[deleted]

[deleted]

To be clear, how many Jews do you think died?

You know that headline references a boycott, in response to systematic harassment, right?

[deleted]

six million was claimed including the original auschwitz figure, the revised figure was 1.6million less if i remember right. hence, the 6million prophecy was not fulfilled, afterall....

Also, why can't people react negatively to shady bullshit without being called anti-semitic?

Because Jews aren't some massive bee colony. Most jews probably have no idea what you are talking about, regardless of whether you are right or wrong. When you say 'they' it's a bit generalized. Sometimes it seems you mean 'The Israeli Government' or other times maybe 'Historians'. If you went to Israeli you'd find plenty of jews that disagree with what the government there does.

[deleted]

Nearly every Jew I know vocally disapproves of Israel's policies, some of them quite emphatically. It is all subjective.

My best friend is Jewish. I have asked him about Israel before and here (paraphrased) is his answer: "Sure there are some things I don't like but I don't really pay attention to it. I'm American, there's things I don't like here." Sadly, he claims to be a Republican. From an outside perspective he is a mixed bag but mostly a soft libertarian.

That's not called subjectivity, it's called the very few number of jews you've spoken to.

But I guess you are some sort of export on having spoken to jews anyway?

[deleted]

[deleted]

This right here is why the term and label is nothing but laughable. They have overused it and stretched the definition so far that it is now entirely meaningless. We laugh when its used. Not look at it as a derogatory label indicating racist behavior.

Way to fuck it up by overusing it into the ground. You have lost your strongest tool through foolish action.

Are you sure the person wasn't joking?

You don't have a point

Dude - you are just proving your lack of a sense of humor!

That one is a joke.

When have I called anyone else an anti-semite? Frankly, I don't care if private joker is one or not, I was explaining to him why people constantly attack him when he throws out sentences like "The Jews did the same thing in Germany they did in Russia".

Furthermore - what is his point???

I know, right?

And everyone thinks its the Jews that have the persecution complex - but a quick trip down "Never Met A Jew"-lane reveals a lot more confusion on the generalizer's behalf.

Jews are like everyone else

Wow, dude. Mind blowing. Welcome to the conversation.

No one ever said Jews don't participate in in persecuting others. However it's not "Jews" persecuting the Palestinians, but the Israeli government. There is a difference, generally speaking and when it isn't recognized is when the confusion starts.

I think you are confused if you are trying to attribute the actions of other people to me. I can assure you I have nothing to do with the people that respond to your posts with "The Joos".

Furthermore - that's now how I see it go around here. I see plenty of threads that criticize Israel and don't have what you are complaining about.

And yet I see plenty of threads where people say stuff like: "They attempted to subvert control of Russia and were found out, this carried over to Germany including partly inspiring Hitler to come up with his game plan" where it's obviously impractical that this means "all Jews" yet the authors can't stop themselves from using such language anyway. It's those threads that get the "The Joos" responses and it's for the exact reason I've pointed out to you several times now.

I will repeat myself, because it seems that you didn't get my point - but they are probably keying in on a generalization you don't seem to realize that you are making.

If you burn a candle from both ends, it burns out quicker.

Right - but maybe you should get to the point instead. If you made a point - no one would need to burn a candle!!

The idea that there is some sort of massive Jewish conspiracy is so old and tired - I think it needs no further debate. If there is a conspiracy involving Zionism, or some Jews - yeah, talk about it. But do so with words that are more recent than what you can pull from "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" because it's clear that whatever conspiracy does not involve all jews or even most jews, but rather some jews.

Let's look at 9/11 - clearly there were some Jews involved. Zakheim, other US military dual citizens, the mossad. But so was the CIA, and most of the Bush administration (plenty of non-jews). Saudi Arabia was also involved as well - so why bother to call 9/11 a Jewish conspiracy? No one calls it a Christian conspiracy even though a number of Christians worked very hard to make sure it happened. I'm not saying you said 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy, but you don't seem to realize that you make an equivalent logically fallacious argument and that's why people respond with "Jew Hater".

An opinion is a point, no matter how much you disagree with it.

Its now magically not a point when it makes him look like a complete fool.

I think you are describing an anecdote which differs significantly from a fact-based argument.

Who said anything about a fact-based argument? He gave a completely innocent opinion and you called him an anti-Semite. That's called an Ad-hominem attack. And a completely ridiculous and unwarranted one at that.

You are saying I have trouble reading when you say I called him an anti-semite?? Work on your reading comprehension, I never called him an anti-semite and I never even said he was wrong. I said he sounds incredibly ignorant because he is making an incredibly broad generalization that doesn't pass a common-sense test.

Shows how much you are thinking as well.

Furthermore - how is his experience talking to the few jews he has some sort of anecdote to base his generalization off of?

Wut?

I do know they lied about the auschwitz numbers though until a log book was found 40+ years later.

They got the total wrong there, but it never was included in the 6 million dead in such a way that would throw the total off. I think the total now is accepted as around 1 million in Auschwtiz

They attempted to subvert control of Russia and were found out, this carried over to Germany including partly inspiring Hitler to come up with his gameplan

I disagree with your characterization of the situation in Russia, but that's getting side tracked.

Where did this "systematic harassment" come from? Out of the blue? hey attempted to subvert control of Russia and were found out, this carried over to Germany including partly inspiring Hitler to come up with his gameplan.

This reads to me as you're saying the Jews kinda sorta had it coming. They were harrassed because Germany was a rediculously anti Jewish country that blamed the Jews for many of their problems even then.

[deleted]

Holodomor proves it once again: Jews were amongst the greatest mass murderers of all time

It all begun in 1917: "Every ordinary Russian faced a Jew as his judge and as his exe-cutioner. Where ever the Russian went, he met a Jew in a superior position to him." (Sonja Margolina, "Das Ende der Lügen" The End of the Lies, Siedler Publishing House, Berlin 1992, page 60)

"The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish planning and Jewish dissatisfaction. Our Plan is to have a New World Order. What worked so wonderfully in Russia is going to become Reality for the whole world." (The American Hebrew Magazine, New York, Sep. 10, 1920)

More than 50 Million people were murdered during this era under Jewish commissars. However, when nowadays timid Goyim try to bring these crimes, universally unique, to justice, Jews squeal "this is unfair, it incites interethnic hatred." However, forcing a 90 year-old innocent man (John Demjanjuk) on a stretcher into a stooge court-room in Germany, that is perfectly all right.

Read on:

http://globalfire.tv/nj/09en/jews/holodomor.htm

[deleted]

Everyone seems to think that the Palestinian situation is an aberration, some kind of historical quirk. Nothing could be further from the truth. Historical accounts of the oppressive, murderous, and genocidal nature of the Jew stretch back millennia.

And the same fate awaits America unless it wakes up pretty damn sharpish.

[deleted]

You've one thing in your favour... you're armed to the teeth. Why'd you think they're so keen to disarm you?

[deleted]

Historical accounts of the oppressive, murderous, and genocidal nature of the humans stretch back millennia.

FTFY

Did you just blame the Soviet Union's agricultural collectivization...you know...the thing that led to the Holodormor...on the fucking jews? Are you really that god damn stupid?

Ah, poor little guy, you're kinda cute. :)

Was Stalin, the guy who implemented these policies, a Jewish double-agent as well? :) I mean, because you know, the Soviet Union ha such a GREAT track record with it's Jewish minority. :D

Or better yet, are you one of the fools who buys in the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", which has been clearly and repeatedly shown as a propagandist fabrication put out by the Russian Empire's Secret Service? Because if you are, that's fucking great. It's good to see users on /r/conspiracy falling so easily for obvious propaganda from a century ago. Your logic is infallible.

This reads to me as you're saying the Jews kinda sorta had it coming. They were harrassed because Germany was a rediculously anti Jewish country that blamed the Jews for many of their problems even then

Actually prior to WWI, Jews were assimilating very well in Germany - some might say TOO well. Indeed, the Zionists and Jews worldwide largely supported Germany during most of WWI, as Germany was fighting the Czar, and they very much wanted the Czar overthrown.

However, once the Czar was on the ropes and the Bolshevik Revolution was in motion, the Zionists made a deal with the British under the Balfour Declaration. Following this, the Zionists used all available influence to favor the British: The US came into the war, and the Jews of Russia that had previously been supporting Germany's efforts began working against Germany - all of which is meticulously documented in David Lloyd George's "Memoirs of the Peace Conference".

Your statement "Jews kinda sorta had it coming" is weasely, as obviously you are using THE JEWS as a blanket statement implying ALL JEWS - which is of course bullshit. Most of the Jews that were victimized during the Holocaust were no more guilty than that three-year old girl that the IDF murdered last week. However, to say that "ALL JEWS were blameless" and that the backroom Zionist deals played no role in inciting animosity and mistrust toward Jews would be equally false.

The Germans felt betrayed by the Zionists, and they were also not blind to the workings going on in the Soviet Union, and their blaming the Zionists for the latter was not entirely unjustified.

Were it not for the activities of the Zionists, Hitler and the Nazi Party would likely have never come to power, and there would have been no Holocaust.

Were it not for the activities of the Zionists, Hitler and the Nazi Party would likely have never come to power, and there would have been no Holocaust

"It's their on damn fault!"

David Lloyd George

The guy who called Hitler the German George Washington? I'm not surprised that he's got a pro Hitler, Anti Jew perspective.

Were it not for the activities of the Zionists, Hitler and the Nazi Party would likely have never come to power, and there would have been no Holocaust

"It's their on damn fault!"

So you agree that the Zionists deserve credit for the part they played?

David Lloyd George

The guy who called Hitler the German George Washington? I'm not surprised that he's got a pro Hitler, Anti Jew perspective.

WRONG.

Lloyd George was VERY pro-Zionist and not anti-Semitic in the least. He credited the Balfour Declaration which he called "a contract with Jewry" as being of incalculable value to the Entente (allies) in their victory over Germany.

Maybe you should read more and whine less? There's a link above to Lloyd George's work - a massive four-volume set penned by the man who was Prime Minister of Britain during WWI.

I'll try to get back to you with relevant specific quotes later.

Rudman argues that Lloyd George was consistently pro-German after 1923. He supported German demands for territorial concessions and recognition of its “great power” status; he paid much less attention to the security concerns of France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Belgium. The Germans welcomed him as a friend in the highest circles of British politics. In September 1936 he went to Germany to talk with the German dictator Adolf Hitler. Hitler said he was pleased to have met "the man who won the war"; Lloyd George was moved, and called Hitler "the greatest living German".Lloyd George also visited Germany's public works programmes and was impressed. On his return to Britain he wrote an article for The Daily Expresspraising Hitler; he wrote, "The Germans have definitely made up their minds never to quarrel with us again." He believed Hitler was "the George Washington of Germany"; that he was rearming Germany for defence and not for offensive war

That's from his Wikipedia page. I'd call that pretty pro Hitler. Considering it came out in 1939, it fits right in his extremely pro Hitler period.

Many people were pro-Hitler prior to WWII - including many Zionists.

Like I said, I'll get back with relevant quotes later. In the meantime you can feel free to point the finger at me and level libelous accusations.

Mmmmkay?

Give em hell Amos..You are pretty spot on with everything you are saying. The Balfour Declaration says it all...Most important part was the name at the end..Rothschild. Let's also not forget that IBM, a prominent American company was helping the Hitler Administration. Let's not forget that American Senator Prescott Bush was also helping Hitler. There are a lot of pieces left out of history..

Chomsky also says some pretty interesting stuff about what zionism was like pre 45..He said zionism at that time was Jewish-Arab international affairs. Chomsky talked about wanting to go to a Yitzvah(i think, its a jewish settlement camp in palestine in the pre 45 era) and learn arabic to better relations with Palestinians. He had no reason or want to attack them and according to him neither did zionism at the time. If you believe Chomsky then obviously things have changed..is it possibly different because of Rothschild dominance after the Balfour Declaration..

I think Racism is really at the heart of what is going on in Israel. Zionism is definitely a factor but I think racism is the biggest part.

Chomsky can't be trusted on this. We've had some recent discussions on this topic here so maybe I'll try to dig it up . . . but the long and short of it is Chomsky sugarcoats Zionist history.

Most Zionists, as Chomsky claims, were bi-nationalists until 1942 at the Biltmore Conference. Bi-nationalists didn't want a separate Jewish state and wanted to respect the rights of Arabs. Even though bi-nationalism was their stated goal, as a current new post on this sub shows, many Zionists (e.g. Ben Gurion) most likely had ulterior motives. Many probably only professed a belief in bi-nationalism to respect the Balfour Declaration that required Jewish settlers to respect the rights of the native Arabs.

So as the link above notes, the bi-nationalists were quickly ostracized from Zionist movement around 1942 but some held to their beliefs for a while, as Chomsky evidently did.

But make no mistake about it . . . even this "liberal" Zionism still envisioned the colonization of another people's land. Most of these people probably assumed Jews would hold the superior position in society and would hold most of the valuable land (as they had been buying up land for decades) and own most of the businesses and farms. They also probably believed that God granted them the land and believed in their superiority as the Chosen people. I've never heard Chomsky renounce these beliefs re Jewish supremacy. And Chomsky did live as a colonizer for a while and spoke highly of it and stated he almost made a permanent move.

Of course Chomsky has now dropped bi-nationalism and supports a two state solution instead and agrees that the Jewish state of Israel should continue to exist (although I assume he would argue it should become more democratic and respect Arab rights more, etc.).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTnHcHsUNM0

never seen this before..thanks for the link.

it confirms a major jigsaw piece.

