Hitler Baptized

[GravyBoat]

Knowing this, I don't think anyone should feel inclined to defend that it was appropriate to baptize Hitler. It's casting pearls to swine, simply put.

I was not defending Hitler or even hitlers right to have someone do proxy baptism. But the right for members to do as the Prophets have asked to do baptism for the dead for our ancestors.

Someone here called it evil for temple workers to do baptism for the dead for Him. The people are not evil for doing what God commanded them to do. If the Church chooses to nullify or disallow future baptism for such individuals that is fine but it is unfair to call members evil for doing the work they were told to do.

It's good to know that we're all agreeing on this; this man deserves our judgment.

The baptizer likely needs a lecturing, but not a declaration of being an evil creature upon the his name; no one needs to live with a cold condemnation. Some people just wouldn't know better, even if it IS Hitler. Some wish to bless Hitler with the Celestial blessings of God; THAT'S evil. However, I think judging whoever did this requires a dissection of the character of the individual. Is he a little loopy (I've met loopy church workers before) or is he mentally stable? Does he belong to any local chapter of the National Socialist Party, burn crosses, or generally promote the power of the white race?

However, it's sincerely nice to know that our leaders condemn and denounce this ordinance. It makes an apologist's life much easier.

[koakaipo]

That article includes an interview with the man who did the work actually. He wished to remain anonymous, but from what he said, I think he wasn't a racist but someone who had good but misapplied intentions. He mentioned that God can forgive who he wants but that we humans are to forgive everyone and he thought that meant even HItler in terms of whether to do work for him. So, it sorta sounds like he felt obligated to show grace to even the worst of human examples.

The problem with his argument is that forgiveness towards Hitler is a little meaningless to offer up if we weren't necessarily the ones who were wronged by him, forgiveness doesn't figure into our baptisms for the dead work really, we are just proxys, it was a person outside his family, and it was inappropriate to choose someone on the basis of this premise in the first place. It's really magnifying one's role as a proxy if you ask me, and all you should be is a worker bee proxy for your family members and that's that and not worry about forgiveness or judgement in terms of those family members. But I didn't detect evil or even bad intentions. Just misapplied intentions that meant well from my pov.

Protocol is involved with baptisms for the dead, members need to follow it and not go off on tangents. And I can't help but wonder protocol wise how naturally wrong it feels that we will not be able to do ordinances for concentration camp victims for some time and yet we'd get Hitlers work done way ahead of them. That does make me wonder how that figures in. I don't see it as a pr stunt but a real dilemma to think about for the church leadership really.

[grego]

first: did anyone, ANYONE read the links in my previous posts?

no? what's the point of "dialogue and discussion", then? is there really only a feigned interest in understanding this?

this is not the first time a church spokesman has said something for PR. they've done it on the blacks and the priesthood, for example. further, MMM's cover man was excommunicated, then later reinstated with full blessings. i assume, and believe, that ALL the work that can't be done now because of the zionists, etc. will be done later when those who oppose now, no longer do.

well, let's continue with lincoln here. where do you believe that abraham lincoln will end up? in the celestial kingdom, outer darkness, where? why?

[Proverbs]

It's good to know that we're all agreeing on this; this man deserves our judgment.

I never said I agree with you I just wanted to clarify my position. I am not making any judgments on Hitlers fate. I do believe what he did on earth is evil but I am not going to sit her and tell you WHO deserves baptism and who does not. That is not my job.

[GravyBoat]

My bad.

What I meant to say that we agree on is that we shouldn't witchhunt to death who does or doesn't deserve to have their work done.

What we DISAGREE on is whether Hitler should be the exception to the rule. Am I gathering this correctly now?

[koakaipo]

Grego,

I read a couple of your links. I I not only read the arguments or assertions of one of the links, but read more about the author and his qualifications, counter critiques to his assertions, and simply don't subscribe to the conclusions or methods. It doesn't mean there isn't some truth in text. There is some. His critics even point to some of his interesting finds. But after reading the counter critiques and the background of the author and seeing where the flaws are in his work, I don't agree with his points overall.

