My truth about the Jewish Holocaust

In most parts of the West people know that there are two types of German in European history – The Nazis and those who sat by while the Nazis did the devil’s work.

All they know is that the Nazis suppressed the Jews, what they don’t know, is that the Nazis turned the table on the Zionist Jews by making them flee back to Palestine so they could no longer suppress the German food producers.

The Nazis were originally only interested in gassing the disabled, but the resentment to the Jews that was built up by the way the Zionists treated the German farmers, etc. is what resulted in the Holocaust against all Jews and not just the Zionists.

The Zionists then pleaded that they were the ones being suppressed, and the West then gave them the Israel State, which has meant the Zionists now have their ideal position as repressors rather than the repressed.

43 thoughts on “My truth about the Jewish Holocaust”

    1. @ Jonathan , Chris : those who find the god, they wud be guided untill they associate patners with him ( Quran ) So keep asking ” if there is a one who created me jus guide me ” eventually you wud find him.. ( they way Abraham found the god while his people n parents used to worship the idols n humans )

    2. Hes not said what millions wanted to say

      He has stated some generalisation which are based on truth regarding Germany’s attitude to Zionists – that is fine – that is fairly general knowledge anyway

      He has then linked these generalisation, quite apart from the racist comment he starts with, to give a “truth” about the holocaust which implicitly blames the Zionists for hanging around and getting the rest of the Jews gassed

      An anti-Jewish thread (zionists are Jews) should not be linked to discussions about the holocaust without sufficient academic rigour to present a case which is entirely factual, complete, and without blame except where that is the only conclusion. A reading list of one non- peer reviewd pop history book does not satisfy this criteria.

  1. Let’s see, “Bibi” insults our President last year but Americans are supposed to take it because not defending Israel would make us “anti-Semitic?” Giving Israel BILLIONS of dollars each year so they can commit GENOCIDE against Palestinians is okay because to NOT do it would make America seem anti-Semitic? Allowing a government such as Israels to commit acts of terrorism and genocide against another people is no worse than that which was done against their families during the Holocaust. Both events are inexcusable, but we allow it because we would seem anti-Semitic if we don’t support them? Let’s be real people. Americans have NO IDEA how much the Zionist Lobby in the USA effects American politics. I am not just talking Jewish organizations, but the worst are fundamentalist, evangelical Christian groups who are using their influence and money to help Israel while America is faltering. Aid to Israel must stop. They want a fight with Iran so bad, but the rest of the world will suffer.

    1. I’m of constructivist origin philosophically. That means I regard my interpretation of the world to be equally legitimate to anyone else’s. My reading of 1 Kings 2:45-46 is that the term ‘blessed’ in reference to King Solomon refers to the fact that he is the anointed one of God and therefore by definition the Messiah. I don’t see how holding a religious belief like this, different from others, is any less valid than holding any number of opinions on the meaning of the works of Shakespeare. In fact I had a paper rejected from a religion journal because I gave the Bible no more weight than I would give a work of Shakespeare. I don’t see why the collective religious beliefs of Christians about Jesus being the Messiah is any less make-believe than my social construction of the Bible as an individual who studied media studies and has been bred to think like a literary critic.

      As far as this ‘truth’ on the Holocaust goes, you might want to read this book and read about the Zionist Aliyah during World War II and you might come to the same conclusion as me.

      1. None of that stops your truth being the funniest pseudo religion ever created, and one book does not make your holocaust beliefs any less astonishing.

        Do you just publish any idle thought that comes into your head?

        1. It is not Solomonite Science if you paid attention. I say my religion is ‘Mixed – Anglican Solomonite and Gnostic Scientist’. Solomonite Scientist is just shorthand. I would argue that most Atheists in academia are Gnostic Scientists. They “know” science proves God doesn’t exist, when most unbiased ones ‘know’ it doesn’t prove that. My Gnosticism is that I “know” the scientists of the future will be able to answer any question we can’t today.

          You might laugh at me making up my own religion. Whereas I laugh at people like yourself so depended on existing structures due to a lack of ability to acquire, apply and articulate knowledge in a free and unfettered manner. I am happy being a Renaissance Man not tied by existing social and cultural structures, even if you are happy being bound by them.

          1. I disagree that most academics believe that science disproves God

            That is the assumption that dim people make when trying to rationalise Atheism and Agnosticism

          2. Which school taught you to read? I did not say that most academics believe sciences disproves God, being someone who is surrounded by academics at the university I am writing this from. I was simply saying that scientists whose religion is ‘Atheism’ are ‘Gnostic’ Scientists (i.e. they know) as opposed to ‘Agnostic’ Scientists (i.e. they are open minded) – They are in other words scientists with a philosophy that biases their research. There is nothing wrong with this as it is a choice one makes – bias is fine if one is open about it. I’m saying that those scientists who are Agnostic are unlikely to be biased one way or the other with regards to questions about ‘God’, so are better able to ‘think outside the box’.