Going off the comments above . . . it seems maybe the Soviets and Wall St. had more of a connection than Wall St. and the Germans, at least according to Solzhenitsyn (and the Germans certainly alleged this as well):

Here's a partial translation of the unpublished in English book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "Two Hundered Years Together" http://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Together-Complete-Edition-Volumes/dp/5969707023 [one can see why this literary giant's book was not translated from this excerpt]:

"The 1930s were years of an intense industrialized spurt, which crushed the peasantry and altered the life of the entire country. Mere existence demanded adaptation and development of new skills. But through crippling sacrifices, and despite the many absurdities of the Soviet organizational system, the horrible epic somehow led to the creation of an industrialized power.

Yet the first and second five-year plans came into existence and were carried out not through the miracle of spontaneous generation, nor as a result of the simple violent round-up of large masses of laborers. It demanded many technical provisions, advanced equipment, and the collaboration of specialists experienced in this technology. All this flowed plentifully from the capitalist West, and most of all from the United States; not in the form of a gift, of course, and not in the form of generous help. The Soviet communists paid for all of this abundantly with Russia’s mineral wealth and timber, with concessions for raw materials markets, with trade areas promised to the West, and with plundered goods from the Empire of the tsars. Such deals flowed with the help and approval of international financial magnates, most of all those on Wall Street, in a persistent continuation of the first commercial ties that the Soviet communists developed on the American stock exchanges as early as during the Civil War. The new partnership was strengthened by shiploads of tsarist gold and treasures from the Hermitage.

But wait a second, were we not thoroughly taught by Marx that capitalists are the fierce enemies of proletarian socialism and that we should not expect help from them, but rather a destructive, bloody war? Well, it’s not that simple: despite the official diplomatic non-recognition, trade links were completely out in the open, and even written about in Izvestiya: “American merchants are interested in broadening of economic ties with the Soviet Union.”[1] American unions came out against such an expansion (defending their markets from the products of cheap and even slave Soviet labor). The “Russian-American Chamber of Commerce,” created at that time, simply did not want to hear about any political opposition to communism, or “to mix politics with business relations.”[2]

Anthony Sutton, a modern American scholar, researched the recently-opened diplomatic and financial archives and followed the connections of Wall Street with the Bolsheviks; he pointed to the amoral logic of this long and consistent relationship. From as early as the “Marburg” plan at the beginning of the 20th century, which was based on the vast capital of Carnegie, the idea was to strengthen the authority of international finance, through global “socialization,” “for control … and for the forced appeasement.” Sutton concluded that: “International financiers prefer to do business with central governments. The banking community least of all wants a free economy and de-centralized authority.” “Revolution and international finance do not quite contradict each other, if the result of revolution should be to establish a more centralized authority,” and, therefore, to make the markets of these countries manageable. And there was a second line of agreement: “Bolsheviks and bankers shared an essential common platform — internationalism.”[3]"

http://200yearstogether.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/chapter-19-in-the-1930s/

problem, reaction, solution. the hegelian dialectic, they use it constantly on a global scale, when you start a war you fund both sides, fan the flames, there is only one winner, the bank. without dark there cannot be light, as above so below. competition breeds progress and profits, without a competitor there is no competition. if the competitors do not exist they must be created, if (when) one is destroyed a new one must arise in its place.

The Germans certainly claimed this . . . that the same people were behind Anglo capitalism that were behind Bolshevik Socialism. National socialism and fascism claimed to be a third way at the time.

It's interesting for me to explore this because I have only known the propagandized version of fascism and national socialism . . . the cartoon versions. There was actually a good deal of thought and variety behind these ideologies and I guess I'm probably similar to most modern observers in that these ideological battles from WWI to WWII are such a mystery.

Agree that it's good to see Amos and others making a positive contribution. It's really fun to see a good historical discussion free of bickering about racism.

Regarding Hitler and the NSDAP party . . . I once accepted Jim Condit Jr.'s thesis about connections between Wall St. and the NSDAP but now I'm not so sure.

I recently discussed this with another /r/conspiracy user here (we got off on the tangent after he mentioned James Angleton of the CIA had Nazi connections and I said I wondered if this was propaganda of some sort).

I'm not convinced of the Bush connections, for instance. His firm was charged with trading with the enemy, and the German man his firm was tied to, Fritz Thyssen, did indeed donate to the NSDAP, but he fell out with the party and was actually imprisoned by Hitler through the war. Plus, (if you read the links from the previous discussion showing the primary docs) the connection between Bush's firm was pretty tenuous. I surmise it could have actually been a way for Wall St. firms to get their hands on German property rather than as a way to support the National Socialist cause.

The other connections to Wall Street seem pretty tenuous as well, as explained in this comprehensive piece.

For me the big indicator Hitler and the NSDAP was opposed to Wall Street financiers is the monetary policy of Hitler after WWII begun. He sacked the head of the central bank, Hjalmar Schacht (who may have been maintaining treasonous ties with the British central bankers and giving them information), after he warned about the economic dangers of printing debt free currency during a war economy (i.e. inflation--concerns that may have been, er, inflated), and then Hitler basically told the international financiers to shove off and appointed Walter Funk to the central bank, took away some power from the central bank, and printed his own money to finance the war and everything else that he was already financing this way (autobahn, etc.). He used debt free currency to finance the country (which is actually a wonderful idea and what I suspect is the biggest motive for the Allies to destroy Germany).

Here's a comment on the subject of Hitler's monetary policy that I spent a lot of time researching and writing but I think there is still a lot more to explore in this area.

Here's the skinny on the Bush family.

The problem is a strain of German nationalism that periodically seeks to harm Americans for personal gain. This ethnic group has been interned and fought against about every 50 years, from the point in about 1760 when the Cherokee fought a "war with those in red coats". Their participation in the American eugenics programs cannot be ignored, and it is not a coincidence that same epidemiological school of thought also denied the link between smoking and lung cancer. Along with the bankster and monopolist stereotype, there is a terrible pattern of racketeering through professional fraud that deals damage to society in a manner akin to a malignant tumor. The Bush Junior middle eastern military misadventures unambiguously demonstrate my point in the present.

Thanks.

Yeah, Germany and the U.S. were definitely both interested in eugenics. Hitler claimed he was simply following the lead from the Americans and when attacked for it would cite the American use of it.

My understanding is that Hitler thought highly of some Americans (he was fond of Henry Ford for instance) but that he underestimated their impact on entering the war.

As I said above, it doesn't surprise me that there were ties between the U.S. and Germany, both were large industrial economies and both shared a common heritage. Germany was home to many scientists and academies and international organizations so it also doesn't surprise me some American capitalists would fund research and facilities there.

Yeah, Germany and the U.S. were definitely both interested in eugenics. Hitler claimed he was simply following the lead from the Americans and when attacked for it would cite the American use of it.

These weren't really Americans, they considered themselves ethnically distinct.

The Germans make war by deception against Americans until the Americans decide to vanquish the Germans, about twice every century. This is an obvious pattern in history.

Germany was home to many scientists and academies and international organizations so it also doesn't surprise me some American capitalists would fund research and facilities there.

The only uniquely synergistic aspect is that Germans exclusively conduct business through monopolistic cartels (international organizations). They have a short intellectual history compared to other European countries; The achievements attributed to Germans are almost always stolen or misappropriated from Latin or Greek speakers.

The Germans were personally offended by the concept of hygiene.

There really is no excuse for ethnocentrism held by a group that periodically tries to destroy the United States.

The Germans make war by deception against Americans

Yeah, I don't see it that way. I see it the opposite way in fact.

I don't think the Germans were concerned much with the Americans in either war and thought they would stay out of the war.

America is actually a mostly German nation and it had to be coaxed into vilifying and attacking Germany. It's a propaganda campaign that started in the mid 1910s and has been going on strong until today. It was mostly Americans of German descent that were fighting their cousins in Europe during the two world wars. The idea that the two world wars were caused by mostly German aggression is misplaced.

Yeah, I don't see it that way. I see it the opposite way in fact.

My argument extends to the hessian mercenaries during the revolutionary war.

I don't think the Germans were concerned much with the Americans in either war and thought they would stay out of the war.

The german american population was interned because they were spying for their homeland during that time. That is inconsistent with your sentiment.

America is actually a mostly German nation

It's 8 million people more claiming German ancestry than African. That does not constitute 'most'.

It is definitely more accurate to say that America is mostly British, when you sum Irish, Scottish, and English.

and it had to be coaxed into vilifying and attacking Germany.

Americans respond with racism towards German aggression like the Zimmerman Telegram.

Hence sauerkraut was being called liberty cabbage for a time.

It's a propaganda campaign that started in the mid 1910s and has been going on strong until today.

A group of Germans, Hessians, were the enemy soldiers during the american revolution, in an alliance with the British navy.

It was mostly Americans of German descent that were fighting their cousins in Europe during the two world war

That is ethnocentric revisionism.

The idea that the two world wars were caused by mostly German aggression is misplaced.

Germany was a repeatedly invasive power in both conflicts. That statement is ludicrous because Germany has a record of conquering other countries during the world wars.

The german american population was interned because they were spying for their homeland during that time.

German aliens, not Americans of German descent, were mostly targeted for internment:

The Justice Department attempted to prepare a list of all German aliens, counting approximately 480,000 of them, more than 4,000 of whom were imprisoned in 1917-18. The allegations included spying for Germany, or endorsing the German war effort.[53] Thousands were forced to buy war bonds to show their loyalty.[54]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American#World_War_I_anti-German_sentiment

Also, lots of Americans and many foreign aliens were falsely accused of "spying" and basic un-American activities. Huge numbers of leftists were put in prison and targeted. People like Eugene Debs. Huge numbers of leftist papers were run out and America established a large propaganda campaign (the Creel Commission and the Four Minute Men, for example).

With the onset of World War I, nativist and racist prejudices were further fueled by antagonism towards German immigrants and their descendents, since Germany was now classified as a state enemy.[39] Considerable skepticism concerning the war’s aims and isolationism among U.S. residents at the outset also led to a second pro-war mobilization on the home front, as the administration attempted to foster public support through the establishment of the first governmental propaganda office (Schaffer, 1999; Nagler, 1999).[40] [41] The propaganda efforts would spiral out of control, leading to a domestic climate that Higham describes as “call[ing] forth the most strenuous nationalism and the most pervasive nativism that the United States had ever known” (cited in Nagler, 1993, p. 191). Prior to U.S. involvement in the war, many domestic German-language papers had espoused the German cause, arguing that the imperial power of Great Britain was more threatening than German action (Bergquist, 1999; see also Wittke, 1936). Even though the vast majority of German-language periodicals immediately pledged support when the U.S. entered the war, German Americans quickly became targets of harassment, business boycotts, violence, and vandalism (Bergquist, 1999; Luebke, 1990).[42][43] State Councils of Defense banned the use of German language in public places and changed German-named street signs. German books and German-language newspapers were burned in multiple cities (Rippley, 1976; see also Nagler, 1997; (Luebke, 1990).[44] In efforts to prove their loyalty to the U.S., many German citizens and businesses anglicized their names and distanced themselves from their cultural institutions and organizations (Luebke, 1990).[45]

However, the demands of war would quickly challenge the generalized anti-immigrant sentiment in the services, as the demand for service members necessitated the broad use of the foreign-born. . . .

A French solder in 1917 described the heterogeneous character of American troops in Europe: "You could not imagine a more extraordinary gathering than this american [sic] army, there is a little bit of everything, Greeks, Italians, Turks, Indians, Spanish, also a sizable number of boches.[47] Truthfully, almost half of the officers have German origins. This doesn’t seem to bother them… Among the Americans are sons of emigrated Frenchmen and sons of emigrated boches. I asked one son of a Frenchman if these Germans were coming willingly to fight their brothers and cousins, he squarely answered me: ‘yes!’” (cited in Ford, 2001, p. 3)

http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/a_history_of_the_service_of_ethnic_minorites_in_the_u_s_armed_forces

During the First World War, the U.S. government drafted into military service nearly half a million immigrants of forty-six different nationalities, creating an army with over 18 percent of its soldiers born in foreign countries. In addition, thousands of second-generation "immigrants" also served.

During World War I, a German officer [had] noted with some complexity the ethnic diversity of the American Army: "Only a few of the troops are of pure American origin: *the majority are of German, Dutch and Italian parentage. But these semi-Americans...fully feel themselves to be true-born sons of their [adopted] country."

http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/ngf.htm

Also, American racism toward those with German ancestry was not because of the Zimmerman incident, nor does that justify it. The Zimmerman letter was mischaracterized and used as propaganda. The Germans stated they wanted the U.S. to remain neutral and only offered terms to Mexico if the U.S. did not stay neutral. t was a conditional offer.

And who knows if there this whole intercepted letter was actually an act of betrayal by Zimmerman, as some allege

Also, the U.S. was only neutral in name and there were many forces pushing for war against Germany before the Zimmerman letter.

Germany was a repeatedly invasive power in both conflicts. That statement is ludicrous because Germany has a record of conquering other countries during the world wars.

I strongly disagree. Germany was not expansionist. It entered WWI for reasons other than expanding its territory and after losing the war had territory taken away from it. It took territory back to start WWII, and ended the Versailles Treaty, and kicked the international bankers out, but it did not want to conquer the world and certainly didn't want to conquer America. Germany desperately sought to keep America neutral during both world wars but forces within America were very motivated to bring Germany down and convince the political leadership to do so and they used mass propaganda and false flags to convince the American people to do so.

German aliens, not Americans of German descent, were mostly targeted for internment:

Who do you think they lived among?

My original statement remains true despite your specification.

Also, lots of Americans and many foreign aliens were falsely accused of "spying" and basic un-American activities. Huge numbers of leftists were put in prison and targeted. People like Eugene Debs. Huge numbers of leftist papers were run out and America established a large propaganda campaign (the Creel Commission and the Four Minute Men, for example).

That is specious defense at best and it does not excuse the people who were actually spying.

[47] Truthfully, almost half of the officers have German origins.

Anecdotes are unimportant in this context. Your citation actually describes a mostly Irish military in the 1840s.