[grego]

k,

there are many, many more. i'll send a message.

now, my point is not to say that hitler was an angel. my point is that much of what we accept on face value to judge by, is hardly safe to accept. germany lost ww1. germany lost ww2. obviously the allies won't say nice things about anyone. as you see, the fables and myths serve everyone at the top who is involved, especially those in charge of most of it--the bankers.

i find it hard to believe that no one arguing here has ever had false rumors spread about them, been betrayed by anyone (even at work), etc. and can understand the possibilities of problems dealing with truth about what someone was like, what they did, etc.

[grego]

it's kind of like baptists, methodists, protestants, catholics, anti's, etc. arguing about whether to do salvation work for joseph smith.

what do you think? they obviously know, having been taught from their youth, that mormonism is false. i mean, ask most anyone--you'll get the same answer. and look at all the books and evidence that shows the awful things joseph smith did. i mean, who can deny it?

now, if you can't take the time to find out more, check the evidence, listen to other sides, etc.--how can you ever criticize, look down on, or hold someone like an honest non-LDS anti, responsible for their "bad" or "wrong" views, and not listening and researching Church-friendly websites, reading the bom, etc.?

[cjcampbell]

The topic was why was Hitler allowed to be baptized?

While I doubt Hitler repented at the last minute, let me ask you this, is there any sin so grave that even if someone truely repented of it that Christs atoning sacrifice couldn't cover it?

Yes. The atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ does not cover the acts of sons of perdition, those who deny the Holy Ghost. Evidently the leaders of the church believe that the proscribed individuals are sons of perdition.

There is no reason to suppose, as some have taught in the past, that sons of perdition are particularly rare. After all, a third of the host of heaven managed to achieve that status before they even had a chance to come here.

The Holy Ghost teaches us that shedding innocent blood and many other sins are wrong. I think it is possible to eventually so abuse the conscience that it no longer works with us -- the Holy Ghost and the light of Christ are driven away. Such an individual has basically declared himself to be at war with both God and man and has declared that no influence of the atonement or anyone else is ever going to change his mind. In fact, such a person rejects the very idea of an atonement. He is saying that even if there is a God then he will do everything in his power to dethrone Him. For such a person, repentance is not possible. They no longer recognize God's authority to judge them. They are incapable of feeling remorse for their acts. They become like the devil and his angels, obsessed with doing as much harm as possible, no matter what the consequences. I think that this could be a fair description of many people at the time of Noah, and the last Jaredites and Nephites. It may be true of many of the residents of Sodom and Gomorrha, Judas Iscariot, and possibly even some members of the Sanhedrin and Roman officials.

They shed innocent blood without a conscience. They cannot plead that "they know not what they do." They know full well, and do it anyway. I think that describes Hitler pretty well. In fact, I think it describes a lot of the people who persecuted the early Saints, and even some of those who persecute the Saints today. If the only reason you do not kill Mormons is the fear of being caught and judged by man, I submit that you are in severe danger of becoming a son of perdition, if you are not one already.

Now, the circumstances of a lot of shady ancestors are unclear enough to leave room for reasonable doubt about their status. With people such as Hitler, or Stalin or Osama bin Laden, I think that there is little doubt about who and what they are. If it turns out that church leaders judged people like this unfairly, their work can still be done at a later time. I rather think that such corrections will be unnecessary, but I allow for the possibility.

[koakaipo]

According to LDS doctrine, The "Unpardonable sin" can only be committed by a select group of people --those (rather few, actually) who have had the Holy Spirit bear absolute witness to them of truth, then turn their backs on that truth and actually fight against it. It is actually rather difficult to do.

Joseph Smith indicated that such an individual must "have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him. . . . He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it"

(_Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith_ 358; hereafter TPJS).

These qualifications limit those who receive this judgment of being sons of perdition. A person must have made priesthood covenants with God and then have received knowledge and power beyond what the vast majority of us have received. And then knowingly and willingly turn their backs on that truth and rise against it. It's an interesing notion in the sense that ignorance or weakness or deception don't condemn you---knowledge and what you do with that knowledge does.