          3. You said:

            “most Atheists in academia are Gnostic Scientists. They “know” science proves God doesn’t exist,”

            If this is not what you meant then who taught you to write?

            It is fanciful to suggest that any person is entirely impartial as we all “know” we are right once we have made up our mind on objective evidence and our conclusions then inform our opinion on the next subject. The problem is that there is a lot of objective evidence with we each do not see. Therefore everyone is “Gnostic Scientist”. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous as life is inherently subjective.

            Any true academic attempts to be as objective as possible and is aware that he is doomed to failure.

          4. You’re preaching to the converted. That is essentially part of my constructivist roots. That it, it is impossible for a researcher to be objective, because in order to interpret any empirical data they need to use their social constructions. I think essentially what I’m arguing is that an Agnostic Scientist would have two alternative hypotheses (God exists, God doesn’t exist) and the null hypothesis would be that there is no way of telling. An Atheist Gnostic Scientist on the other hand would have one alternative hypothesis (i.e. God exists) and their null hypothesis would be ‘God does not exist’. So their bias comes into the research design rather than the data analysis, which it is impossible to be unbiased in.

        2. Steve – maybe you didn’t have as privileged an upbringing as me? I have always had access to personal computer that can access information on demand – even as far back as 1990. Most of today’s young people will have been as privileged as I was, and like me, they will be expecting others to allow them to assert their individuality, demand for education, and need to always have access to their friends and entertainment systems.

          Anyone who has grown up digital like myself will be able to see that different mediums have different purposes. The purpose of a ‘blog’ is to show idle thoughts. The purpose of a ‘weblog’ is to provide commentary on other media. And then come letters pages, op-ed columns, and manifestos, where one provides a ‘thought’ at an advanced stage.

          Maybe in 20 years time you’ll be as able to construct your own version of the truth as today’s young people and I do without a second thought.

          1. If the youth of today’s idle thoughts lead them to conclude that the holocaust was the result of Zionist treatment of farmers, then the future is bleak. If the youth also believe that there are only two types of German in European history, then this will be doubly true. You have read one book on the subject, a pop piece, and taken it as fact. This shows incredible naivety on your part. Most people realise that Germany was a pretty complex place at the time, and remains so to this day. Hence the considerable contribution of Germans to all forms of the arts, political silence and philosophy.

            Your idle thoughts are open to be scrutinised, however, as you put yourself up as a politician, and we’re somehow elected.

          2. I am not a politician (i.e. political opportunist), I am a ‘politicien’ (i.e. a public policy specialist). Unlike a politician it is more important for me to say what I believe than to get elected by saying what I don’t believe. For me, I am elected to change public policy so it is more fair to all my constituents, and to ensure their views are represented to the authorities and properly considered. I’m afraid you are going to have to accept that in democracies there will always be different views. People will have views on computing nowhere near as informed as mine. But their views will be constructed in line with the knowledge they have attained, usually in good faith, and are there more equally as legitimate as mine. You could argue that my views are not as credible as a World War II historian who argues the contrary, but they are equally legitimate.

      2. Also, that book is a non academic book, used as a companion to a BBC series, not a ‘proper’ history book. I think you have a problem determining the merits of texts. Merely being published does not make something true.

        1. The book has a section at the back listing the citations to its sources as used throughout the book. If that is not academic I don’t know what is!

          1. My cookbook has citations. It is not an academic text. It is a cookbook.

            If you define academic texts by citations then you display another over-simplification of a topic.

            Your logic is: if all As have B, and C has B then C=A.

            This logic is so dirty it makes me want to shower. Or perhaps i shouldnt use that word to you in this thread.

          2. Not by whether it has citations

            There can be no definite definition of an abstract concept

            However, if you are looking to draw a broad distinction then it depends on the author and audience.

            If the author is writing to entertain or give a broad overview for a casual reader then the book is not an academic text.

            If the author is writing to explain new, or review old evidence, with the purpose solely of adding to the knowledge of the area for his book to be reviewed, used and accepted by others as specialist as he in his field then the book is an academic work.

            In addition the intent must be qualified by a degree of academic rigour and objectivity, and the research must be of sufficient quality to add to the knowledge of the subject and not poorly reasoned synopses of other works or isolated evidence

            This does not get close to explaining an abstract concept like “academic”, but hopefully shows how “citations” don’t make the work academic

          3. What if that academic is a she?

            Also, if one is citing work, then is it not likely one has reviewed that work?

            In addition, is not getting a book past a genuine editorial controller at a publisher being reviewed?

          4. Makes no difference if academic is a she. Don’t understand why you think it should.

            It is irrelevant what the author has reviewed, it is the work he produces. All works are a product of the authors prereading to one extent or another.

            Publishers are not academics. They are assessing the book for a certain purpose, not peer reviewing its quality. If a book is ancillary to a TV series then it will be published as that. If the book gets past reviewers at OUP who are publishing it as an academic text then perhaps that would indicate a well written academic text, but not an assessment of quality

          5. One publisher. One publishing editor.

            Don’t really understand your point. Publishers are not academics. They are publishers. Neither are they talented authors. They are publishers. Publishers publish. Editors edit stylistic content. Nobody alters substantive meaning.