During World War I, a German officer [had] noted with some complexity the ethnic diversity of the American Army: "Only a few of the troops are of pure American origin: *the majority are of German, Dutch and Italian parentage. But these semi-Americans...fully feel themselves to be true-born sons of their [adopted] country.

A German military officer is not a valid source on the morale and makeup of the american military. He doesn't get to question who is a semi-american, as an enemy of the United States. To most people, it appears quite stupid to cite your own ethnic group in a fallaciously mistaken context. Here is the rest of the section you are quoting:

"Despite the acute perception of this officer, he was wrong on one very important point. These men were not "semi-Americans," they were "Americans All!"

So it is clear from your reference that quote is incorrect.

Also, American racism toward those with German ancestry was not because of the Zimmerman incident, nor does that justify it. The Zimmerman letter was mischaracterized and used as propaganda. The Germans stated they wanted the U.S. to remain neutral and only offered terms to Mexico if the U.S. did not stay neutral. t was a conditional offer.

The Germans were also sinking american ships.

The notion that you can try to assert neutrality is a comically bad stereotype about Germans being stubborn, yet blatant liars.

And who knows if there this whole intercepted letter was actually an act of betrayal by Zimmerman, as some allege

It doesn't matter when German submarines are attempting to blockade American trading partners.

Also, the U.S. was only neutral in name and there were many forces pushing for war against Germany before the Zimmerman letter.

They were interfering with the freedom of maritime trade. That has always been a national security interest of the United States, since the goddamn Barbary coast wars. The 20th century Germans were acting barbarically as 19th century Turks!

I strongly disagree. Germany was not expansionist.

It absorbed other countries after defeating their militaries. Are you unaware of the definition of expansionistic?

It entered WWI for reasons other than expanding its territory and after losing the war had territory taken away from it.

They began by invading Belgium. You are lying.

t took territory back to start WWII, and ended the Versailles Treaty, and kicked the international bankers out, but it did not want to conquer the world and certainly didn't want to conquer America.

That is fantasy. The nazis had an ideology around expanding territory.

Germany desperately sought to keep America neutral during both world wars

The Nazis were actually spreading a lot of propaganda through hollywood.

forces within America were very motivated to bring Germany down

The majority of Americans were having their relatives in Europe bombed, oppressed, and exterminated by the Nazis.

Why should they not hate Germans, still?

Especially when an ignoramus like you has the nerve to actually defend criminals against humanity.

Your citation actually describes a mostly Irish military in the 1840s.

That's because Germans mostly immigrated after that. The source covers a lot of ground from the Civil War onward. I looked for precise numbers of ethnic backgrounds for soldiers from WWI but didn't find any (other than the 18% foreign born figure). But suffice it to say that since Black Americans were mostly excluded from combat those of German ancestry were far and away the largest group fighting for America.

They began by invading Belgium. You are lying.

They attacked Belgium as an act of war, not because their goal was to colonize Belgium. The cause of WWI was not that Germany coveted Belgium land. They took it as an act of war the cause of which was more complex.

So I'm not lying.

It absorbed other countries after defeating their militaries. Are you unaware of the definition of expansionistic?

It did this in WWII to capture land it had lost after WWI. It didn't harbor goals to take over the world as some have claimed. It certainly didn't seek to attack or takeover America, which is what you originally asserted. As Llyod George and others noted, Germany had reasonable goals yet warmongers like Churchill wanted nothing short of the destruction of Germany. Germany wanted to remain neutral with America and actually allowed America to get quite hostile to it before war broke out.

The Nazis were actually spreading a lot of propaganda through hollywood.

What? This to be a fantastical claim. Hollywood totally villified the Nazis and helped spread pro war propaganda. Germany made its own propaganda.

The majority of Americans were having their relatives in Europe bombed, oppressed, and exterminated by the Nazis.

Why should they not hate Germans, still?

Because hating a group of people for actions a few generations ago is bigoted and is collective punishment. Germany has paid far more than it's fair share for the two world wars. Germany has been made a scapegoat.

Anyway, most Americans did not want to go to war against Germany! So the hatred had to be created! Just look at Hollywood depictions of Nazis and how this has been drummed in our heads. This has been going on since WWI! Still is. Look at movies like 'Inglorious Basterds' that make us sympathize with bashing the brains in of a defenseless and innocent German POW out of pure hate.

They were interfering with the freedom of maritime trade. That has always been a national security interest of the United States, since the goddamn Barbary coast wars. The 20th century Germans were acting barbarically as 19th century Turks!

I think you got that backwards! It was the Brits that were behaving barbarically by trying to starve the German people through their blockade (and they succeeded). So Germany retaliated by promising to use a similar legal rationale to blockade Britain and sink any British, French or Russian vessel in British waters. It warned neutrals of this policy but people in the U.S. insisted on violating this policy and boarded the British flagged Lusitania and the Germans sunk it (just like the Brits would do to any ship trying to supply Germany). Germany wanted the U.S. to be neutral (contra your assertion), so it suspended unrestricted submarine warfare until later (which is what the Zimmerman letter was about).

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-declares-war-zone-around-british-isles

That's because Germans mostly immigrated after that. The source covers a lot of ground from the Civil War onward.

Non-german whites are a majority in the united states and I don't think there has ever been an exception to that.

I looked for precise numbers of ethnic backgrounds for soldiers from WWI but didn't find any (other than the 18% foreign born figure).

Then you should not have quoted an enemy of the United States, and presented his obviously false prejudice as good judgement. That makes you a sympathizer.

But suffice it to say that since Black Americans were mostly excluded from combat those of German ancestry were far and away the largest group fighting for America.

The largest group fighting against it, as well.

The proportion of non-Germans was definitely larger.

They attacked Belgium as an act of war, not because their goal was to colonize Belgium. The cause of WWI was not that Germany coveted Belgium land. They took it as an act of war the cause of which was more complex. So I'm not lying.

No, they coveted Belgian colonies in Africa, you are lying.

It did this in WWII to capture land it had lost after WWI. It didn't harbor goals to take over the world as some have claimed.

The Nazis were specifically planning to extend German territory in Europe and eventually take over the world.

It certainly didn't seek to attack or takeover America, which is what you originally asserted.

You are completely incorrect, there was a huge spy ring that could only be explained by Nazi aggression.

Stop lying in defense of people who were trying to kill Americans.

As Llyod George and others noted, Germany had reasonable goals yet warmongers like Churchill wanted nothing short of the destruction of Germany.

This is nonsense, Hitler repeatedly invaded countries before Churchill took power.

Germany wanted to remain neutral with America and actually allowed America to get quite hostile to it before war broke out.

Germany was exterminating its own citizens. Hostility was certainly merited.

Because hating a group of people for actions a few generations ago is bigoted and is collective punishment.

If you want to exonerate the worst criminals of history then I will count you as being loyal to them. That merits ire.

Germany has paid far more than it's fair share for the two world wars.

They are still hiding stolen treasure from Nazi persecution.

Germany has been made a scapegoat.

Germans want to act like nothing happened.

Anyway, most Americans did not want to go to war against Germany!

Cite, please.

So the hatred had to be created!

By media covering the extermination camps?

Just look at Hollywood depictions of Nazis and how this has been drummed in our heads. This has been going on since WWI! Still is.

It is a common enemy for obvious reasons. It is an aggressive power with racist ideology.

Look at movies like 'Inglorious Basterds' that make us sympathize with bashing the brains in of a defenseless and innocent German POW out of pure hate.

I don't know the context of this scene.

It is rare to refer to Nazi soldiers as innocent.

I think you got that backwards! It was the Brits that were behaving barbarically by trying to starve the German people through their blockade (and they succeeded).

The Germans were fighting an expansionist war, so they deserved it.

So Germany retaliated by promising to use a similar legal rationale to blockade Britain and sink any British, French or Russian vessel in British waters.

They don't have the ethical higher ground to do that, they were killing people for land.

It warned neutrals of this policy but people in the U.S. insisted on violating this policy and boarded the British flagged Lusitania and the Germans sunk it

Killing American citizens in the process...

Germany wanted the U.S. to be neutral (contra your assertion), so it suspended unrestricted submarine warfare until later (which is what the Zimmerman letter was about).

The point is that they were violating maritime trade in defense of a militaristic landgrab; and if the US got too angry about that, they were willing to support a foreign power in conflict against us. That is anything but neutral.

Then you should not have quoted an enemy of the United States, and presented his obviously false prejudice as good judgement. That makes you a sympathizer.

What? This is over the top. One person quoted was a French officer and was allied with America at the time. And there's nothing wrong with quoting both sides of a conflict if one wants to try to get to the truth.

You are heavily one sided and are insisting on using the propaganda of one side only.

This is nonsense, Hitler repeatedly invaded countries before Churchill took power.

Hitler invaded previously German countries and reunited them with Germany. Many in Britain and the world agreed Germany had legitimate claims and wanted to negotiate a peace. Hitler made peace overtures that were ignored by people like Churchhill who wanted total war.

No, they coveted Belgian colonies in Africa, you are lying.

They may have coveted these colonies as a spoil of war, but they were not the cause of the war. You are lying when you say German expansion was the cause of WWI. America also expanded its empire after the Great wars last century, did American expansionism cause the world wars?

Germans want to act like nothing happened.

Nice generalization. Unlike other generalizations that are valid (that Germany created a racist culture--like America and much of the World at that time), this is not a valid generalization. Germans were forced to never forget it. Still to this day there is an enforced guilt leveled against them and people like you openly engaging in hate against them. They are singled out more so than any other nation from WWII for blame.

And Germans did resist being blamed for WWI because they didn't deserve to be blamed and to have crushing economic sanctions leveled against them for generations. Most Germans welcomed Hilter's unilateral rejection of the Versailles treaty and his conquest of formerly German lands because they did indeed view the Versailles "Dictat" as uniquely unfair (and it indeed contained unprecedented terms of harsh punishment).

By media covering the extermination camps?

The media propagandized the camps. The Americans and British also had concentration camps.

I don't know the context of this scene.

It is rare to refer to Nazi soldiers as innocent.

German soldier was captured by Nazi hunters mostly Jewish Americans, not accused of partaking in any crimes, but Jewish guy takes bat and crushes German POW's head. The movie attempts to make one sympathize with the war criminals and like 99% of Hollywood movies depicting WWII it depicts Germans as evil people.

The Germans were fighting an expansionist war, so they deserved it.

Ha! So you agree with collective punishment of a people by using war crimes! Nice. Fits in nicely with OP's post because Israel does the same thing to Palestinians. All of Europe was at war and you justify the starvation of the entire civilian population of a country as a tool of war.

And btw, the British have a history of using this tactic. They did so against the Irish, against the Chinese, against Indians, and of course during WWI they also did so against the Persions, slaughtering millions of Persians and creating a Persian 'Holocaust' even greater than the Jewish Holocaust of WWII.

They don't have the ethical higher ground to do that, they were killing people for land.

You once again misstate the cause of WWI to blame solely the Germans and to imply the main cause was German desire of conquest. This is blatantly false as even most mainstream historians would agree. You are peddling blatant propaganda. And btw, this is the propaganda imposed on Germans after the Allies won WWII and stayed behind to change laws and society to impose this false version of history.

It is a common enemy for obvious reasons. It is an aggressive power with racist ideology.

It's no more aggressive than Britain or France. It also had a similar racist ideology as America and most of the world at the time. The German hatred against Jews was unjust, but Germany was indeed a victim after WWI and there was definitely an overrepresentation of Jewish leaders in the forces trying to destroy Germany. The Germans were no more ethical for labeling all Jews enemies than the Americans were for labeling Japanese Americans enemies, but they had slight more reason for doing so because so many Jewish groups and Jewish leaders were actively trying to destroy Germany.

Killing American citizens in the process...

Yes. But Germany warned Americans not to board British ships headed for British waters. They even took out newspaper advertisement in New York warning them. The Germans didn't want to kill Americans and wanted America to remain neutral. Britain and many American leaders (like Wall St. people) wanted to entice America into war and didn't mind a a few dead Americans to get them into war.

The point is that they were violating maritime trade in defense of a militaristic landgrab

It's questionable that they were violating international law. The Brits were doing the same thing . . . they declared waters around Germany a war zone and would sink any ship that did not go to shore and have it's goods meant for Germany confiscated. They were starving the people of Germany and hundreds of thousands died this way (which was part of the reason Hitler wanted Germany to be more self sufficient during the next war). The Germans didn't have the manpower to search every ship so they just sunk any ship flying the enemy countries' flags in retaliation for similar British policies.

I would argue that economic sanctions to starve a whole country is a war crime and many thought so at the time. Retaliating with similar tactics is less of a war crime because it involves self defense. It's the British that introduced this tactic of total war but propagandist have turned this around to blame the Germans! The same would later happen in regard to targeting civilian populations using air power.

What? This is over the top. One person quoted was a French officer and was allied with America at the time. And there's nothing wrong with quoting both sides of a conflict if one wants to try to get to the truth.

No, you are picking quotes in a false context. You aren't quoting something substantial, either.

You are heavily one sided and are insisting on using the propaganda of one side only.

That quote was extremely offensive, and racist.

Hitler invaded previously German countries and reunited them with Germany. Many in Britain and the world agreed Germany had legitimate claims and wanted to negotiate a peace. Hitler made peace overtures that were ignored by people like Churchhill who wanted total war.

He was invading countries that had no interest in being Germany before Churchill took power. You are making things up.

They may have coveted these colonies as a spoil of war, but they were not the cause of the war. You are lying when you say German expansion was the cause of WWI.

Germany invading other countries initiated the world wars.

You can tell this because they were taking over other countries, and abusing the locals.

America also expanded its empire after the Great wars last century, did American expansionism cause the world wars?

You are asking nonsense questions for lack of a coherent argument.

Nice generalization. Unlike other generalizations that are valid (that Germany created a racist culture--like America and much of the World at that time), this is not a valid generalization.

You are taking a revisionist position and thus validating the assertion.