Grego-I agree about folkloric takes on history and history being written by the winners. But I do think that there are many good historians at there who don't have an agenda and are reputed in their fields that can give a balanced look on both sides. And I tink it helps to also look at the critiques of their works at the same time to better identify the weaknesses of the works. I also believe that each new generation of scholars are reformers or revisionists in their own right-they come upon an "old" subject and find new ways of interpreting what they find that is distinct from the last generation-and so on and so on.

[Del March]

* The Church leaders have nullified Hitler's work. I have absolutely NO problem with that, for many reasons:

1. The work had not been done in the respect of the protocol for submitting a name, ie Hitler's name had not been submitted by either someone of his family or automatically by someone doing extraction work. It is a name who had been specifically picked because it was famous. This is turning a work of love and family into a celebrity show, which is very wrong.

2. It is the leaders' right and privilege to decide whether, in these conditions, Hitler's work should be nullified. But I believe it isn't the right of any other member of the church, or even worse, of any NON-member.

3. It is extremely unlikely, to say the least, that Hitler may have already repented and that he may have accepted the gospel, and thus be ready to receive his ordinances. If he has, however, then I'm sure he would consider the little wait until the Millenium as a perfectly acceptable delay to receive his ordinances. If he hasn't, then he doesn't need them anyway. Either way, no innocent is suffering from the leaders' decision to nullify Hitler's work, and we don't end up looking like pro-Nazi : no bad side to that decision.

* In summary:

1. We should forgive everyone. No exception.

2. Temple work should be done for our ancestors. If Hitler had had children, who had then become LDS, and who had wanted to have his work done, I would support them. Such is not the case, so I see no legitimate reason for anyone to have the work done for Hitler.

3. I'm perfectly fine with my leaders choosing to nullify Hitler's work, since no innocent is penalised and the church avoids looking like they are supporting the wrong camp.

Del

[Del March]

The atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ does not cover the acts of sons of perdition, those who deny the Holy Ghost. Evidently the leaders of the church believe that the proscribed individuals are sons of perdition.

I disagree. You are ascribing motives to our leaders that they haven't expressed.

There is no reason to suppose, as some have taught in the past, that sons of perdition are particularly rare. After all, a third of the host of heaven managed to achieve that status before they even had a chance to come here.

Yes, but there was a MAJOR difference between now and then: knowledge. We had our eyes open then, we don't now. Since becoming a son of perdition can only be done by those who have their eyes open, it is obvious that while it was easy to do then, very few can do it now.

The Holy Ghost teaches us that shedding innocent blood and many other sins are wrong. I think it is possible to eventually so abuse the conscience that it no longer works with us -- the Holy Ghost and the light of Christ are driven away.

This is true - in this life. But it shows the mercy of God that in the eternities, after they have paid for their sins, He will still allow such people to enjoy the company of the Holy Ghost if they want to.

Such an individual has basically declared himself to be at war with both God and man and has declared that no influence of the atonement or anyone else is ever going to change his mind. In fact, such a person rejects the very idea of an atonement. He is saying that even if there is a God then he will do everything in his power to dethrone Him. For such a person, repentance is not possible. They no longer recognize God's authority to judge them. They are incapable of feeling remorse for their acts. They become like the devil and his angels, obsessed with doing as much harm as possible, no matter what the consequences.

All of this is indeed possible. But all of this would only condemn one to the Telestial Kingdom, which is PRECISELY the place where such people will go! Re-read its description, and you'll see that it is exactly in conformity with what you just described: evildoers who won't repent (but who will pay!) and who won't accept Christ's Atonement.

A son of perdition is something else entirely.

