"The holocaust, far worse than one led you to believe"

[old.Tohtori]

You know you're in trouble when old.tohtori goes:

Nu-uh, not touching this *backs away from thread*

 

[fettoken]

Well. This disdain is pointed towards American and Israeli Jews. Obviously i did not condone the holocaust in any way.

You know you're in trouble when old.tohtori goes:

Nu-uh, not touching this *backs away from thread*

Oh come on, you have clubbed enough dead horses and seels in your day. You ARE deprived enough to touch this

 

[Raven]

It would help if you linked the article instead of posting vaguely legible ramblings

 

[fettoken]

http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/forintelsen-var-varre-an-man-trott

 

[Raven]

Just scanned through it. It isn't just talking about Jews but gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, POWs, political prisoners etc etc that were killed... which we know is true.

Whether the figures are true, who really knows? The Nazis in retreat probably cleared a lot of it up.

 

[Embattle]

A dailyfail link - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-500-camps-ghettos-persecute-Jews-Europe.html

 

[Scouse]

Funny that DailyFail link - considering they were the official Nazi party paper for the UK.

 

[Olgaline]

15-20 mill people "not just jews" either killed ..or put in jail....
seems realistic enough.

 

[Punishment]

Yup Germans lost over a million alone on the eastern front.

 

[Zenith]

Got damn jew propaganda. B*llshit so many jews were annihilated. Just an excuse to get more sympathy. No way there were that many jews in Europe at that time.

This gotta be one of the most ridiculous statements ive read in a while

 

[Lamp]

Since FH doesn't give shit about racism (its not against the CoC, right?), anyone object if I make a shitload of n-i-g-g-e-r references and say that blacks were never slaves?

 

[Zarjazz]

I can't say I've ever read the CoC but just from reading posts I believe it must say "anything is allowed as long as you also post pictures of boobs, ass or food".

 

[Zenith]

The funny thing is that based on the both the NY Times and Swedish article, Fettoken didnt actually read what it said

 

[DaGaffer]

Funny that DailyFail link - considering they were the official Nazi party paper for the UK.

I think "official" might be overstating things somewhat.

Back on topic; Fettoken, you're a racist dick.

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[Olgaline]

Since FH doesn't give shit about racism (its not against the CoC, right?), anyone object if I make a shitload of n-i-g-g-e-r references and say that blacks were never slaves?

as long as you dont show a picture of a shjlong or a ladie-beaver - All is good!

On a side note, I'm glad this thread didnt get insta nuked, as topics like these should never be taboo.

 

[Raven]

The only person around here allowed to break the CoC is DaGaffer.

 

[Gwadien]

The only person around here allowed to break the CoC is DaGaffer.

Hasn't he already broken his own CoC technically?

 

[Chilly]

Idiots should never be censored, gives us all something to chuckle at.

 

[fettoken]

The funny thing is that based on the both the NY Times and Swedish article, Fettoken didnt actually read what it said

I read it through, i do not believe this ongoing "research" is correct. Facts are being covered and distorted. Yes, the tinfoil hat goes on for the first time in a long while.

Idiots should never be censored, gives us all something to chuckle at.

I concur.

 

[Scouse]

I think "official" might be overstating things somewhat.

Maybe, but not by much:

[Owner and joint creator of the paper] Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the 1930s. Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them. In it, Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany"

*cough* nazisympathizers *cough*

Back on topic; Fettoken, you're a racist dick.

Not a racist. Jews aren't a race - they're just a bunch of sky-fairy worshippers that encourage inbreeding and hatred against all non-jews whilst performing male genital mutilation rituals on children and avoiding bacon.

So, not a race. But who in their right mind avoids bacon?

 

[DaGaffer]

Maybe, but not by much:


*cough* nazisympathizers *cough*


Not a racist. Jews aren't a race - they're just a bunch of sky-fairy worshippers that encourage inbreeding and hatred against all non-jews whilst performing male genital mutilation rituals on children and avoiding bacon.

So, not a race. But who in their right mind avoids bacon?

Actually, Jews are a distinct ethnicity. Well, about 80% are - the Ashkenazim. They're actually about the most genetically distinct "white" race there is (largely thanks to all the inbreeding). Sephardic jews are much more difficult to separate from their surrounding Semitic populations (you'd have a hard time telling a Sephardic Jew from a Palestinian Arab at a genetic level).

 

[Scouse]

Actually, Jews are a distinct ethnicity. Well, about 80% are - the Ashkenazim. They're actually about the most genetically distinct "white" race there is (largely thanks to all the inbreeding).

We've had this discussion before. They like to paint themselves as such as it plays into their racist poltics - hence their inbreeding.

What's actually happened is that their religion has narrowed their gene pool - but it hasn't created a "new race" - it's just mutilated an existing one.

If the jews are a separate race then deliverence-style yokels have a claim to that too.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Depends what we use as a measuring stick for race.

Which would ofcourse be one discussion for a whole new thread.

And no fettoken, still not touching the subject

 

[DaGaffer]

We've had this discussion before. They like to paint themselves as such as it plays into their racist poltics - hence their inbreeding.

What's actually happened is that their religion has narrowed their gene pool - but it hasn't created a "new race" - it's just mutilated an existing one.

If the jews are a separate race then deliverence-style yokels have a claim to that too.

The inbreeding came a long time before the politics. The why of Jewish ethnicity isn't that relevant tbh, I'm just pointing out its a bit disingenuous to claim it doesn't exist. Now "race" is a tricky thing and you could justifiably claim that everyone who's not ethnically African is essentially one race, but, if you accept the idea of ethnic distinction outside of Africa, then yes, the Ashkenazi are as much a "race" as say, The Tamils or The Inuit.

 

[rynnor]

On the original article does the number of camps have anything to do with making it worse?