Germans were forced to never forget it. Still to this day there is an enforced guilt leveled against them and people like you openly engaging in hate against them. They are singled out more so than any other nation from WWII for blame.

They deserve it, they were killing people for land. Everyone knows they are to blame. It is extremely offensive for them to shirk responsibility by lying about neutrality.

Ha! So you agree with collective punishment of a people by using war crimes! Nice. Fits in nicely with OP's post because Israel does the same thing to Palestinians.

If the Israelis were being boycotted maybe that makes sense.

I support blockades of expansionist empires.

All of Europe was at war and you justify the starvation of the entire civilian population of a country as a tool of war.

the German occupation far exceeded the constraints international law imposed on an occupying power. A heavy-handed German military administration sought to regulate every detail of daily life, both on a personal level with travel restraints and collective punishment

The Germans deserve it because they were treating others that way

And btw, the British have a history of using this tactic. They did so against the Irish, against the Chinese, against Indians,

Not the same situation because Britain was in a defensive position during WW1

and of course during WWI they also did so against the Persions, slaughtering millions of Persians and creating a Persian 'Holocaust' even greater than the Jewish Holocaust of WWII.

I can't find your source about that. You realize that there is a long set of land battles in that campaign? Every side seeks to control enemy logistics in war. An aggressive power does not have the higher ground to complain.

You once again misstate the cause of WWI to blame solely the Germans and to imply the main cause was German desire of conquest.

They were taking over other countries.

This is blatantly false as even most mainstream historians would agree. You are peddling blatant propaganda.

On the contrary, this is obvious truth. You are ignoring major historical events in allied history and dismissing them as 'enemy propaganda'.

And btw, this is the propaganda imposed on Germans after the Allies won WWII and stayed behind to change laws and society to impose this false version of history.

This is nonsense. I am repeating how the allies reacted to German aggression during the war. If any of the neutrality bullshit was real, they would not have invaded Belgium. You are making things up to fit your cognitive dissonance.

It's no more aggressive than Britain or France.

Not at this time, in this war.

It also had a similar racist ideology as America and most of the world at the time.

They had specific plans to ethnically cleanse Poland and resettle their land.

The German hatred against Jews was unjust, but Germany was indeed a victim after WWI and there was definitely an overrepresentation of Jewish leaders in the forces trying to destroy Germany.

They hate non-Germans, and make crazy propaganda about taking over the world.

The Germans were no more ethical for labeling all Jews enemies than the Americans were for labeling Japanese Americans enemies,

The Japanese weren't being carried to gas chambers in cattle cars.

There is a world of difference between the holocaust and US internment policy.

but they had slight more reason for doing so because so many Jewish groups and Jewish leaders were actively trying to destroy Germany.

Would you have preferred that the interned Germans were systematically executed during WW2? You can draw the same judgement on Nazi groups and Nazi leaders actively trying to sabotage the United States.

Yes. But Germany warned Americans not to board British ships headed for British waters. They even took out newspaper advertisement in New York warning them.

That is not a warning, it is a threat.

The Germans didn't want to kill Americans and wanted America to remain neutral.

Then they should not have been threatening the general public.

Britain and many American leaders (like Wall St. people) wanted to entice America into war and didn't mind a a few dead Americans to get them into war.

The Germans were the ones killing Americans. You can't blame the British for that, because the Germans were attacking other countries prior to British involvement. The British were containing an aggressive power.

It's questionable that they were violating international law

No, it isn't.

The Brits were doing the same thing

As a response to aggression.

they declared waters around Germany a war zone and would sink any ship that did not go to shore and have it's goods meant for Germany confiscated.

Germany should not have been invading other countries, if they wanted to buy food on the international market. You can't be a jerk and expect everyone else to not take sides.

They were starving the people of Germany and hundreds of thousands died this way (which was part of the reason Hitler wanted Germany to be more self sufficient during the next war).

The Germans were killing other people for land.

You can't let fuel reach a war machine like that.

The Germans didn't have the manpower to search every ship so they just sunk any ship flying the enemy countries' flags in retaliation for similar British policies.

The British were letting some cargo through, by comparison. That means that the Germans had a more restrictive blockade policy.

I would argue that economic sanctions to starve a whole country is a war crime and many thought so at the time.

Not when that country is starving the people they conquer. Turnabout is fair play.

Retaliating with similar tactics is less of a war crime because it involves self defense.

It isn't in this case because Germany was invasive.

They could have had the blockade lifted if they had retreated.

They kept fighting, so they have no right to complain.

It's the British that introduced this tactic of total war but propagandist have turned this around to blame the Germans!

Everyone already knew the Germans were at fault.

The same would later happen in regard to targeting civilian populations using air power.

The Germans were firing rockets on civilians and eventually were bombed to bits in response. They deserved it, those rockets were built on slave labor.

It's always about the money man :) I do like what you have added to the conversation though.

You have to remember that Wall street had a hand in creating the OSS in the very beginning..

I still believe Hitler to be a pawn of the Rothschilds.. whether he knew it or not is another question..

There is a lot of intentional confusion so who knows what the real truth is . . .

I do remember that the OSS/CIA are Wall St. creations. In fact Dulles was a lawyer doing those deals Bush was involved in with Fritz Thyssen. But like I said, of course there are going to be some connections between these two large economies (and Americans were largely German immigrants), and since Thyssen ended up on the wrong side of Hitler and ended up in jail (maybe because of these connections to Wall St. and the fact he tried to move his money outside Germany), leads me to suspect this whole charging Bush and gang with trading with the enemy business could have been a clever way for Wall St. to capture Thyssen's fortune (especially after he was in jail and the assets were in the U.S. anyway and he didn't have much of a chance to fight back).

The main reason I currently doubt Hitler was a pawn of the Rothschilds and was indeed their biggest threat is his use of debt free money was a huge blow to the Rothschilds (and all international bankers) and set a terrible example for the rest of the world (indeed, people in Britain, Canada, and the U.S. were demanding such a solution--see the Social Credit movement and the U.S. Congress proposed such solutions in the early 1930s). International bankers had controlled Germany's economy after WWI (and if you read Schacht's book he blames the foreign bankers for Weimar inflation, in addition to the harsh requirements of the Versailles Dictat).

It's just hard for me to imagine that a Rothschild pawn would engage in this activity of using debt free currency for almost a decade and then successfully run a massive war economy on it. Also, it's hard for me to imagine that Hitler didn't want to win the war . . . I recommend 'Hitler's War' for a good read about WWII. Hitler seemed determined and indeed came very close to winning the war.

But like you said maybe he was an unwitting pawn.

Good points all around. Hitler definitely wanted to win. No debating that.. I have no good argument for hitler using debt free war time money..that to me definitely seems off. However, how do we know that Red shield didn't know this would happen? I think we all can agree that the red shields definitely know how to play chess and extremely well. I need to do a lot more research on the subject as I am still gaining interesting in world war 2 research. I have a long list of books still to read. These discussions will definitely continue into the future.

Back with the quotes - (deleted the first post - page format was screwed)

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000003514423;view=1up;seq=273

The following is from his memoirs – David Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference, Volume II, New Haven, Yale University Press 1939; (ch. XXIII). Bolded emphasis is mine.

QUOTE:

{p.725}

The support of the Zionists for the cause of the Entente would mean a great deal as a war measure. Quite naturally Jewish sympathies were to a great extent anti-Russian, and therefore in favour of the Central Powers. No ally of Russia, in fact, could escape sharing that immediate and inevitable penalty for the long and savage Russian persecution of the Jewish race. In addition to this, the German General Staff, with their wide outlook on possibilities, urged, early in 1916, the advantages of promising Jewish restoration to Palestine under an arrangement

{p. 726}

to be made between Zionists and Turkey, backed by a German guarantee. The practical difficulties were considerable; the subject was perhaps dangerous to German relations with Turkey; and the German Government acted cautiously. But the scheme was by no means rejected or even shelved, and at any moment the Allies might have been forestalled in offering this supreme bid. In fact in September, 1917, the German Government were making very serious efforts to capture the Zionist Movement.

Another most cogent reason for the adoption by the Allies of the policy of the declaration lay in the state of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda in Russia; by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognised as the Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfilment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente.

It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchases.

Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.

[…]

{p. 737}

The Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a National Home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally to the Allied cause Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world. They kept their word in the letter and the spirit, and the only question that remains now is whether we mean to honour ours. Immediately the declaration was agreed to, millions of leaflets were circulated in every town and area through - out the world where there were known to be Jewish communities. They were dropped from the air in German and Austrian towns, and they were scattered throughout Russia and Poland. I could point out substantial and in one case decisive advantages derived from this propaganda amongst the Jews. In Russia the Bolsheviks baffled all the efforts of the Germans to benefit by the harvests of the Ukraine and the Don, and hundreds of thousands of German and Austrian troops had to be maintained to the end of the War on Russian soil, whilst the Germans were short of men to replace casualties on the Western front. I do not suggest that this was due entirely, or even mainly, to Jewish activities. But we have good reason to believe that Jewish propaganda in Russia had a great deal to do with the difficulties created for the Germans in Southern Russia after the peace of Brest-Litovsk. *The Germans themselves know that to be the case, and the Jews in Germany are suffering to-day for the fidelity with which their brethren in Russia and in America discharged their obligations under the Zionist pledge to the Allies**.

Through Sir Mark Sykes and Colonel Lawrence we informed the Arab leaders, King Hussein and his son, Feisal, of our proposals. We could not get in touch with the Palestinian Arabs as they were fighting against us.

{p. 738}

There is no better proof of the value of the Balfour Declaration as a military move than the fact that Germany entered into negotiations with Turkey in an endeavour to provide an alternative scheme which would appeal to Zionists. A German-Jewish Society, the V.J.O.D.,* was formed, and in January, 1918, Talaat, the Grand Vizier, at the instigation of the Germans, gave vague promises of legislation by means of which "all justifiable wishes of the Jews in Palestine would be able to find their fulfilment."

END QUOTE

These issues were far more complicated and dripping with intrigue than may appear at first blush.

Bumper-sticker history doesn't cut it. As you can see from Lloyd George's account of the matter, the Zionists effectively threw the war in the favor of the Allies.

Lloyd George saw this, and plainly stated that the Germans saw it as well, with the repercussions being felt by Germany's Jews.

To pretend that the actions of the Zionists (and related parties) did not influence and fuel the mutual mistrust and animosity between Germany and "the Jews" would be disingenuous - and a really bad idea.

But that's what we're supposed to be pretending, right?

Good post. You should check out this good documentary that Assuredly A Throwaway recommended to me, if I'm not mistaken:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW2sm0iR0E8

It describes George's political calculations in offering Palestine. It also notes the timing of the Balfour Declaration with the Bolshevik takeover of Russia. The documentary hints that George miscalculated because the Bolsheviks weren't interested in Palestine and issued a statement not supporting resolving the Jewish question by establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine but I wonder if things were a bit more complicated (or conspiratorial, if you will).

It's also interesting to note the efforts of William Bullitt who was a secret envoy to the Soviet Union at the time.

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/bullitt-mission

This is the same guy who wrote for the New York Times and lampooned Henry Ford's attempt to forge a peaceful end to World War One (calling them "lunatics") and to keep the U.S. out of the war:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60711FA3B5B17738DDDA80B94D9405B868DF1D3

Bullitt (who later goes on secret missions) describes the efforts of a young feminist, Rosika Schwimmer, to sabotage the peace ship. Ms. Schimmer will also go onto play a role in postwar Hungary and do secret work for the government (the Creel Committee). She later becomes involved in establishing a New World Order in addition to her feminist and spy work. Interesting character.

Anyway, there was a lot of intrigue to how the U.S. got into WWI.

They attempted to subvert control of Russia and were found out, this carried over to Germany including partly inspiring Hitler to come up with his gameplan.

Dude, shut the fuck up and source that.

Because it sounds like you're taking it straight out of the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" put out by the Russian Empire (and the one which launched the conspiracy you referenced), and which influenced Hitler in Germany.

If that is where you're drawing from, you're fucking stupid and blind. lulz How can you possibly subscribe to /r/conspiracy when you eat up such obviously propagandist bullshit? lmao

pats on head

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

Just because you are not a knowledgeable person does not mean the burden is on everyone else to prove how un-knowledgeable you are.

2 seconds in google would have fixed that for you, but now you just look like an emotional child.

Jewish Bolshevism was pushed through propagandist bullshit like the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". That book was specifically put out by the Russian Empire as propaganda.

But it's alright buddy, we all can't actually be knowledgeable about history or do proper research. But fuck, I guess if it's propaganda that fits your pre-established world view, than it's not, bullshit propaganda, it's fact and credible.

That's a very logical mind-set you have. :D

pats on head

So you are just saying it's a lie? Where is your source on that since now the burden of proof is on you.

All you've done is emotionally ranted and not presented a single fact.

TL;DR Yes, I am saying it's just a lie, started by a piece of propaganda bullshit put out by the Russian Empire's secret service. There are plenty of facts and sources backing this up. :D Enjoy buddy.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The Protocols is a fabricated document purporting to be factual. It was originally produced in Russia between 1897 and 1903, possibly by Pyotr Ivanovich Rachkovsky, head of the Paris office of the Russian Secret Police, and unknown others.

[1] [2]

The Protocols uses the false document technique, which invents and inserts documents that appear to be factual. The reader, however, will know of the fictional origin of the work. The Protocols is one of the best-known and most-discussed examples of literary forgery, with analysis and proof of its fraudulent origin going as far back as 1921.

[1]

Elements of the Protocols were plagiarized from Joly's fictional Dialogue in Hell, a thinly veiled attack on the political ambitions of Napoleon III, who, represented by the non-Jewish character Machiavelli, plots to rule the world. Joly, a monarchist and legitimist, was imprisoned in France for 15 months as a direct result of his book's publication. Ironically, scholars have noted that Dialogue in Hell was itself a plagiarism, at least in part, of a novel by Eugene Sue, Les Mystères du Peuple (1849–56).