Del

[grego]

"It is extremely unlikely, to say the least, that Hitler may have already repented and that he may have accepted the gospel, and thus be ready to receive his ordinances. If he has, however, then I'm sure he would consider the little wait until the Millenium as a perfectly acceptable delay to receive his ordinances. If he hasn't, then he doesn't need them anyway. Either way, no innocent is suffering from the leaders' decision to nullify Hitler's work, and we don't end up looking like pro-Nazi : no bad side to that decision."

so much for the atonement, huh?

hitler didn't want war; the bankers, jews, england, france, and poland did; hitler did not plan to exterminate the jews (if so, how did so many survive, and why did so many choose to remain with the germans instead of staying to be liberated by the russians?)--he planned to keep his country from being adulterated and sullied by them, both economically and politically; he tried to sign peace treaties with the West, wanting only to deal with russia and eastern europe; he tried to get the jews somewhere else before it all started, but the zionists refused them, basically saying: "we told them to go to palestine, and they didn't. let them now eat the fruits of their decision." auschwitz was a labor camp, not an extermination camp, which often gave its workers a better life inside than outside. most inside were criminals, "terrorists" (according to the present american definition), etc. so much of what the zionists have said about it has been proven false, while very little (if any) has been proven true. (hmm, sounds a little familiar here...) racist? he personally shook jesse owens hand and congratulated him, and would have done more had not outside circumstances (olympic rules) prevented it. hitler gave confidence, encouragement, and especially hope to a people who had been constantly kicked while they were down. i'm sorry, where is he so much worse than others? please tell me. actually, don't. please show me some research. no "everyone knows" stuff. get at least a bit scholarly here, ok?

churchill bombed german citizens. roosevelt set up pearl harbor. they both refused both german and japanese peace treaties/ surrenders, which resulted in the loss of many more lives, time, and money than needed. over 1 million germans died in allied prison camps after the war. germans suffered before, during, and after the war at england's hands especially. for some reason, they have been the sworn enemies of the poles and jews since the beginning. where will churchill and fdr go?

wow, i would love to hear about charles manson. please, any verdict?

ok, now that you've entered one, let me ask:

how many of you have put your life and lots of money on the line for a stranger?

how many of you have put your life on the line for a group of friends?

how deep was he into doing bad things--devil worship, etc.?

how many of you have read his testimony?

how many of you have read of the reasons for any of it?

again, not claiming he's an angel. yet hardly the demon he's taken as.

how many of these people had the gospel? how many of these people were in the circumstances for being able to accept it?

lincoln, now. let's see, where was he from? hey, isn't that related to nauvoo somehow? did he ever help the mormons? never. had he been easily been able to, one might understand he would have wiped them out. religious? hardly--loved to mock christianity in private, desecrated a graveyard battlefield (and enjoyed doing it), was famous for his crude, dirty jokes. what did he do? maimed the constitution of the usa more than anyone before or since, and set the usa up for massive future problems. and this is just some of the much nicer stuff.

let's take it a little closer to home. tell me, what judgment do you give pahoran (the bom man, not the man on this board:))? a BoM quasi-"hitler", and most hold him in great esteem! is something fishy here?

are you starting to get the idea that your culture and propaganda has boxed you up in your little realities? the large majority have no idea--no idea--what goes on in this world, with governments, groups, and individuals. i don't condemn you for that. but what are you doing to try to understand? the sad thing is, most will never understand, because they don't care to.

mark my word: in the judgement day, i guarantee--absolutely guarantee--most every single person will be absolutely shocked in disbelief from what occurs. part of that shock will be when you will see "saints" going to the telestial kingdom, and "devils" going to the celestial kingdom.

i have personally been on the receiving end, and been taught constantly by experience and God about this. i tried to save a porn man with the gospel, but in the end, he might have even saved my life (and if not that, lots of money i didn't have, maybe getting hurt or hurting someone, maybe a night or two in jail in a foreign country). i judged a smoking, tie-died rude druggie as a missionary, and saw him stand like Jesus between two men on the bus who were ready to possibly kill each other--as my companion and i stood watching, waiting for something to happen before acting.

please, until you have the Spirit testify about Hitler and his men and whoever else, please don't judge unrighteously, lest by doing so you possibly find yourself switching places with these "devils" at that last great day.

[GravyBoat]

If not Hitler, then who pray-tell was responsible for the death of the Jews?

