million use the census and a bunch of other fuddly-duddly methods that have proven to be terribly inaccurate.
So more than 4 million and less than 5 million is saying the Holocaust didn't happen?
You and I both know the Holocaust has and will be brought up in any justification for war.
I never said it shouldn't, but we can certainly avoid using it to advance unrelated political and military agendas today.
Holocaust denial consists of claims that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust[1]—did not occur at all, or that it did not happen in the manner or to the extent historically recognized. Key elements of these claims are the rejection of any of the following: that the German Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews for extermination as a people; that more than five million Jews[1] were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies; and that genocide was carried out at extermination camps using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers.[2][3]
Holocaust deniers generally do not accept the term "denial" as an appropriate description of their point of view, and use the term Holocaust revisionism instead.[4] Scholars use the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists, who use established historical methodologies.[5] The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive historical evidence to the contrary.[6]
Most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples.[7] For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic[8] conspiracy theory.[9]
Demon of Light said:That is patently false. Gas chambers were used in the euthanasia campaign as well as being used against Poles and Soviet POWs. While there was no immediate intent to exterminate Poles and other Slavs the intention was definitely to wipe out these populations as well, however they were much larger populations and thus it would have required more time or substantially more infrastructure.
Silly goober, you don't need to control all the businesses to control the industry. Most of the major news channels and newspapers are controlled by Jews and many of the others take their cues from those channels and newspapers. By extension Jews in effect control the media.
Also, there is nothing racist about stating something factual especially when it doesn't concern a race. While there is a distinct genetic group that corresponds to the Jewish population this does not make them a race.
Oliver Stone is correct to say Jews control the media and that, as a result, certain things are suppressed because ultimately many Jews are quite offended by any attempt to humanize Hitler or, as they see it, trivialize the Holocaust.
So more than 4 million and less than 5 million is saying the Holocaust didn't happen?
I don't know about Jews dominating the media or whatever, but I do honestly feel that the history of Hitler taught in schools is very biased. He was an economic genius
Wikipedia said:Accusations of controlling the media
The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting documented the antisemitic canard that the "Jews control the media",[72] and they trace its origins to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (protocol twelve) and to Henry Ford's Dearborn Independent. J. J. Goldberg, Editorial Director of the newspaper The Forward, analyzed this myth[73] and concludes that, although Jews do hold many prominent positions in the U.S. media industry, they "do not make a high priority of Jewish concerns" and that Jewish Americans generally perceive the media as anti-Israel.[74] Variants on this theme have focused on Hollywood, the press,[75][76][77][78] and the music industry.[79][80][81][82][83]
I think many blacks in the media have prevented slave masters from being portrayed in conte. They always depict them as these harsh, racist, rich white people who committed atrocities.
/sarcasm
See how silly that is? Slavery was evil, hitler was evil. There is no cover up and there isn't some media conspiracy to paint them out of context. The problem is that the context is accurate, and it is true that hitler was evil. I don't know why this would bother anyone unless they sympathized with hitler or supported him. (hitler is in lowercase letters because such scum doesn't deserve to be capitalized).
It makes a difference if you want to be accurate.Plus any exaggeration should be discouraged.
Except Iran has no intent to initiate a nuclear war as this would end their government. Rather their desire is to have a deterrent that shields them from Israeli or U.S. military action. Talk of a second Holocaust is just a nice little way to get the proles running scared to their governments for protection.
Actually, it could be said with a straight face, about the slave owners, because many valued their slaves highly. Slaves were the caretakers of their children, teachers, house attendants, etc. The idea of the harsh slave master beating his slaves over the slightest offense is not historically accurate if one goes back and looks at period writings, letters, and diaries.
And no one here has made any assertion that Hitler was anything less than evil. The assertion has been that there were a lot more complex issues going on there than what is typically permitted to be taught.
Fair 'nuff.
I do not agree that Hitler was an economic genius. He based a lot of his economics on the short term, and on military actions that he could not win in the end. However, the one positive thing I will say about Hitler, is that as a propagandist and a motivator of people, he was one of the best. His ideals were certainly perverse, but consider the kind of person that could have mobilized people like he did.
My problem with his initial statement is that the point got completely lost under the implication that the Jewish people have gone too far in their effort to not allow the world to forget. That to me was utterly shocking. The world should never forget and the Jewish people have every right to keep reminding us of it.
Maybe the slave owner analogy wasn't a good one. I know several slave owners treated them like family and didn't beat them like the media says (due to the fact that being beaten reduces job performance). However atrocities were still committed and there were wicked slave owners as well.Actually, it could be said with a straight face, about the slave owners, because many valued their slaves highly. Slaves were the caretakers of their children, teachers, house attendants, etc. The idea of the harsh slave master beating his slaves over the slightest offense is not historically accurate if one goes back and looks at period writings, letters, and diaries.
And no one here has made any assertion that Hitler was anything less than evil. The assertion has been that there were a lot more complex issues going on there than what is typically permitted to be taught.
Of course he wasn't an economic genius. He was a socialist.
Maybe the slave owner analogy wasn't a good one. I know several slave owners treated them like family and didn't beat them like the media says (due to the fact that being beaten reduces job performance). However atrocities were still committed and there were wicked slave owners as well.
The problem I have with trying to shed hitler in a "better" light or being a Holocaust revisionist is the motive behind it. Personally I believe history is accurate, and what we know about the Holocaust did indeed happen to the degree that it was reported. Honestly, if someone was truly wanting to investigate because they have reason to believe something is factually incorrect, then I have no problem with that. However, many try to diminish the atrocity that was the Holocaust for political or racial means. I am against people trying to falsely revise history in order to appease or conform with an ideology/political position.
I don't understand the basis of your argument, you believe that some elements in Nazi Germany's policies or actions were forbidden from being taught (by who?), however what elements are you referring to exactly?
Hitler's economy policies are indeed being taught, and so are the rest of his regime's policies and taken actions.
That of course doesn't change the fact that the thing that is and will be most taught about his regime and the Nazi ideaology is the racism and the slaughtering of millions of innocents because of their race, and considering the conditions I think there's no wrong here, that is what Nazism identify with the most, the barbaric belief that one race is above all others, and that all others must be destroyed and elimenated.
You miss my point entirely. My point is that when speaking to a Jew or about the topic of Hitler, period, it's almost expected that you will speak with a tone of contrition for what Hitler did to the Jews even if the topic isn't about that aspect of Hitler's regime at all.
And no, I don't identify the Holocaust first and foremost with Hitler. Sorry. I just don't. I tend to identify his military mistakes, inflated and reckless ambitions, occult fascinations and his powerful successes in pulling Germany out of economic ruin in such a short time. The Jews are a secondary issue to the history of WW2 in my perception.
What you are talking about is the more common usage of historical revisionism... negationism. Historical revision based on factual investigation, without being ideologically based is fine. It's when it is based on negating historical facts that it isn't.
I get sick of them using the Holocaust, which is about to be fully a lifetime behind us and soon no one will be alive anymore who took part or was a victim of it, to advance completely unrelated agendas and as an excuse to get butthurt about some minor offense like an awkward statement by a celebrity. It's like the Holocaust is their Ace they can play every time the cards don't fall how they want. It gets old.
And frankly, while I believe the Holocaust is up there in terms of the magnitude of human atrocity, there are other people in this world who are suffering just as badly, if not worse. I'm just not even moved by the whole topic anymore.
"When speaking to a Jew"?
What do you mean?
That's an opinion that I cannot understand, Hitler is mostly identified with the Holocaust rather than with his economical policies due to the difference in the importance and effects of the actions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?