Identifiable phrases from Joly constitute 4% of the first half of the first edition, and 12% of the second half; later editions, including most translations, have longer quotes from Joly.

Philip Graves brought this plagiarism to light in a series of articles in The Times in 1921, the first published evidence that the Protocols was not an authentic document.

[1] [2]

"Goedsche was a postal clerk and a spy for the Prussian Secret Police. He had been forced to leave the postal work due to his part in forging evidence in the prosecution against the Democratic leader Benedict Waldeck in 1849." Following his dismissal, Goedsche began a career as a conservative columnist, and wrote literary fiction under the pen name Sir John Retcliffe. His 1868 novel Biarritz (To Sedan) contains a chapter called "The Jewish Cemetery in Prague and the Council of Representatives of the Twelve Tribes of Israel." In it, Goedsche (who was unaware that only two of the original twelve Biblical "tribes" remained) depicts a clandestine nocturnal meeting of members of a mysterious rabbinical cabal that is planning a diabolical "Jewish conspiracy." At midnight, the Devil appears to contribute his opinions and insight. The chapter closely resembles a scene in Alexandre Dumas, père's Giuseppe Balsamo (1848), in which Joseph Balsamo a.k.a Alessandro Cagliostro and company plot the Affair of the Diamond Necklace. By 1871, this fictional story was being recounted in France as serious history.

In 1872 a Russian translation of "The Jewish Cemetery in Prague" appeared in St. Petersburg as a separate pamphlet of purported non-fiction. François Bournand, in his Les Juifs et nos Contemporains (1896), reproduced the soliloquy at the end of the chapter, in which the character Levit expresses as factual the wish that Jews be "kings of the world in 100 years" —crediting a "Chief Rabbi John Readcliff." Perpetuation of the myth of the authenticity of Goedsche's story, in particular the "Rabbi's speech", facilitated later accounts of the equally mythical authenticity of the Protocols. Like the Protocols, many asserted that the fictional "rabbi's speech" had a ring of authenticity, regardless of its origin: "This speech was published in our time, eighteen years ago," read an 1898 report in La Croix, "and all the events occurring before our eyes were anticipated in it with truly frightening accuracy."

Fictional events in Joly's Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu, which appeared four years before Biarritz, may well have been the inspiration for Goedsche's fictional midnight meeting, and details of the outcome of the supposed plot. Goedsche's chapter may have been an outright plagiarism of Joly, Dumas père, or both.

[1] [2] [3]

In 1920–21, the history of the concepts found in the Protocols was traced back to the works of Goedsche and Jacques Crétineau-Joly by Lucien Wolf (an English Jewish journalist), and published in London in August 1921. But a dramatic exposé occurred in the series of articles in The Times by its Constantinople reporter, Philip Graves, who discovered the plagiarism from the work of Maurice Joly.

According to writer Peter Grose, Allen Dulles, who was in Constantinople developing relationships in post-Ottoman political structures, discovered 'the source' of the documentation ultimately provided to The Times. Grose writes that The Times extended a loan to the source, a Russian émigré who refused to be identified, with the understanding the loan would not be repaid. Colin Holmes, a lecturer in economic history of Sheffield University, identified the émigré as Michael Raslovleff, a self-identified antisemite, who gave the information to Graves so as not to "give a weapon of any kind to the Jews, whose friend I have never been."

In the first article of Graves' series, titled "A Literary Forgery", the editors of The Times wrote, "our Constantinople Correspondent presents for the first time conclusive proof that the document is in the main a clumsy plagiarism. He has forwarded us a copy of the French book from which the plagiarism is made." In the same year, an entire book documenting the hoax was published in the US by Herman Bernstein. Despite this widespread and extensive debunking, the Protocols continued to be regarded as important factual evidence by antisemites.

[1] [2] [3]

LOL... so you are saying that Jewish Bolshevism is a historical lie?

Talk about something something denial.

I'm saying that the idea of a Jewish conspiracy to use Bolshevism and other social movements to take over the world is a lie.

There were Jews that were Bolsheviks, and there were Jews that were Monarchist Whites, but they did not pull the strings and call the shots. That's the point I'm getting at. The worldwide Jewish conspiracy, and the idea that the Jews ran the Bolshevik movement through a conspiracy is pure and utter bullshit derived from shit like the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", which as I've clearly shown above with sourced facts, is a piece of fabricated propoganda bullshit.

:D

Alright there buddy? Looking a little emotional right now.

pats on head

There were Jews that were Bolsheviks

That's right. That is the only thing people are saying.

You're the only one making a story out of things. Why are you so interested in protesting this historical fact?

I'm protesting the implication that the Jews master-minded and controlled the Bolsheviks, or that they were the ones who spread and implemented Bolshevism with some kind of ulterior & sinsiter motive in mind.

Because that's fucking stupid. lulz

[deleted]

Is a boycott an act of war? This was a boycott

[deleted]

TIL an international boycott in response to a nazi boycott, repressive laws, and harassment = an act of war.

The Bromberg Massacres of countless ethnic Germans by Polish Jews didn't help much with relations either. Truly, it is one of the most heinous events to ever take place.

That happened well after these events - in 1939, after the Germans had already began its invasion of Poland.

they are just trying to suppress truth by playing the anti-semite card, as always

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0kWAqZxJVE

Here is a good question: Where was Israel when Rwanda went up in flames during their genocide? Where was Israel when the Serbs and Croats were committing ethnic cleansing?

Israel should have led the way for the international community to intervene rather than watch these atrocities continue.

[deleted]

Serious, this is why I get sick and tired of hearing about the holocaust, it is an extremely important event to remember and never let happen, but when the 'victims' standby when they are in a position to prevent this type of event from ever occurring is irresponsible and makes their event lose even more importance.

[deleted]

Stalin killed at least 20 million people and the six million number for the holocaust I believe to be wildly inflated. Based on the videos of David Cole, there was no deliberate attempt to gas people, the chimneys weren't tall enough to vent a poisonous gas without also killing people on the ground.

But many died -- Jews, Poles, homosexuals -- from disease and starvation.

And when they make it against the law to question the facts about a historical event, alarm bells go off for me.

edit: changed fact to event in last sentence.

Also, it overshadows all other "genocide" that happened before (and since). How often do you hear about Belgians in the Congo? Or anyone else for that matter? Jews have exclusive rights to it i guess

This

Do unto others that which you cry was once done unto you.

If an article is not about a conspiracy it does not belong here. No excuses.

The only time I see the "anti-semitic" card is when people say they'll get accused of it. funny enough they never actually are.

Also when does Israel use the Holocaust to justify their behavior?

Oh yea and how come they are getting shit for the Palestinians when the Egyptians use chemical weapons against them and Jordan killed more in Black September alone than Israel ever has

>The only time I see the "anti-semitic" card is when people say they'll get accused of it. funny enough they never actually are.

What about Roger Waters?

>Also when does Israel use the Holocaust to justify their behavior?

See Netanyahu to the US Congress

Now, as for Israel, if history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take calls for our destruction seriously.

We are a nation that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust. When we say never again, we mean never again. Israel always reserves -- Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.

Another Netanyahu speech

"It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs," Netanyahu told delegates to the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly, repeating the line several times, like a chorus, during his address. "Believe him and stop him," the opposition leader said of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "This is what we must do. Everything else pales before this."

While the Iranian president "denies the Holocaust," Netanyahu said, "he is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state."

Fantastic post. Thank you guys. Just wanna say that /r/conspiracy has really been surprising me lately and the last week some really good stuff has happened.

[deleted]

Free speech should be protected at all costs. Debate about racism, sexism, and antisemitism are better then banning it.

Unquestionable. Discussing fact is labeled racist speach, and it is nothing of the sort. This is simply a pathetic and clear attempt to limit the open discussion of topics certain groups and people would do almost anything to halt.

This is an extremely suspect reaction of utter fear and cowardice towards the open discussion and uncovering truth. Truth should always be held above all else. They fear open and honest discussion. This is even more reason for it to occur. This should never be tolerated. Discussions should never be limited or artificially restricted. The country I live in and cherish is built upon truth.

Just as Flytape pointed out, you are one of those whose only concerns about "racism" is when pertains to Zionism, Jews or Judaism. Otherwise pointing out negative aspects about anyone else is perfectly fine.

If the conversation makes you uncomfortable, you don't have to participate...and the last thing you need to do is to cry "anti-semitism" when there isn't any to begin with.

Censorship is for the weak minded and insecure. If that is what you need, go to a sub that has been customized for people who live in a world of wishful thinking.

I'm not familiar with that member in particular, but I do not consider neonazis to be a group that "mildly discusses their issues concerning groups of people they have qualms with." If they did, what's the harm in that? Again, I'm not familiar but just going with what I would assume and I apologize if I am mistake on their repertoire.

It's one thing to say, "I dislike how this group does XYZ," versus, "we need to exterminate said group." Again, speech that goes with the former is, in my opinion, part of free speech. The latter is clearly hate-mongering and should not be tolerated.

I don't care which group comes on here as long as they abide by these rules and I think flytape's version is more conducive to discussion than the current. The point is, a civilized discussion or complaint should be tolerated if it is not calling for violence towards a group or simply defaming them (slurs).

100% absolutely agree with this! Also, I am completely blown away with the amount of democracy occurring in this sub, as evidenced by /u/Flytape and /u/Mr_Dong's conversation here. In the end I guess the /u/solidwhetstone catastrophe was a good thing because it put us all 100% on the same page with what we for our sub.

Racism walks a very thin line with censorship. No one likes "racists". "Political correctness" is another thing.

I don't ever want to be Politically correct. I want to be able to speak my mind openly. I never denigrate a race, I wasn't brought up that way. I love diversity.

However, I do pay attention to "hate crimes" and the media, and how the "media" likes to spin things.

Pay attention.

I'm much more concerned about censorship than racism. I honestly haven't seen much racism in this sub, IDK, maybe it gets removed promptly when it occurs?

We are subject to such extreme propaganda and brutal thought control from our fascist overlords and their minions in the media that having some place to have honest discussions is hugely valuable.

In particular, the media loves Jews and there is a constant ongoing PR campaign to whitewash the crimes of Israel. For example, I notice how the NY Times likes to refer to "the Jewish people." But you don't hear anything about "the Muslim people," or "the Irish people." No, it's just "the Muslims," or "the Irish." So, by extension, why isn't it simply "the Jews?"

Because of this constant PR campaign to paint Jews in the best possible light.

[deleted]

Proof that white supremacists have overrun this sub? I've been here 3 years and every racist comment I've ever seen has been downvoted or removed by the mods and the poster usually banned.

Black-prop sockpuppet account.

• http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiro/comments/1sumus/we_must_preserve_conspiracy_we_are_being_attacked/

Probably actually /u/jcm267, givin his obsession with "the truth".

white supremacists now run this place and are targeting agendas not only against israel but jews themselves

I take your statement personally. You don't know me, or the other moderators and further accusations like this will result in a ban. I

I'm only letting the comment stand so other readers can see how much of an arse you have just made of yourself.

Define your terms, professor. Tossing of "cultural marxist labels" is what needs to be challenged.

The important thing is that in this subreddit we permit discussions about racial issues, about religions, about feminism and male rights, about Zionism, about Israel, about the Holocaust, and not only permit discussions on these controversial issues, but also criticisms of these and similar "sacred cows". If we can't criticize, how can we have an actual discussion or debate? It would be impossible.

This is a matter of importance to me because my main focus in this subreddit is taboo topics -- things that some people would wish us all to be forbidden to talk about. Consequently my posts sail pretty close to the wind at times. I'm aware of that, but I refuse to allow myself to be self-censored by political correctness.

I try not to insult other redditors, and I try to refrain from any hateful comments about race, religion, sexuality, and so on. However, because my posts are in forbidden zones, many Redditors assume they are hateful, even when they are not. They assume that any critical comment of taboo topics must be hateful. This shows a lack of mental clarity on their part, but it is quite common.

It is vital that we continue our criticism of Israel and Zionism. We are among a very few places on Reddit where such criticism is openly and freely tolerated.

I also believe it is vital that we tolerate race realism in this sub. People have been trained not to even think about race, but to ignore race is to ignore reality. The recent posts about the "knock-out game", which is otherwise known as the "polar bear game" is a good example of why race realism is necessary in order to achieve a true understanding of what is happening. Almost all victims of this "game" have been white, Jewish, or Asian (but mostly white), and almost all attackers have been black. This "game" is racially motivated hatred. We can't discuss it without talking about race.

Anyway, what we need in this sub is civility toward each other, but we can't afford to make any sacred cows that are taboo to talk about -- not here. This sub is designed to talk about the things the general public won't discuss. We need to have the courage to critically examine topics that are politically incorrect, and that includes Israel, Zionism, Jewish control of the media, black violent crime, immigration, homosexuality, abortion, feminism, and so on.

The bottom line in all of this is we need to conduct ourselves with respect. Most of the time, giving someone the benefit of the doubt and a chance for them to redeem themselves through further elaboration can healp clear the air of animosity caused by somtimes simple misunderstandings.

Maybe a redditor used just one word incorrectly? Or they misunderstand the difference between zionism and judaism (extremely common)? Or maybe they make simple assumptions on complex implications of anothers intentions or meanings, and instead of requesting for further clarification, they grab onto that emotional train amd wont let go for fear of having to admit they were wrong or just misunderstood what was meant.

If we all assume the other is honest and trying to be respectful (some users are from other countries and may not speak english as well as us 'mericans), then a lot of these issues can be resolved peacefully , efficiently, and respectfully.

When this fails, then the intentions of apparantly abuseful statements and belligerent remarks become unveiled, and makes the mods' job a bit easier :-)

This only would work if we all actively take part in it on an individual level.

I personally believe the problem is not the definition of "hate speech" or "racism" or "[add prefix here]-ism", because deep down inside, i think, we all know what is meant. The issue, i believe, is on the individual level of each redditor. It just happens to be on a massive scale.

This is how i see it, anyhow...

The bottom line in all of this is we need to conduct ourselves with respect. Most of the time, giving someone the benefit of the doubt and a chance for them to redeem themselves through further elaboration can help clear the air of animosity caused by sometimes simple misunderstandings.

Spot on. Respect is the key word and something that needs to be remembered by all posters. Just because posters disagree with an opinion or idea doesn't mean they should start shit-slinging or being abusive.

[deleted]

Why do the mods suddenly care about this when they think an "outsider" is the cause, but never reprimand regular contributors who downvote, harass, and name to be shills those that bring up reasonable questions about the veracity of claims made in a submission?

We can only deal with what is reported. Debate is encouraged as long as name calling and labelling isn't prevalent. Maybe it has been in the past but we are looking to change such behaviours to benefit everybody.

I see it happen all the time, where someone who brings up a point about the post using false information will get brigaded by the other posters and told they must be a shill, working for JIDF, harassed, or told to get the fuck out of the sub.

We want to work to make this kind of behaviour a thing of the past.

Flytape has already done this on one of the posts on the front page right now about the new queue, telling someone who brought up a reasonable discussion to leave the sub.

Flytape shouldn't be telling anyone to leave the sub and you should report comments like that accordingly. No one is untouchable and if a user is out of line we will warn them, ex-mod or not.

Why is that acceptable from the mods and the regular posters, but only becomes a problem when someone who isn't a regular does it? Why does this sub engage in censoring everything critical of it and its submissions but refuses to even try and moderate poor and false content?

If we, as a sub were not open to criticism we would not listen, we do and we are trying to change problems here accordingly. We are always open to suggestion which is why this post is stickied. There is no reason why other readers ideas and suggested changes will not get the same treatment. We are listening and you are free to message us directly.

Non of us assume that this is a perfect sub, if we can improve it we will.

Maybe a redditor used just one word incorrectly? Or they misunderstand the difference between zionism and judaism (extremely common)? Or maybe they make simple assumptions on complex implications of anothers intentions or meanings, and instead of requesting for further clarification, they grab onto that emotional train amd wont let go for fear of having to admit they were wrong or just misunderstood what was meant.

Many times people intentionally misread and/or misrepresent what was said in the hopes of maligning those that they disagree with - effectively using false accusations as a hammer to silence the opposition.

The accusation of racism is a potentially libelous and defamatory charge, and careful consideration is in order before any knee-jerk action is taken against the accused.

Many times people intentionally misread and/or misrepresent what was said in the hopes of maligning those that they disagree with

E.g. http://www.reddit.com/r/NolibsWatch/comments/1ron9x/rconspiratard_collectively_too_stupid_to/

I've been a victim of these false, always unsourced accusations for years now.

E.g. http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiratard/comments/17b0my/an_open_letter_to_the_nlw_crew_and_any_other/ (Note: OP)

I've been a victim of these false, always unsourced accusations for years now.

Predictable players using their typical tactics.

Amazing.

http://www.reddit.com/r/NolibsWatch/search?q=libel+OR+slander+OR+defam*+OR+smear*&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all

(this is why they hate my subreddit, evidence)

Incoming:

• http://www.reddit.com/r/asksolidwhetstone/comments/1twb1k/changing_rule_1/

They want to change the rule to no slurs or calls to violence, while still allowing otherwise racist comments.

The spin and x-posting is in full effect.

Omg a no participation link from a tiny sub!!!! Flytape said as much I asked him in this thread. Look for it

Constant trolling via comments minimizing the trolling is one tactic to prevent any discussion.

You're a conspiratard troll and simply disrupt conversations here. You are trolling. You should be banned for rule 9 and rule 10 violations. You're literally commenting on conspiratard about how awful this place is then coming right over here to troll.

Well not 10, I don't think asking for someone's opinion on a thread is a post attacking the sub.

9 - Maybe, but depending on context eh? Asking a former mod what he thinks about a proposed rule change doesn't seem crazy. Also it was a NP link, something you guys do on the regular to other subs. Call the grand troll hunter out over here and ask him. I'm interested to find out if I have deserved a ban.

1) I absolutely agree with this as rule 1,

Rule #1 Slurs that defame people of any race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, social order or creed will not be tolerated and are subject to moderation and/or action against your account. Legitimate criticism of the groups mentioned above shall be conducted with great care as to not use any slurs

2) This is why I am 100% behind flytape rejoining the mod team if he so desires; as the trolls around reddit tend to Obfuscate their intentions behind a veil of moral righteousness that he is able to see right through.

He has been banned summarily.

And yes, I remember when they brigaded your goodbye thread as well.

I think I'll send a message off to Yishan to see what can be done about this consistent and open brigading.

Seriously just a question, and I hope you do not take offense, but how can you know that it was brigading? Just because they link to a page does not mean that brigading occurred.

If there is a way to prove that it is consistently occurring then I would understand the hate, which is why I am asking.

but how can you know that it was brigading?

I don't know sadly, I simply enforce the no crossposting rule when I see it.

There is a way to prove it, but sadly only people like Yishan would have access to it.

Reddit inc is a dirty place and we would be well suited not to expect any help from the day to day admin team, as some of them run PR firms ;).

There is a way to prove it, but sadly only people like Yishan would have access to it.

Fair enough, I was just hoping someone would have designed a program/bot that could analyze voting/posting relative to subreddit subscriptions. That would definitively show whether or not they brigade.

This is a good idea and I'm relatively sure this exists on the administrative side, but nonetheless it would be helpful to have a tool that could cull that data from the API in an accessible manner.

Software that provided proof of brigading would be the end of many of the "drama" and hate-group subreddits that send raids here.

Someone who knows how to code get to work!

LOL, I'm their boogeyman. Muahahaha!

http://i.imgur.com/2Jz60.png

http://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughPaulSpam/comments/qvg05/someone_decided_to_make_me_a_moderator/

While changing the rule to better fit our beliefs and fairness to all people, we should also include anti-censorship actions everyone here should take:

Disabling the hiding of comments in your Prefs - upper right hand corner, to the left of your username. I believe the field within your site Preferences (http://www.reddit.com/prefs/) is populated by default with a value that force hides anything with a certain downvote count, say -4. Delete both values and their downvotes become meaningless. Don't allow anyone else to control what you see and participate in. After tackling this, its time to address the removal and censprship of entire threads here. We should not ever fear discussion of the open and honest truth.

I contend we delete rule number one. This should be an open marketplace. If we think posts are inappropriate, downvote and move on.

What about rule 3 then?

Or rule 8? Rule 10 and rule 11?

May as well get rid of most of the rules if you think downvotes are a sufficient form of moderation.

There's a difference between distasteful speech and disruptive speech though.

Distasteful speech can be voted down and ignored--so to me this is rule 1 (racism).

Disruptive speech, including attacking and libeling users or this sub, should be moderated by removal and bans--so this is rules 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10.

Stylistic rules I think can be moderated by voting down rather than moderator action--rules 5, 7, 8, 11 (Caps lock, Facebook links, memes, sensational/misleading headlines). Maybe mods can insert clearly defined mod text into misleading headlines. Not sure of the purpose of no Facebook links though.

We will look to make a much needed update to some of the rules over the next few days. As for your suggestions for rule one, i like it a lot, it fleshes out and provides us with much more flexibility in enforcing the rule.

Alright, we'll wait for some more opinions and suggestions.

Could you change the link to "np"? We don't want to be accused of brigading.

Awesome. Great post, btw. We should remember that PC-ness is merely a mental short circuit for critical thought.

PC is a direct attempt at mind control of the masses and it works beautifully, if you let it

I'm out of the loop what is this np?

No participation. Takes away the upvotes and downvotes so there won't be any vote brigades.

Cheers

Actually that response you got was misleading. The np stops your votes from counting. So you click a link that says .np and cast votes, then go about your business. Those don't count. You would see that if you refreshed the page.

However, the trolls across the bridge have discussed this and know how to easily bypass it. You simply delete the np and type in w w w then hit enter. It refreshes the page with the url that allows voting. It's just a minor inconvenience and nothing else. It definitely doesn't stop vote brigades. In fact, just yesterday I saw a thread with a .np url. I followed the link to check out the voting. Kept refreshing the page and every few minutes I saw /r/conspiratard power users coming into the discussion (It was in SRD). One was Impissed, another was Yserbius (mod for r/Israel) and there was a few others who claimed they didn't find that thread by following the link at r/conspiratard. It's just a massive coincidence that they all happened to be just randomly browsing Reddit and happened to all congregate in that thread right after the link was posted in r/conspiratard.

Thank you for clearing that up!

the trolls across the bridge have discussed this and know how to easily bypass it.

The salient point.

I have an idea---

The obsession with race and racism is a largely American phenomenon. My experience is Spanish speaking countries are much more realistic in how they judge things related to race. How about making a Mexican or Colombian a mod?

I would just like to say that the one non-OP top level comment is agreeing with you.

He's not smart enough to recognize the distinction between "stalking" and watch-dog journalism, unfornuately.

3 points 5 hours ago* (+18|-16)

LOL!

Agreed:

Side note Stefan Molyneux's take on the Duck Dynasty thing

Good post, I'm intrigued by your rule change. Maybe the wording could be tidied up, but I like the gist.

Edit: maybe something about not generalizing or referring to a race or races as being one unified body. We know there are schisms and differences in opinions and ideologies in all sects.

I'm in total agreement. This needed to be clearly defined and stated. Thanks for doing so.

i do not think we need to change rule #1 and here is why:

criticism of zoinism is not racism, as much as they would like it to be and the majority of zionists love to hide behind judaism, criticism of judaism is also not racism. judaism is a faith, a doctrine, not a race.

criticism of jews for owning the media and banking/finance or milking* the holocaust (hoax/exaggeration or not) is not racism it is criticism at most and fundamentally and factually the truth at a minimum.

*milking: playing the worldwide universal victim for 63.4million of your clan/religion/race/syndicate dying or being murdered in a war does not really measure up against the Russian losses, or even the German losses. sorry, it just doesn't, that is fact.

the number one squeaky wheel on the "racism" claim in this sub are jews/zionists and that claim is just bogus, end of story.

there is no racism in this sub, against jews or blacks or anyone else there is only truth.

if you are afraid of, or won't face the truth then you are in the wrong place.

How is spreading the stereotype that the Jews control the media and banking systems not racist? It suggests that Jews have some evil intent through collusion, that any Jewish person that enters into these fields is corrupt in some way, originated from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and is also untrue.

You're suggesting that someone is first Jewish and then an individual. That sort of generalization is what forms the building blocks of racism. Saying "Racial Group X is/has <insert quality>" is racism.

only if it isn't true. is saying that black people like chicken&watermelon racist? no, it is a generalization, sure, but not racism. pull the rod out your ass, get off your p.c. cloud

I'm Black. If I was out and someone suggested to me that I must like chicken and watermelon then that person is making a racist remark. It has happened before and it's not fun to deal with.

Racism isn't something that I'm making up for the sake of P.C.; it's a very real problem here on /r/conspiracy and the need to redefine it is part of the problem.

*edit: A word.

ye sure u are. i'm jewish.

Hopefully my hand is proof enough...

this is me when i was younger and fitter

That's right folks, disregard the bit on the sidebar about respecting all religious beliefs and creeds. Feel free to lie about being Jewish to prove a ridiculous point and follow up with whatever that's supposed to be. Respect.

i will post a picture of my hand tomorrow, meanwhile here's a flashlight, go look for your sense of humour

you should go to a black neighborhood with some chicken&watermelon and find out!

[deleted]

Racism is the belief that all members of a race possess characteristics so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

hmm who does that sound like?

in reality hate speech is when someone urges violence against these groups

This is 100% untrue and why racism is so common on this sub. Racism is more than inciting violence or using slurs.

Racism is spreading and defending stereotypes. Racism is any form of prejudicial treatment. Racism is when you suggest that any racial group has any sort of generalized quality.

By your standard of racism it would be perfectly acceptable to say "Group X has below average intelligence", "Group Y has a primitive culture", or that "Group Z controls the media".

Trying to re-define racism is exactly why so many people think that this sub is racist. You shouldn't need to clarify what racism is. No other sub has this problem because they are vigilant and intolerant to racism. That this post has so many upvotes is all the ammo that any opponent of /r/conspiracy needs.

there is no racism in this sub, there is discussion of certain topics certain parties would prefer were not discussed, ever, anywhere, by anybody, for any reason.

Didn't read every detail but get the gist of it and agree with it.

yes. this is forum for ideas and dialogue and racism SHOULD be allowed as part of that discussion. I hope that the community will choose not to condone it, but it should certainly be allowed.

violent language is not and should not be acceptable.

[deleted]

the sow rides purple aquatic

The problem with labeling is that you end up generalising a whole lot of human beings for simply sharing the same heritage. If you're so certain of the conspirators that spin these webs, why not use their names. Palming something off as Jewish/Indian/Christian suggests that all people of said creed/race/nationality are in uniform to your suggestion, some "agenda". These are blanket terms that favour the idea that perhaps you don't know what you're talking about. An entire race is not conspiring. Perhaps a few at the top share a likeness, yet that is not the fault of all those related through whatever.

Where is conspiratard when reddit is openly bashing Christianity? A: No where to be found, they are only concerned with Judaism.

Well, most of the Christianity bashing doesn't have to do with conspiracies, and since /r/conspiritard is dedicated to bashing conspiracies there really isn't any need to take note of it.

The big issue I see is that racism doesn't necessarily have to do with violence. You can say something that marginalizes people like "black people are x" or "asians do y" without necessarily being hateful.

There's also the fact people tend to mistake single belief groups as representative of a bigger group of people (see, Zionists and Jews).