PS: My spirit is going into overdrive over Hitler's guilt. If I am wrong about Hitler, may I burn in Hell along with him.

[MorningStar]

Maybe I'm not remembering this correctly, but I read a biography about Hitler years ago and I thought it said that Hitler was not his real name. Does anyone know if this is true?

[Del March]

"It is extremely unlikely, to say the least, that Hitler may have already repented and that he may have accepted the gospel, and thus be ready to receive his ordinances. If he has, however, then I'm sure he would consider the little wait until the Millenium as a perfectly acceptable delay to receive his ordinances. If he hasn't, then he doesn't need them anyway. Either way, no innocent is suffering from the leaders' decision to nullify Hitler's work, and we don't end up looking like pro-Nazi : no bad side to that decision."

so much for the atonement, huh? 

As soon as Hitler repents and accepts Christ, the Atonement will get him out of Hell, and eventually into the Terrestrial Kingdom at least. If he doesn't repent, all the Atonement can do for him is get him out of Hell at the end of the Millenium and into the Telestial Kingdom. That's the same rule as for everyone else.

As for the rest, can you answer just a few questions:

1. If Hitler didn't want a war, why did he focus Germany's efforts on the production of weapons, breaking quite a few treaties in so doing?

2. If Hitler didn't want a war, why did he systematically invade the German-populated regions of other countries, like Austria, and Czechoslovakia, and even later some Czech provinces of Czechoslovakia?

3. If Hitler didn't want a war, why did he invade neutral countries such as Belgium?

4. If Hitler didn't want to kill Jews massively, then who organised the meticulous elimination of the Jews (and other "indesirables") in the death camps, and why? (And stop that garbage about Auschwitz being a "labor camp": it was a death machine, complete with a triage and a preparation sections, how more inhumane can it get??)

Revisionist history is disgusting. It is very much possible that the real Hitler was not completely as bad as his vanquishers have painted him to be. But pretending that he didn't want a war, or that he didn't actively try to eliminate all Jews, is monstruous. He wanted a war, he had prepared his country just for that. And he sure did his best to eliminate as many Jews (and Roms, and Communists, and homosexuals, and...) as possible.

Del

[Pahoran]

Maybe I'm not remembering this correctly, but I read a biography about Hitler years ago and I thought it said that Hitler was not his real name.  Does anyone know if this is true?

Apparently (and I'm going from memory here) his father Alois was born illegitimate, and was subsequently legitimised, which gave him the Hitler surname. His mother's maiden name was Schicklgruber.

Regards,

Pahoran

[grego]

"As for the rest, can you answer just a few questions...

Revisionist history is disgusting. It is very much possible that the real Hitler was not completely as bad as his vanquishers have painted him to be. But pretending that he didn't want a war, or that he didn't actively try to eliminate all Jews, is monstruous. He wanted a war, he had prepared his country just for that. And he sure did his best to eliminate as many Jews (and Roms, and Communists, and homosexuals, and...) as possible. Del"

Del, please let me know what revisionist history it is that you are relating to--which records, which research, which people, which documents--that are false. then, please show how all the typical history records, research, etc. that answers all the falsehoods they report. no, no appeals to "common knowledge" here (we should know that on this board, right?)--not history books, where nothing is footnoted or referenced. you will notice that most all the revisionist work is pretty meticulous about it. seems quite a bit stronger to me.

if hitler had wanted to kill them all, what stopped him? what would have been so hard? he rounded them up. then what? keep them around for years? keep "eyewitnesses" around? it seems ridiculous to me.

this is probably the best to start with:

www.rense.com/general62/camps.htm

weapons productions:

http://litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/LifeInReich.html

i posted some links before (i'll post below again), and here are some more that answer some more questions. if you want to know, i invite you to go the websites' homepages/ topic pages--they answer about every topic possible.

http://www.barnesreview.org/Nobel_Prize/nobel_prize.html

http://judicial-inc.biz/Broomberg.htm

http://litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/LifeInReich.html

**

http://judicial-inc.biz/Auschwitz.htm (what was Auschwitz, and what were its conditions?)