The numbers of dead and imprisoned havent changed and I doubt there was any benefit to being held in few large camps as opposed to many small ones.

Its just some rather boring historian trying to hype interest in what is effectively re-appraising the purpose of buildings.

 

[Scouse]

Disagree - and on many levels. And I'm certainly not being disingenuous - I've no reason to deliberately mislead people over this. I'm only interested in accurately portraying the situation - and I'm a tiny bit miffed that you'd say that I'm trying not to.

The inbreeding came a long time before the politics. The why of Jewish ethnicity isn't that relevant tbh, I'm just pointing out its a bit disingenuous to claim it doesn't exist.

The main basis of the argument for the Ashkenazi being a distinct "race" came from a very recent genetic study (I can't recall exactly when - but it's since the turn of the century).

The why is very important as it helps explain things. The religion is inherantly racist and interbreeding is very rare - so it gives rise to a genetic monoculture with very similar genetic markings - so that about 80%* of them can apparently now be spotted to be of jewish decent from genetic markings.

Taken by itself it's easy to say "must be distinct race" - but new races come about through a natural evolutionary process and selective advantage - this is NOT the case with jews. Those genetic markers aren't distinctive of a selective advantage - they're distinctive of self-inflicted genetic mutilation.

By following their racist religious teachings - that they're better than everyone and non-jews aren't to be bred with - they've ruined their gene-pool. They're not a new race - but an army of inbreds.


It plays very nicely into their incredibly dubious claims for a homeland - again religiously motivated. But it's a lie - propagated in modern times by a very well funded media and pseudoscientific presence.

They're not a new race. They're genetic yokels, is all.



*Though not all, eh? Unlike black people - who are quite easy to spot to the naked eye, and certainly nailed-on 100% spottable through their genes.

 

[rynnor]

Taken by itself it's easy to say "must be distinct race" - but new races come about through a natural evolutionary process and selective advantage - this is NOT the case with jews. Those genetic markers aren't distinctive of a selective advantage - they're distinctive of self-inflicted genetic mutilation.

There is no scientific concept of 'race' - theres only species and all humans are deemed to be the same species.

Race is a legal term therefore there is little point trying to identify scientific characteristics to back up an arguement over it.

Edit - Legally we could declare scousers to be a race tomorrow for example.

 

[DaGaffer]

*Though not all, eh? Unlike black people - who are quite easy to spot to the naked eye, and certainly nailed-on 100% spottable through their genes.

And there's a can of worms you've just opened, and I'd disagree with you. What do you mean by "black" person?

This is the danger with debates about race; you've tacitly accepted the concept of race (you can't have racism without some racial definitions) but you refuse to dignify the Jews with a racial distinction (and used a particularly ill-chosen example of blacks as an alternative)and refuse to accept that anyone can be "racist" towards them. Sorry, you can't have it both ways; they can't be racist but incapable of being racially identified. Or are you trying to claim there's actually no such thing as racism?

 

[Scouse]

And there's a can of worms you've just opened

I knew that when I typed it.

This is the danger with debates about race; you've tacitly accepted the concept of race (you can't have racism without some racial definitions) but you refuse to dignify the Jews with a racial distinction

I'll come to your choice of "dignify" a bit later on but, yes, there is a danger with debates about race. And rynnor hits the nail on the head with this:

There is no scientific concept of 'race' - theres only species and all humans are deemed to be the same species.

Think for a second about the act of racism - it's what happens when you notice a difference in someone (skin colour, "slanty eyes", smells like a mancunian, etc) and have an emotional reaction based on it.

Negative or positive - doesn't matter - it's the emotional reaction to you seeing a difference.

"Black man" is a generic term. But racism is a generic reaction - so it's apt. - Evidenced by people who "fucking hate pakis but don't mind indians" - but realistically can't identify a pakistani from an indian because there's no actual physical difference. It's an emotional reaction to observable physical difference.

Jews have no observable physical difference - yes, there's a higher incidence of "hook noses" but if you take the skull caps away then the vast majority of the jewish population are indistinguishable from the rest of us.

Hence the reason for a lot of well-funded genetic pesudoscience in an effort to find a genetic basis for a non-scientific "racial" difference - that lends weight to zionist argument.

Many jews would dearly loved to be classed as their own "race" because it futhers long-held political aims.

To counter the "race" argument on physical appearance is easy - you can't tell someone's jewish just by looking at them. To counter the genetics argument is also easy: 1) it's simple inbreeding and, 2) you can't reliably tell someone's jewish from their genes.

In conclusion there's no reliable case for jews being a different race - either observably or genetically.


It's not a question of having the good grace to "dignify" them with what they wish. It's a question of "tough shit, it just isn't so", or, in more emotive terms: yah-boo sucks to the zionists amongst them who are funding the pseudoscience to try and "prove" what isn't.



I suppose that leaves this stuff to answer:

This is the danger with debates about race; you've tacitly accepted the concept of race (you can't have racism without some racial definitions)...Or are you trying to claim there's actually no such thing as racism?

Of course there's such a thing as racism. It's the thing humans do when you can see someone's different from you.

"Black man", "paki", "spick" or "wop" is enough of a definition - because it's not a scientific thing - it's a human emotional reaction to observable difference.

You can't be "racist" to jews - because they're demonstrably not a "race". You can be anti-semitic - which is not racism. It's hatred of jews because of their beliefs and the way they choose to live. It's not because of the way they look*.

That in itself is a can of worms - because to question the way people live and to argue and fight against their beliefs is a good thing - but rounding them up and gassing them is not.




*yes, I'm aware that there are all sorts of things that get caught in the mix - cultural, ethical, moral, yadda yadda yadda. But boil it down and it's ultimately about how people look and how they sound "funny" when they talk.