But sometimes black people ARE "x" and Asians DO do "y." It is not racist to point that out. We are all products of both genetics and upbringing, and people who share both genes and upbringing are going to have certain things in common, just as sisters and brothers often do. Don't ask us to deny the evidence of our own eyes.

I'm black and when I hear people say "black people are loud," I know it's true. We are. It's one reason we make such good singers. Our voices really carry.

Edit: typo

Except not all black people or asian people do x/y. Genetics only go part way, even if you're heavily deterministic and don't believe in things like "free will" environmental factors also influence development sometimes to a greater extent then genetics.

Sure if people who share upbringings do have certain things in common, which is why we have things like "black" or "hispanic" culture. But it is racist to assume a person must have an aspect due to the colour of their skin.

Don't ask us to deny the evidence of our own eyes

I will do that, because that's anecdotal evidence and isn't valid in a proper argument.

So now we can't post anything except "proper arguments?" What about personal experience? Without discussion of personal experiences, half the conversation worldwide would cease.

Personal experiences are irrelevant since the only source of evidence is the claimant himself, who is heavily biased.

I could state that I personally have never seen a black person do x or an asian person do y, but I couldn't provide proof it was true and I have more then enough of a motive to falsify my statement.

There's also the fact that one person's experience is a very small sample size to begin with.

I have more then enough of a motive to falsify my statement.

What is your motive?

Me wanting to win the argument.

aww, maaaannn... i was totally intending to say something snarky

then you had to go all makin' sense and stuff.

d'accord.

I think their is a serious vs ill troll type humor difference to me in the manner of how what may be called racism is presented.

If someone wants to rationally in context to a topic, express[edit:]ed in their own hand [including slurs] in depth how great characters such as santa, satan, KKK, hitler, neo/old nazis, or new/old black panthers are, I can often easily respect that a person spends earnest energy in their free expression, even if I personally find some or all of the things they expressed to be racist in my mind. If their racist ideological words make sense then it may spark others to become part of such a hate mindset, but IMO not easily to intelligent educated thinkers, & often roots of their reasons for hatred are exposed often letting those opposed to dissect & see the glimpses of reasons for what others label hate.

On the other hand, short racial slur troll comments made to quickly spark hate & chaos in a discussion forum are often more ill IMO & I RES tag people that do so accordingly to indicate their ways.

I do think on rare occasion possibly mods should remove some people that are not ever contributing in non troll ways, but I think removing racist comments is ignorant. Remove the person then leave their name & words to mark as a tombstone their ignorance forever.

I think speaking ill of lizards or aliens is often hateful & sometimes borders on racism, but I dig learning what others think & see. I like to sift fantasy from reality. I do not need to be sheltered from others earnest words, whether I agree or disagree with them.

I have witnessed few hard core violence inciting haters on reddit. Most of the irritating haters are like trolls & mosquitoes. I trollingly pester warpigs of the ill machine & I know no individual that does not rub some others in ill fashion. Religious violence is common in history, but I do not seek to ban books that drive ill violent interpretations.

I think sparking or inciting violence is more ill than racism. IMO this persons post borders on inciting others to act in violent manner & I found it ill that it is the top comment.

Note: I find the words chosen as slurs often expose important details, such as how subliminal programming seeds slur users mindsets.

peace in

þ

Accusations of racism or shaming people who are discussing these topics are not welcome here as stated in rule 10.

If someone is legit being racist, they can't be called out on it?

They can be. And it won't be difficult. However, there may be times when a statement might SOUND racist, but is actually not a negative statement of a race in general.

For example: "My store has had a lot of bad experiences with Mexicans. Kids running around and making a mess, being loud, and sometimes breaking things. Teenagers and adults trying to steal things or switch price tags. And don't get me started on the bathrooms. Are ALL Mexicans like this? No. Just the ones that store has been unfortunate enough to serve."

DISCLAIMER: I do not work in a store (I'm actually unemployed as of this writing). I have no problem with Mexicans at all. I go to church with quite a few of them (am not one myself), and all the ones I've known are good people. The above statement is an example and is not meant to be taken as anything that actually happened.

[deleted]

what about no misleading headlines

Updated now. See new rule 11.

Feel free to educate humanity on what is or is not racism. All you really need to do here is educate the moderators, if you think they need it, since they are enforcing the rule. The rule itself is fine without defining the terms down to the last little thing.

In point of fact, were I conspiratorily-minded, I would say you are jumping on a perceived problem in order to further limit speech. Your rule substitution expands the purview of rule one to include things that are not racism.

How do you figure that expanding the types of regulated speech from simply racism to include sex, ethnicity, religious affiliation, nationality, social order and creed will broaden speech? Your argument is backwards. It will have the opposite affect.

Also, your rule will not stop people from being "bombarded with accusations". It will still happen regardless of what rules you implement, and our responses will be the exact same - "no, it isn't".

I do agree that our speech should not be limited, which is why I oppose this. For instance, if I want to say that I think all catholics are crazy, that's quite different from saying I think all blacks are crazy, but your rule treats them alike.

This is my point. It is already accepted here. I know that because there are no rules forbidding it. Implementing rules to curtail it cannot make it more acceptable.

I simply do not feel it is something that needs to be tinkered with or made explicit. As far as I can tell, such comments as you are driving at are not a big deal.

The nod to rule 10 is telling insomuch as it draws attention to the fact that the comments in question are indeed personal attacks. It seems what you are trying to adjudicate is where the line is drawn between attack and critique. I'm reminded of the judicial line between user and dealer - "over this amount is a felony". The designation, to be just, must be subjective. For instance, in a post about Israel a guy replies "this is racist" where another replies "you are a racist". Disregarding for the moment whether either of the two replies are true or false, it is going to be up to the reader to decide whether either of these is a personal attack or a genuine critique of the post. In our forum here, it is always going to be up to the moderator to decide this question.

Eh, I'm rambling and don't feel like cleaning up my thoughts about it any better so I'll just say that it isn't that there is something inherently wrong in your rule, but that I think rules are the wrong way to go about achieving what you want to achieve.

Tell that to your criminal dual citizen lawmakers. Crooks.

[deleted]

Coming from the rambling incoherent mamboy, this makes me laugh. Not so much with you, but mpre at you. For your foolish attempts to support lies and class labels. To support a public sham.

The rules should always support open debate. At every turn the fools claim racism when simple facts and history are discussed. We know its not racism. You know it's not racism. Now who again are you fooling?

Conspiratard is so concerned with people talking about Jewishness that they fail to see the racism from users like

i havent read them, yet, but arent the talmud and torah kind of racist with regard to the "goyim" ?

How do I know it was buried?

The comments are up voted while the thread itself is down voted. This isn't consistent with normal voting patterns.

Shhhh don't teach them new tricks.

Everything you said is correct.

This makes me think of the recent "knockout game" news, where not one person in the news seems to want to acknowledge that every single person that seems to be involved with playing the game is black. Are we not allowed to ask about what is happening in certain subcultures? Most everyone would agree that the behavior is wrong and bordering on psychopathy, but we aren't allowed to ask how and why those people got where they are? This hypersensitivity to "racism" and all the other political corectness psychobabble is hurting humanity more than it is helping.

EDIT: Removed due to brain fart.

Was replying to something else. Removed with prejudice.

IMHO, Cultural Marxist terms like "racism", "hate speech" and the other "-ism"s are always used to stifle communication when someone's ox is being gored. Even acknowledging their 'power' puts the debater in a hole from the start.

Removed with prejudice.

Amazing irony, considering you're all over /r/whiterights

...and I've never tried to hide it, Joe Friday. I write what I think and stand by what I write; and when I don't think I delete it.

If there was ever a signpost as to "Am I making the right decision in a rule change?", this is it.

Make this change and literally you are 80% of the way to becoming /r/whiterights.

Not removing poisonously offensive comments can ruin a conversation.

Many sensible peeps who believe in conspiracies are probably sickened with seeing that shit and they'll just leave and go elsewhere, the people who have no problem with it stick around and the situation snowballs.

Why not just allow slurs at that point? There's no difference

What's the difference between using a slur and describing the slur in detail?

You want to allow describing it in detail as long as you don't say the word.

/u/Razzlex sounds like one of those paid by Israel to prowl the net and beat up "anti-semites" everywhere he goes.

So, you're coming out of your 1-year retirement to agitate over the composition of this /r. What's your motivation?

What's the panic over /r/whiterights, anyway? You need to go back to math class, or maybe you haven't taken arithmetic yet. If all 3347 eeeevillll wayciss white-righters invaded /r/conspiracy, they'd be about 1.6% of the combined total. Not quite your "80%". So again; what's making you bluster so wildly?

It is silly to think that anybody who refers for example to Zionists as simply jews, or Mafia as italians is a racist. It is just a matter of being socially aware about how people usually communicate. Nobody says Zionist people or Mafia people, it would be really ankward to talk this way. Everybody knwos that Zionists are jews, and Mafia are italians.

The problem is that this place is full of trolls, who are not able to say anything intelligent or constructive on topic, they only waste everybody's time by saying bullshit about racism. I think the rule is still good. Normal users are all socially aware, and can tell the difference between ways of speaking amd obvious racism.

We have to get rid of trolls, not discussing rules. It's a normal rule, do we really need to add some idiotic addition / disclaimer because of trolls? Let's not allow the trolls make us act retarded like them.

http://www.judeofascism.com/2012/06/jewish-owned-mass-media-behemoth.html

I hope youll forgive me for correcting you on something right quick, but i feel it is important:

Everybody knwos that Zionists are jews,

Not all Zionists are Jews. And similarily, not all Jews are Zionists. This is a very common assumption that often leads to infighting here and everywhere else. Hence why i decided to kindly correct thst statement. I hope you dont mind :-)

**In parallel, not all Mafia members are members of the Italian Mafia, there are also Russian Mafias as well. (Im not too educated on the "accepted" term "Mafia", though, i just know there is an italian mafia and a russian mafia, and i am somehow related to people in each... )

Zionists are jews, and Mafia are italians, other people are only allowed to be associated with them because useful.

Russian Mafia members are commonly called as russians. You are clearly mistaken common use expressions with definitions allowed in court. This is not a court, this is a public forum. Any more questions?

I really don't knwo what is the point of what you wrote. Does it contraddicts what I wrote previosly according to your particular, occult vision?

I jack off to shemale porn every day.

Yes, i found this contradiction between what you said and what he said:

You said," Zionists are Jews."

In response to that, flytape accurately responded with the fact that there are some zionists who are christians rather than jews.

To add further, one of the biggest proponents of zionism was, himself, atheist. His last name was Herzl, but i forget his first name (thomas i think?) He is actually widely viewed as the founder of the modern zionist movement.

I am afraid you need this: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html

Im sorry but your angst is misplaced. The link you provided defines zionism like this,

Its general definition means the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.

The founder of the modern zionist movement is theodor herzl. Id recommed some research on him, as you will come to find that he was an atheist and he publicly stated so.

Also, this next link is to a site authored by a Jew, and he thoroughly explains the difference between zionism and judaism. I highly recommend you read it in its entirety as it is very informative and helpful for you to understand the fallacy of your claim.

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/differencejudzion.html

I am sorry. This guy who you are always talking about, Theodor Herzi was a jew too. I don't know what is your point. But mainly I don't care, because extremely tired of mindless jewish propaganda.

I mean, if you are jewish I can understand your concern, but you will never change the way people talk about racially based organizations.

He was of jewish decent, meaning his mother or his father was jewish, but he declared himself an atheist.

This is where it gets tricky because "jewish" is often used to define a religious affiliation (to judaism) as well as a race of peoples. The wikipedia article about him defines him as a Jewish Atheist, meaning he is descended from Jews (using this term in regards to race) but he was an atheist (meaning he did not believe in a god, and was not religiously affiliated with Judaism).

This is a perfect example of why this topic is so controversial. If you havent done so, i will recommend a second time to visit that link i provided you, writeen by a Jewish person who is not Zionist. He explains thoroughly the difference between a jew and a zionist. It would really improve your understanding of this topic (assuming improvement in quality of knowledge is something you seek.)

You don't understand me. I am aware that not all jews are zionists. The point is that the rest of the world is willing to think and talk in a certain way. If the jews don't like it, they must deal with that. We certainly don't need jews to teach to the entire world what to think and what to say. They already tried it with religion. And we didn't liked that. We are already angry. But they still continue with their delusions.

Youre right, i didnt understand you. Its hard with you sometimes, to figure out what you are saying. For instance, you literally said zionists are jews, so its not a great leap to get to my assumptions of your implications. I hope you understand the reason for my misunderstanding, as i felt you werent extremely clear until now. Again, another honest misunderstanding i hope.

I do agree with your assertion that a great deal of the population use the terms interchangeably, and that is one of the main causes of such controversy surrounding this topic, as well as other similar topics and their related controversies.

As for the rest of your comment, im not sure where you are going with that, so ill just say im glad we finally found some common ground and identified a misunderstanding.

Btw, i dont mean to pry or to be rude, but of what nationality are you? I have a suspicion that you may be french (that was not intended as an insult, i just recall you used a french word in lieu of an english word a few days ago). You dont have to answer that question if you dont want to. I was just curious.

The problem is that this thread was derailed by trolls. It is very hard to communicate this way. I think we will be more confortable next time, in a less busy thread. Until then, have a good time.

Do you mind answering my question about your nationality? Im honestly just curious, and again, im not trying to be rude. Just let me know if you dont feel comfortable answering and ill let it go.

Until then, have a good time.

And the same to you, sir.

No.

Zionists are jews

Not ALL zionists are Jews.

even the ones who claim to BE jews

I see. There does seem to be a bit of a difference when referencing "Mafia" proper, as in the Sicilian Mafia or aka Italian Mafia. Basically, colloquially speaking, mafia can either mean the Italian Mafia, based from Sicily, or it could refer to the various other mafias from other countries that are run in similar fashion and purpose.

This would seem to highlight the importance of clarity when speaking about such topics, as it is easily misunderstood due to the fact that different people use different definitions for the same term, depending on context.

This would explain how i misunderstood your use of the term Mafia as an ambiguous one, rather than the more specific term regarding only the Italian Mafia as you might have intended.

Honest misunderstanding.

You must be aware that even Italian Mafia is not a specific term. To be really specific you must explain that Mafia exists only in the South of Italy. Only Southern italians are mafia members. There are no Northern Italian Mafias. You have to say Italian Southern Mafia to be precise.

Sicily is in the south.

That's right, all Italian Mafias are based only in specific Southern regions. Not on Italian nationality. They are all based on racial identity.

Huh, guess the VP would disagree..

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cnXeoJYa_Q

It is silly to think that anybody who refers for example to Zionists as simply jews, or Mafia as italians is a racist. It is just a matter of being socially aware about how people usually communicate. Nobody says Zionist people or Mafia people, it would be really ankward to talk this way. Everybody knwos that Zionists are jews, and Mafia are italians.

This is completely false. You do not have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, neither do you have to be Italian to be a part of a Mafia. Zionism is not race specific and a mafia is a collective term to describe someone who is part of an organised crime racket.

They are obviously not real Conspiracy Theorists / Truth Seekers, if they have "forbidden" subjects. I don't know what are they doing here, apart disturbing other people who are neutral and able to discuss everything freely.

there are many layers to the rabbit hole, it took me a long time to break thru the zionist programming, as it does most of us i imagine

I agree. Waking up is a gradual and a stepped process. It happens a little bit here, a little bit there, and suddenly you look back and realize how much your views have changed from what they were while you were still a television zombie.

Yes, I agree. The zionist conspiracy is the most difficult to break through. I spent many years uncapable to comprehend why everybody was talking about the jews in negative way. Only many layers after I become able to understand what is going on for real. Never had problems with any other conspiracy.

[deleted]

the hollywood mafia are italian... who owns hollywood?

The links are good. All those jewish organized criminal organizations are connected to Zionists.

[deleted]

Jack Rubinstein and Meyer Lansky

Yes, of course. Funny fact - some unaware people are still wondering if they were jews or italians. Probably because both mafias were deeply connected since the beginning, with some members from both sides doing business continuously.

You've a super strange obsession with trolls. This is about changing rules, so that this is a better community. No sense getting rid of trolls to protect a poorly run community, yeah?

I don't like Martians not because they are little and green. I dislike them because they are from another planet and probably have some virus or bacteria that could wipe out all life on earth. What does that make me?

It makes you a guy who is disliking the wrong thing. Dislike the extraterrestrial disease, not the carriers.

I agree with this but also, fuck the term neckbeard.

[deleted]

If you want to be racist and post conspiracy theories, why not just go to stormfront.org?

Already, nothing gets removed that is borderline just critical and not an outright slur. Not even close. There literally is no issue.

I take this rule change to mean - You can say that Jewish people are greedy tricksters trying to control the world - as long as you don't call them "kikes"

Hi! Thanks for responding.

This way the people who interpret "racism" differently aren't infecting every thread with cries of racism and rule 1 violations.

People who think something is racist will still probably call it out, even if you change the rules.

Nobody has an issue these day criticizing the "patriarchy" or "white privilege". Why should one very specific group have special immunity from criticism?

Should i take it my example is right? I never said criticism of anything, I gave an example and I'm asking you to clarify

Ok how about homosexuals? If I call them "fags" I'm sure you would say that comment should be removed.

If I say homosexuals are spreading AIDS and trying to destroy the American family on purpose because they hate our culture and they are going straight to hell, would that be okay?

Ok how about homosexuals?

Don't throw stones in glass houses. Here's one of your mod's today repeatedly calling his pancake "joke" critics "pissboys":

http://www.reddit.com/user/Herkimer (search: "pissboy")

Here's your head mod being scolded by his own underlings for comparing homosexuality to being a "crack baby":

• http://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughLibertarianSpam/comments/15bvdf/guy_in_rfrugal_wants_the_government_out_of/

  (As you can see they've tried in vain to hide everything)

• http://i.imgur.com/4E8VXfq.png

Select quote:

I guess he must be the gay version of an Uncle Tom or whatever?

- jcm267

Much more of their useage of homophobic attacks and intolerance of homosexuality:

http://www.reddit.com/r/NolibsWatch/search?q=homo*+OR+gay&amp;restrict_sr=on&amp;sort=relevance&amp;t=all

Ask them sometime what they think of the lifestyles of Glenn Greenwald or Chelsea Manning.

Those aren't my viewpoints, and he's not MY mod. I wouldn't hold you responsible for a mod here's views, only your own.

You're just deflecting.

Sorry, I assumed that you are a sockpuppet of an r/conspiratard apologist/user because of your spotty account history and penchant for x-posting here in hostile places swarming with 'tard-haters.

I'm out of the loop what is this np?

This is a good idea and I'm relatively sure this exists on the administrative side, but nonetheless it would be helpful to have a tool that could cull that data from the API in an accessible manner.

never seen this before..thanks for the link.

Software that provided proof of brigading would be the end of many of the "drama" and hate-group subreddits that send raids here.

Someone who knows how to code get to work!

Sorry, I assumed that you are a sockpuppet of an r/conspiratard apologist/user because of your spotty account history and penchant for x-posting here in hostile places swarming with 'tard-haters.

While changing the rule to better fit our beliefs and fairness to all people, we should also include anti-censorship actions everyone here should take:

Disabling the hiding of comments in your Prefs - upper right hand corner, to the left of your username. I believe the field within your site Preferences (http://www.reddit.com/prefs/) is populated by default with a value that force hides anything with a certain downvote count, say -4. Delete both values and their downvotes become meaningless. Don't allow anyone else to control what you see and participate in. After tackling this, its time to address the removal and censprship of entire threads here. We should not ever fear discussion of the open and honest truth.

http://www.reddit.com/r/NolibsWatch/search?q=libel+OR+slander+OR+defam*+OR+smear*&amp;restrict_sr=on&amp;sort=relevance&amp;t=all

(this is why they hate my subreddit, evidence)

Going off the comments above . . . it seems maybe the Soviets and Wall St. had more of a connection than Wall St. and the Germans, at least according to Solzhenitsyn (and the Germans certainly alleged this as well):

Here's a partial translation of the unpublished in English book by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "Two Hundered Years Together" http://www.amazon.com/Hundred-Together-Complete-Edition-Volumes/dp/5969707023 [one can see why this literary giant's book was not translated from this excerpt]:

"The 1930s were years of an intense industrialized spurt, which crushed the peasantry and altered the life of the entire country. Mere existence demanded adaptation and development of new skills. But through crippling sacrifices, and despite the many absurdities of the Soviet organizational system, the horrible epic somehow led to the creation of an industrialized power.

Yet the first and second five-year plans came into existence and were carried out not through the miracle of spontaneous generation, nor as a result of the simple violent round-up of large masses of laborers. It demanded many technical provisions, advanced equipment, and the collaboration of specialists experienced in this technology. All this flowed plentifully from the capitalist West, and most of all from the United States; not in the form of a gift, of course, and not in the form of generous help. The Soviet communists paid for all of this abundantly with Russia’s mineral wealth and timber, with concessions for raw materials markets, with trade areas promised to the West, and with plundered goods from the Empire of the tsars. Such deals flowed with the help and approval of international financial magnates, most of all those on Wall Street, in a persistent continuation of the first commercial ties that the Soviet communists developed on the American stock exchanges as early as during the Civil War. The new partnership was strengthened by shiploads of tsarist gold and treasures from the Hermitage.

But wait a second, were we not thoroughly taught by Marx that capitalists are the fierce enemies of proletarian socialism and that we should not expect help from them, but rather a destructive, bloody war? Well, it’s not that simple: despite the official diplomatic non-recognition, trade links were completely out in the open, and even written about in Izvestiya: “American merchants are interested in broadening of economic ties with the Soviet Union.”[1] American unions came out against such an expansion (defending their markets from the products of cheap and even slave Soviet labor). The “Russian-American Chamber of Commerce,” created at that time, simply did not want to hear about any political opposition to communism, or “to mix politics with business relations.”[2]

Anthony Sutton, a modern American scholar, researched the recently-opened diplomatic and financial archives and followed the connections of Wall Street with the Bolsheviks; he pointed to the amoral logic of this long and consistent relationship. From as early as the “Marburg” plan at the beginning of the 20th century, which was based on the vast capital of Carnegie, the idea was to strengthen the authority of international finance, through global “socialization,” “for control … and for the forced appeasement.” Sutton concluded that: “International financiers prefer to do business with central governments. The banking community least of all wants a free economy and de-centralized authority.” “Revolution and international finance do not quite contradict each other, if the result of revolution should be to establish a more centralized authority,” and, therefore, to make the markets of these countries manageable. And there was a second line of agreement: “Bolsheviks and bankers shared an essential common platform — internationalism.”[3]"

http://200yearstogether.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/chapter-19-in-the-1930s/

Who said anything about a fact-based argument? He gave a completely innocent opinion and you called him an anti-Semite. That's called an Ad-hominem attack. And a completely ridiculous and unwarranted one at that.

There were Jews that were Bolsheviks

That's right. That is the only thing people are saying.

You're the only one making a story out of things. Why are you so interested in protesting this historical fact?

The german american population was interned because they were spying for their homeland during that time.

German aliens, not Americans of German descent, were mostly targeted for internment:

The Justice Department attempted to prepare a list of all German aliens, counting approximately 480,000 of them, more than 4,000 of whom were imprisoned in 1917-18. The allegations included spying for Germany, or endorsing the German war effort.[53] Thousands were forced to buy war bonds to show their loyalty.[54]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American#World_War_I_anti-German_sentiment

Also, lots of Americans and many foreign aliens were falsely accused of "spying" and basic un-American activities. Huge numbers of leftists were put in prison and targeted. People like Eugene Debs. Huge numbers of leftist papers were run out and America established a large propaganda campaign (the Creel Commission and the Four Minute Men, for example).

With the onset of World War I, nativist and racist prejudices were further fueled by antagonism towards German immigrants and their descendents, since Germany was now classified as a state enemy.[39] Considerable skepticism concerning the war’s aims and isolationism among U.S. residents at the outset also led to a second pro-war mobilization on the home front, as the administration attempted to foster public support through the establishment of the first governmental propaganda office (Schaffer, 1999; Nagler, 1999).[40] [41] The propaganda efforts would spiral out of control, leading to a domestic climate that Higham describes as “call[ing] forth the most strenuous nationalism and the most pervasive nativism that the United States had ever known” (cited in Nagler, 1993, p. 191). Prior to U.S. involvement in the war, many domestic German-language papers had espoused the German cause, arguing that the imperial power of Great Britain was more threatening than German action (Bergquist, 1999; see also Wittke, 1936). Even though the vast majority of German-language periodicals immediately pledged support when the U.S. entered the war, German Americans quickly became targets of harassment, business boycotts, violence, and vandalism (Bergquist, 1999; Luebke, 1990).[42][43] State Councils of Defense banned the use of German language in public places and changed German-named street signs. German books and German-language newspapers were burned in multiple cities (Rippley, 1976; see also Nagler, 1997; (Luebke, 1990).[44] In efforts to prove their loyalty to the U.S., many German citizens and businesses anglicized their names and distanced themselves from their cultural institutions and organizations (Luebke, 1990).[45]

However, the demands of war would quickly challenge the generalized anti-immigrant sentiment in the services, as the demand for service members necessitated the broad use of the foreign-born. . . .

A French solder in 1917 described the heterogeneous character of American troops in Europe: "You could not imagine a more extraordinary gathering than this american [sic] army, there is a little bit of everything, Greeks, Italians, Turks, Indians, Spanish, also a sizable number of boches.[47] Truthfully, almost half of the officers have German origins. This doesn’t seem to bother them… Among the Americans are sons of emigrated Frenchmen and sons of emigrated boches. I asked one son of a Frenchman if these Germans were coming willingly to fight their brothers and cousins, he squarely answered me: ‘yes!’” (cited in Ford, 2001, p. 3)

http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/a_history_of_the_service_of_ethnic_minorites_in_the_u_s_armed_forces

During the First World War, the U.S. government drafted into military service nearly half a million immigrants of forty-six different nationalities, creating an army with over 18 percent of its soldiers born in foreign countries. In addition, thousands of second-generation "immigrants" also served.

During World War I, a German officer [had] noted with some complexity the ethnic diversity of the American Army: "Only a few of the troops are of pure American origin: *the majority are of German, Dutch and Italian parentage. But these semi-Americans...fully feel themselves to be true-born sons of their [adopted] country."

http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/ngf.htm

Also, American racism toward those with German ancestry was not because of the Zimmerman incident, nor does that justify it. The Zimmerman letter was mischaracterized and used as propaganda. The Germans stated they wanted the U.S. to remain neutral and only offered terms to Mexico if the U.S. did not stay neutral. t was a conditional offer.

And who knows if there this whole intercepted letter was actually an act of betrayal by Zimmerman, as some allege

Also, the U.S. was only neutral in name and there were many forces pushing for war against Germany before the Zimmerman letter.

Germany was a repeatedly invasive power in both conflicts. That statement is ludicrous because Germany has a record of conquering other countries during the world wars.

I strongly disagree. Germany was not expansionist. It entered WWI for reasons other than expanding its territory and after losing the war had territory taken away from it. It took territory back to start WWII, and ended the Versailles Treaty, and kicked the international bankers out, but it did not want to conquer the world and certainly didn't want to conquer America. Germany desperately sought to keep America neutral during both world wars but forces within America were very motivated to bring Germany down and convince the political leadership to do so and they used mass propaganda and false flags to convince the American people to do so.