http://www.revisionists.com/revisionism.html (generalizations about revisionism)

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcffor.html (faked photos)

http://www.codoh.com/found/found.html

search for this on the internet: Mass Slaughter Of 7-8 Million More Germans, 1945-1950

here's something that might interest you and as a partial response to your questions:

GERMANY'S WAR

Road to War | The Jews Pray to the God of Israel to Destroy the Amaleki of Germanja

The following articles are brief summaries taken from a brand new work compiled by Amalek Productions, who have spent over 15 years studying the history of Germany's struggle in the 20th century through two World Wars. It provides a controversial viewpoint on the history of the run-up to the Second World War. This brief summary, is but a tiny snippet of a large work - available only on CD-Rom through the Truth Campaign - which covers numerous aspects of the history of the Wars from Germany's perspective.

THE ROAD TO WAR

Our History leads us to believe that the German people had an inborn irrational hatred of Jews and were only waiting for someone like Hitler to come along and allow them to express it. Nothing could be further from the truth. For many years, when Germany was still a monarchy, the Jews integrated very well into German society and many prospered and contributed much towards the country. Because of this, many thousands of Jews who were being persecuted in other European countries such as Russia and Poland fled to Germany looking for peace & safety. For almost seventy years we have been told how the Germans suddenly contracted a form of madness and started hating and murdering Jews. We have been told a million times how BAD the Germans were. On this page we offer you a fast and incomplete overview of how the build up to WW2 started long before Hitler was elected!

1897 : The First Zionist Congress was held in Basel Switzerland under the leadership of THEODOR HERZL. Zionism is the political arm of Judaism and it was created to fulfil Jewish political ambitions, which included the creation of a Jewish homelands. It is claimed Protocols of these meetings were kept and these 'Protocols' have been a source of trouble ever since.

1905 : The first copy of 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' surfaces in Russia, a year later in London. The Protocols are, it is claimed by many, to be the plans for Zionist World Domination. The Jews vehemently deny this and claim the Protocols are forgeries. But humans tend to act on their beliefs, not on facts. Millions of people world wide believe the Protocols were written by the Jews, Adolf Hitler and many of his party members had read the Protocols, you should read them too so you can judge for yourself!

1914 : World War One breaks out in Europe. Do you know why? Because Germany was growing into a major European economic power and Gt. Britain, France & Russia felt threatened by this industrious nation. THAT

[Del March]

Grego,

1. Give me straight answers to my questions, if you want me to take you seriously.

2. Here's another one: who came up with the brilliant idea of forcing all Jews to wear the Star of David? (Let me guess: the Jews decided on that themselves, huh?)

3. Any theory that stipulates that one group is responsible for basically all the evil in the world is called "conspiracy theory", and I don't believe in conspiracy theories, whether the Evil they describe is called Zionism or America.

4. Have you ever been to Auschwitz or any of the other camps? Have you ever asked any of the people who lived through the War in Europe what it was like to be under German domination? Do you honestly believe that the thousands of testimonies that have been given about how the Germans systematically persecuted and sometimes eliminated the Jews from all parts of the territory they controlled were made-up (by Zionists, I suppose)?

Del

[grego]

Del March,

"3. Any theory that stipulates that one group is responsible for basically all the evil in the world is called "conspiracy theory", and I don't believe in conspiracy theories, whether the Evil they describe is called Zionism or America."

obviously you do--it was called germany during ww2, right?

your mindset indicates you understand little about conspiracy theory--please don't go there. no, conspiracy theory is hardly just about that. (but, let's open a new topic on that, shall we?)

sorry, i already don't take you seriously. you can't show, you don't read. yeah, i've read lots, including "night" (faked!), "the diary of anne frank" (largely faked!), etc. please, what have you read?

i gave you a few very, very straight answers--did you bother to read them? you know, i bet you actually did, which is why i feel something negative here. does it make your blood boil that so many people can prove something completely contrary to what you want to believe? does it make you feel cheated, hating for all those years, just to find out you might have hated the wrong people?

i daresay the evidence i've ladled to you is quite enough to stand on its own. until you can prove that hitler truly did all you say you believe he did, i will not take you, nor anyone, seriously about this whole thread about what a bad thing to do for such an evil man.