            If i am wrong then let me know from your experience.

          6. Well being the editor of two books, the publishers put an obligation on me to ensure the academic integrity of the books through ensuring peer review, etc. Also, as someone who has set up a publishing company (www.crocels.eu), my market research has shown that most of the cost of a book is the pre-production cost, such as editing. The distribution of a book is actually the cheapest.

          7. Thats exactly my point. Publishers put trust on author to ensure content is correct and sound. Publishers do not do it themselves.
            Therefore the fact a book is published does not give it academic credence as they do not review substantive content

            Dont know why you bother arguing when you just end up agreeing with me

          8. The point is that you did. And you are right, we are both wrong. The world doesn’t fit into neat little reductionist solutions.

          9. But where science cannot provide enough evidence to support a particular claim, should people not have the right to fill in the blanks with their own interpretation in line with the knowledge they have however limited? So long as people are not affecting the rights of others, then surely they are simply implementing their human right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion by filling-in the gaps?

          10. Yes they should

            That is what I am criticising you for. I have the right to think that you should never have a doctorate, doesnt make me right or that view not oppressive

            If I thought that, you have the right to argue your point

  2. No one is suggesting you don’t have the right to hold these views. I have the right to wear nothing but a smile and sandwich board painted with the words ‘the end is nigh’, and go to the town centre and tell it to all passers by, but I don’t. If I did this, people would rightly not trust my views on other things. When you fill in the gaps of your knowledge with these fantasies, it is akin to this analogy. You then exacerbate the situation by aggressively defending the statements you make.

  3. Who knew that the Zionists were around to abuse German farmers after the gassing of disabled people got started. Because Jews were disenfranchised years before the gassing began.

    Our polymath does not understand cause and effect very well.

    Anti-Semite cupcake.

      1. How do you define Semitic? Only a bigot would define only Jews as Semitic. Palestinians come from the same blood-line as the Israelites meaning both are Semitic! That would be like saying one is only attacking Christians if one attacks Catholics!

        And I’m very fortunate to be self-aggrandizing if I am so. I pride myself on being independent. What state would I be in if I relied on others opinions to give me self-worth!

        1. Here’s how dictionary.com defines anti-Semite:

          an·ti-Sem·ite noun
          a person who discriminates against or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews.

          It’s common for anti-Semites like yourself to pretend that since Semite refers to more groups than just Jews, that the term “anti-Semite” refers or should refer to more groups than just Jews. Since non-anti-Semites (and even a good number of anti-Semites) use the term “anti-Semite” to refer to someone who detests, despises and otherwise hates Jews, then I’ve used the term correctly to describe you.

          In other words, asshole, you’re an anti-Semite. The evidence for your anti-Semitism is shown in your blog. Nice try with the tu quoque defense. Too bad it didn’t work.

          1. On the basis of that definition I am not anti-Semitic!

            I was speaking with one of my sub-contractors today, who is Jewish, and he does not think I am anti-Semitic. He knows, unlike yourself probably, that not all Jews are peace loving people. To pretend to think so is delusional. My Jewish sub-contractor believes the same as me – that there are Zionist Jews who are fundamentalist. It is insulting to my sub-contractor for you to suggest that his world-view is comparable to the Zionists who give Jews like him a bad name? Your ignorance of this difference is disgusting, and you should be ashamed to call me an anti-Semite when you are a mono-Semite assuming all are the same!

          2. Ok, so now the “i’ve got a jewish mate” defence. Not a very successful one historically.

            Maybe your Jewish friend is also an anti-semite? Or maybe he is so money grabbing that he does not want to offend you in case he loses his contract. Surprised he could form an opinion in between the clanging of his coins as he counted then on the table.

            Don’t worry, I’m not anti semitic because I like Zionists.

            Seriously, there are members of every religious sect which are fundamentalist. That does not mean that they are not peace loving. That is a misunderstanding of the term.

            You are linking tensions between farmers and Zionists, which was the result of hundreds of years of tensions, with the state political policy to gas people of a particular race (not religion, Jewishness was irrelevant, only people of a Hebrew extraction) – you seem to do that in order to try to make an argument which reinforces a prejudice or adverse feeling you have towards Zionists. The problem is that the rights or wrongs of the Zionists were perhaps in the league of tensions in Ireland, but certainly not in the league of the holocaust

          3. He is not my friend. But if you spoke to him, I’m sure he’d tell you that the Zionists would have nothing on me! 😉

            I think he does the work more for the job satisfaction from contributing to the grander scheme of things than the monetary benefit, a bit like the German farmers supplying goods to their countrymen! 😉

  4. Blaming ‘Zionist Jews’ for the holocaust is the most disgusting thing I’ve read in a while and I’ve read some shockers recently!

    YAATP!

    You
    Are
    A
    Terrible
    Person

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *