OK for Trads to Debate Vatican II, not the Holocaust

[Tapatio]

Please leave our elder brothers in the faith alone....

[PeterII]

So Luther advocated violence against the Jews and 400 years later the "Holocaust" happened? And what about the latent anti-semitism found in other European countries such as France or Russia with their occasional pogroms? Was that Luther's fault too? Your scapegoat doesn't account for the phenomena observed.

Besides forced conversion and ghettoisation, you forgot "expulsion". Jews have been expelled from all major European countries at least once. It has nothing to do with Luther.

What's to account about fallen human nature?  Christians were killing each other in stupid wars in Europe, so there is nothing surprising about attacks on minority ethnic groups.

Trying to justify it on moral grounds though was a precedential move on Luther's part, and certainly eased the way for the substitute religion of Nazism 400 years later.  The Nazis were brought into power by northern German Protestants too, not Bavarian Catholics.

[Vetus Ordo]

So Luther advocated violence against the Jews and 400 years later the "Holocaust" happened? And what about the latent anti-semitism found in other European countries such as France or Russia with their occasional pogroms? Was that Luther's fault too? Your scapegoat doesn't account for the phenomena observed.

Besides forced conversion and ghettoisation, you forgot "expulsion". Jews have been expelled from all major European countries at least once. It has nothing to do with Luther.

What's to account about fallen human nature?  Christians were killing each other in stupid wars in Europe, so there is nothing surprising about attacks on minority ethnic groups.

Trying to justify it on moral grounds though was a precedential move on Luther's part, and certainly eased the way for the substitute religion of Nazism 400 years later.  The Nazis were brought into power by northern German Protestants too, not Bavarian Catholics.

There's no direct causation between Luther and Nazi anti-semitism. Stop that nonsense.

Jewish expulsions from diverse pious Catholic nations were justified on high moral grounds too, besides political expediency. And so were ghettos, forced conversions and the occasional snatching of children from Jewish parents to raise them as Catholics. The traditional "anti-semitism" found in many European nations - which is an undeniable fact to anyone without coloured glasses and which has survived until modern times - has nothing to do with Luther and the Protestants and it has no direct relationship with the "Holocaust" whatsoever and the extreme views expoused by some nazis. That's a fallacious connection.

You have fallen for modern historical propaganda that puts the blame of the "Holocaust" on Christians but you've substituted the "Catholic Church" and the "Gospel of John" for "Luther" and the "Protestant Church." You're just switching scapegoats without facing the compexity of the situation. It's a mistake and it's silly.

[PeterII]

There's no direct causation between Luther and Nazi anti-semitism. Stop that nonsense.

Jewish expulsions from diverse pious Catholic nations were justified on high moral grounds too, besides political expediency. And so were ghettos, forced conversions and the occasional snatching of children from Jewish parents to raise them as Catholics. The traditional "anti-semitism" found in many European nations - which is an undeniable fact to anyone without coloured glasses and which has survived until modern times - has nothing to do with Luther and the Protestants and it has no direct relationship with the "Holocaust" whatsoever and the extreme views expoused by some nazis. That's a fallacious connection.

You have fallen for modern historical propaganda that puts the blame of the "Holocaust" on Christians but you've substituted the "Catholic Church" and the "Gospel of John" for "Luther" and the "Protestant Church." You're just switching scapegoats without facing the compexity of the situation. It's a mistake and it's silly.

I'm shocked you would suggest that forced conversions were justified on high moral grounds, along with kidnapping or theft, all clearly forbidden by the Church.

The direct connection between Protestantism and Nazism is also a historical fact.

The black represents the concentration of Nazi votes (1933):


The black represents the concentration of Catholics:

[Tapatio]

There's no direct causation between Luther and Nazi anti-semitism. Stop that nonsense.

Jewish expulsions from diverse pious Catholic nations were justified on high moral grounds too, besides political expediency. And so were ghettos, forced conversions and the occasional snatching of children from Jewish parents to raise them as Catholics. The traditional "anti-semitism" found in many European nations - which is an undeniable fact to anyone without coloured glasses and which has survived until modern times - has nothing to do with Luther and the Protestants and it has no direct relationship with the "Holocaust" whatsoever and the extreme views expoused by some nazis. That's a fallacious connection.

You have fallen for modern historical propaganda that puts the blame of the "Holocaust" on Christians but you've substituted the "Catholic Church" and the "Gospel of John" for "Luther" and the "Protestant Church." You're just switching scapegoats without facing the compexity of the situation. It's a mistake and it's silly.

I'm shocked you would suggest that forced conversions were justified on high moral grounds, along with kidnapping or theft, all clearly forbidden by the Church.

The direct connection between Protestantism and Nazism is also a historical fact.

I am still waiting for you to mention the horrors of the Inquisition.

[Vetus Ordo]

I'm shocked you would suggest that forced conversions were justified on high moral grounds, along with kidnapping or theft, all clearly forbidden by the Church.

And yet all these things were practiced by laymen and clery in Catholic countries with the blessing (and orders) of rulers and church for centuries. For instance, Spain and Portugal forcibly converted the Jews within their realms and expelled all the others which wouldn't convert with the permission of the Church. Slavery was also "clearly forbidden" by the Church - although that clearness is certainly disputable since some degrees of slavery were indeed tolerated - but yet the slave trade was practiced by Catholic countries for centuries and the abolitionist movement started in a Protestant country. Don't be shocked, learn the truth. Jews were second class citizens everywhere, it's nothing like the situation in our secular societies today. Curiously enough, the only places where they found emancipation back then was in Protestant countries like the Netherlands or England that lend them refuge from persecution. They also emigrated to Muslim countries but there they had to submit to dhimmitude.

The direct connection between Protestantism and Nazism is also a historical fact.

The black represents the concentration of Nazi votes (1934):


The black represents the concentration of Catholics:

The distribution of votes doesn't prove any causality between Protestantism and Nazi anti-semitism as you are implying.

[mikemac]

Some people these days mistakenly think the National Socialist Party of the Nazis in Germany prior to and during WWII were a far left party because socialist was in their party's name.  But Hitler's National Socialist Party was on the complete opposite side of the political spectrum as the far left wing communists.  Hitler's National Socialist Party was on the far right of the political spectrum.  That is one of the reasons why the National Socialist Party in Germany and communism in the Soviet Union were diametrically opposed to each other.

Central planning is central planning.  The Nazi's brand was nationalist, racist, and a glorification of mythical history, while the Communist brand was universal, and an attempt to destroy the past.  But the fundamental role of government to control was the same.

And?  The fundamental role of any government is to control.  What government doesn't have central planning?  I'm sure you'll have to admit that communism is on the far left of the political spectrum, right?  Well Fascists admitted themselves that fascism (aka the National Socialist Party of the Nazis) was a right-wing ideology.

"The original Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism, stating: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century."

Hence the National Socialist Party in Germany and communism in the Soviet Union were on opposite ends of the political/ideological spectrum.  But don't believe me, read it yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism    

Jewish bankers are another scapegoat, since the central bank of England which initiated the modern banking system was not Jewish.   

It wasn't, was it.  I guess you have never heard of “The City.”  It is also known as The Jewish Vatican located in the heart of Greater London.  The City and its rulers, The Crown, are not subject to the Parliament. They are a Sovereign State within a State.  When the Queen of England goes to visit "The City" she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of "The City". She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State.  "The City" is the financial hub of the world. It is here that the Rothschilds have their base of operations.  Here, educate yourself.
http://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/jewish-banishment-the-city-of-london/

Cromwell had carried out the orders of the Jewish financiers and beheaded, (yes, Cromwell and his Jewish sponsors must face Christ!), King Charles I on January 30 1649.

Beginning in 1655, Cromwell, through his alliance with the Jewish bankers of Amsterdam and specifically with Manasseh Ben Israel and his brother-in-law, David Abravanel Dormido, initiated the resettlement of the Jews in England.
(See Sources #2 Below )

JEWS GET THEIR CENTRAL BANK OF ENGLAND
WILLIAM STADHOLDER, a Dutch army careerist, was a handsome chap with money problems. The Jews saw another opportunity and through their influence arranged for William’s elevation to Captain General of the Dutch Forces. The next step up the ladder for William was his elevation by the Jews to the aristocratic title of William, Prince of Orange.

The Jews then arranged a meeting between William and Mary, the eldest daughter of the Duke of York. The Duke was only one place removed from becoming King of England. In 1677 Princess Mary of England married William Prince of Orange.

To place William upon the throne of England it was necessary to get rid of both Charles II and the Duke of York who was slated to become James II of the Stuarts. It is important to note that none of the Stuarts would grant charter for an English national bank. That is why murder, civil war, and religious conflicts plagued their reigns by the Jewish bankers.

In 1685, King Charles II died and the Duke of York became King James II of England. In 1688 the Jews ordered William Prince of Orange to land in England at Torbay. Because of an ongoing Campaign of L’Infamie against King James II contrived by the Jews, he abdicated and fled to France. William of Orange and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of England.

The new King William III soon got England involved in costly wars against Catholic France which put England deep into debt. Here was the Jewish bankers’ chance to collect. So King William, under orders from the Elders of Zion in Amsterdam, persuaded the British Treasury to borrow 1.25 million pounds sterling from the Jewish bankers who had helped him to the throne.

Since the state’s debts had risen dramatically, the government had no choice but to accept. But there were conditions attached: The names of the lenders were to be kept secret and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Central Bank of England. Parliament accepted and the Jewish bankers sunk their tentacles into Great Britain.

[James02]

Non-sequiturs on PeterII's part.

The reason that the Catholic regions didn't vote for Nazis is because the Church actively preached against them.  Without that, the Nazis would have taken Bavaria easily.

The question was why the Germans had an animosity towards Jews.  I've answered it.  And I've said time and time again it does not excuse the holocaust.  For that matter, the Nazis were horrible and their economic experiment was a huge failure in the end.  Earlier Hitler had outlawed usury in farming, and this was successful.  But by the late 30's, his hyper regulations were leading to stagnation and recession.  By that time, he was printing money again, and usury on the government level was back again.  He failed.

As far as 1933, it  was a time when the Great Depression was sinking in.  Even with the Jewish atrocities, Bavarian revolution, Great Sell-out, and the Great Depression, the Nazis only squeaked into power due to the opposition from the Church.  Without Church opposition, it probably would have been a landslide.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creating of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews.

It is certainly the very great one; it probably outweighs all others. .....
In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astounding. Table Leaders

And the prominent if not the principal part in the system of terrorism applied by the extraordinary Commissions for combating Counter Revolution has been take by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. Table all members NKVD

The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun (Cohen) ruled in Hungary.

The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people.

  Written in 1920.  So Winston Churchill was aware of all of this, but the voting Germans were not?

As far as National Socialism, it is a leftwing ideology which favored very powerful government.  Ron Paul is extreme right wing.  It fits, Ron Paul is the exact opposite of Nazis, next to Commies.  The only difference between a Commie and a Nazi is that the latter allowed legal private property (though in reality the State dictated its use) whereas the commies outlawed all private property.

To try to set up a political spectrum where Nazis are rightwing and Commies are leftwing leaves you with a big problem.  Where do free market people like Ron Paul fit in, who emphasize little government power?  The old spectrum from France no longer makes any sense.  And even if you did use that spectrum, Hitler greatly opposed the aristocracy of Germany.

[James02]

But even this is all a non-sequitur.  The question was not how the Nazis came to power (it is a mix of things.  Economic Depression and Versailles were the big players).

The question was why the Germans had an animosity towards Jews.

[mikemac]

As far as National Socialism, it is a leftwing ideology which favored very powerful government.  Ron Paul is extreme right wing.  It fits, Ron Paul is the exact opposite of Nazis, next to Commies.  The only difference between a Commie and a Nazi is that the latter allowed legal private property (though in reality the State dictated its use) whereas the commies outlawed all private property.

To try to set up a political spectrum where Nazis are rightwing and Commies are leftwing leaves you with a big problem.  Where do free market people like Ron Paul fit in, who emphasize little government power?  The old spectrum from France no longer makes any sense.  And even if you did use that spectrum, Hitler greatly opposed the aristocracy of Germany.

Nope.  Hitler's National Socialist Party was fascist and fascism is extreme right wing like Ron Paul's libertarianism.  In fact it's yet to be seen who is further to the right, Hitler's fascism or Ron Paul's libertarianism.  With Paul's idea of cutting the whole social contract I'd have to say that it is further to the right than Hitler's fascism. If he get's in and does that it's going to piss a lot of people off.  Imagine thousands of people walking the streets of the US starving to death.  Commies say their revolution can't happen without a failed capitalist system.  So if Ron Paul get's in and implements his laissez faire capitalist libertarian ideologies then you can expect a communist revolution when it fails.  James I read half way threw your new book but it didn't make sense because you have your political spectrum all wrong in it, completely wrong.  In fact if it had have gotten more than 4 or 5 replies I had my own reply that I was going to post.  While looking for verification to what I was going to post I came across a site that showed fascism on the extreme far right.  And guess what, it was an Austro-libertarian site that showed fascism on the extreme far right.  So I don't know where you are getting your political spectrum from.

Remember when Bush cut taxes for the rich.  Would you not call tax cuts a libertarian free market policy like Ron Paul's?  Of course. That's where free market people like Ron Paul fit in.   Well a lot of people were calling Bush a fascist for cutting taxes for the rich.  And it wasn't because Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush was Hitler's banker.

From the wikipedia for 'Political spectrum'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
"According to the simplest left-right axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right. Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts, sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right."

You do realize that there are extreme left wing libertarians as well as extreme right wing libertarians, don't you?  Center politics is always a safer bet, something like Buchanan's ideas would be good.  It's hard when there's just two political parties though, it makes for polarization.

But to get back to this thread, like you say, the question was why the Germans had an animosity towards Jews.  And the main factor is no doubt the Jewish involvement in communism.  And also when the Germans found out in the rail car at the Treaty of Versailles that they had been double crossed by Jews who got the US into WWI.  It's amazing to realize that they wheeled that much power in the US even back then.  I wonder why?  The Jewish-Masonic connection maybe?