(ps, yes, i have. many still love him and mussolini. kind of weird, huh?)

[USU78]

Let's just take one of these and look at it a bit, shall we?

1893: 26th March. The [1] German Jews led by Rafael Loewenfeld form an organisation to 'force through [2] their demands for German citizenship and against 'anti-semitism'. This group later called itself the 'Zentralverein deutscher Staatsbuerger juedischen Glaubens' or The Central Organisation for German citizens of Jewish Beliefs. (They moved into Germany from Kasachstan [3] and then demanded [4] they be made German citizens).

Some notes on the above:

1. "The" indicates that all German Jews were led by Lowenfeld, whereas reality is, he was an important figure, but not a "leader" of "all Jews in Germany" as Grego suggests.

2. There was no demand, but rather a series of petitions. What exactly is wrong with petitioning the Kaiser for legal, voting status?

3. Kazakhstan is code for Eastern Europe. In truth, the families of these XIXth Century Jews for the most part had already been in Germany for centuries. This is, accordingly, nonsense. Even if it were accurate, what exactly is the problem with an immigrant group petitioning for legal, voting status in their adopted homeland?

4. See # 2, above.

Here is MacDonald on the subject:

Jews engaged in a very wide range of activities to combat anti-Semitism in Germany in the period from 1870 to 1914, including the formation of self-defense committees (e.g., the Zentralverein deutscher Staatsb

[grego]

this is incredible--out of all of that, and this is what is nitpicked??? that's like looking at the mormons and saying, perhaps lucy said it wrong and it got misprinted, thus js is going to hell and mormonism is false.

usu78:

"1. "The" indicates that all German Jews were led by Lowenfeld, whereas reality is, he was an important figure, but not a "leader" of "all Jews in Germany" as Grego suggests."

um...i miss where it indicates ALL german jews, and i also miss where i suggested that. or are you saying what MacDonald is saying?

i'm not sure what the quote has to do with this.

so are you trying to say, because you inferred something that's slightly different out of about the smallest of all those things, that perhaps because of this, the entire argument is shot to pieces??

[dimbulb]

I don't know why I'm bothering, but here's the Economist's summary of the pivotal year of 1923, when according to grego, the JEWS destroyed Germany's economy just to show who was boss:

[grego]

thanks for that! that's a strong support for some of my points.

[dimbulb]

Which of these points was bolstered by my post?

1923: Their Gold-Reserves depleted and bled dry by reparations, Germany can no longer pay the $270 BILLION in reparations, neither can they pay back the interest on the Bank loans, Germany is nearly Bankrupt ... To show the Germans who is Boss, the Jewish Banks destroy the German Reichsmark (which is tied into the International Exchange rate), by altering its exchange rate.

Within a few months 1$US Dollar is worth TRILLIONS of Reichsmarks.. With only a few US $$$ Jewish investors can buy up German businesses, industries, homes, these investors become incredibly wealthy as millions of Germans lose everything they have and 800 000 German children starve to death. Very rich Jews manage to buy their way into very prominent positions in the German Government & Industry. It is not until 1924 that the German Govt can create a new currency and stop the destruction.

Hyperinflation occurred because the government could not take in enough in taxes to cover their expenses, so they printed money. When you print money, it automatically devalues. Nothing sinister or conspiratorial or Jewish here. It happened in Bolivia in 1984 and in Argentina in 1989, or was that the Jews' fault, too?

Nothing here about Jews altering exchange rates to show the Germans who is boss.

Nothing about Jewish investors buying up all of Germany (where the heck were they getting their money, anyway/)

800,000 children starve to death? I'd like to see some documentation for that.

And why in 1924 did these greedy Jews decide to let things stabilize? Did they figure they'd done enough?