Thread: Immigration being used to pave the way for one-world government

Originally Posted by alexa

All countries got involved in Total War.

This includes germany. That was the final reason they rounded up the jews and put them into camps. They were a potential security threat.
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scr...s/jdecwar.html

I have actually met a Japanese woman that was held in an internment camp for several years of her life as a young child in the United States. Even when she was released, her family were not allowed to return to the West Coast. She did not seem to carry any bad feelings about the experience, and even expressed embarrassment when she went to cash her compensation check at the bank in later years. She felt a little guilty for accepting money from the government.

1988
Acting to redress what many Americans now regard as a historic injustice, the Senate today voted overwhelmingly to give $20,000 and an apology to each of the Japanese-Americans who were driven from their homes and sent to internment camps in World War II.

The vote was 69 to 27 and followed an emotional debate. The bill's principal advocate, Senator Spark M. Matsunaga, a Japanese-American from Hawaii, recalling life in an internment camp, related the story of an elderly man who crossed a fence to retrieve a ball for his grandchild and was machine-gunned to death.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

This includes germany. That was the final reason they rounded up the jews and put them into camps. They were a potential security threat.
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scr...s/jdecwar.html

I have actually met a Japanese woman that was held in an internment camp for several years of her life as a young child in the United States. Even when she was released, her family were not allowed to return to the West Coast. She did not seem to carry any bad feelings about the experience, and even expressed embarrassment when she went to cash her compensation check at the bank in later years. She felt a little guilty for accepting money from the government.

I am aware of that. It does not however give reason for the round up of Jews into concentration camps. That is the same sort of argument that is behind people who believe radical Muslims gives us the right to harm or expel Muslims or put all Muslims in camps. Like I said it is a similar argument to today.

.....and there never, ever was a reason for the mass systematic killing of civilians repeatedly, even worse when this includes children and babies.

There are no "rights" in war, many bad things happen, and it is often a messy affair. During such an intense struggle, utility often takes precedence over ethical considerations.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

There are no "rights" in war, many bad things happen, and it is often a messy affair. During such an intense struggle, utility often takes precedence over ethical considerations.

There was no war in 1933....and if you believe in the systematic killing of civilians because of their religion then there is little left to say. I have seen this story in more than one paper but I also know that most Jews did not want to go to Palestine in 1933, they wanted to go to Western Europe or even more the USA. It may be a fake...but even if true it is no excuse for genocide. None at all. At least now you have come out of your denial!

Originally Posted by alexa

if you believe in the systematic killing of civilians because of their religion

It had nothing to do with their religion.

I am against genocide, but sometimes wars degrade to that level. At times, the only way to win a war is through genocidal tactics unfortunately. This can be seen in Africa time and time again.

As a racial separatist, i am not entirely unsympathetic to forced relocations, although ideally such policies should be as fair as possible for all involved. If I had been Chancellor of germany, I would have tried to negotiate a deal with the Soviet Union to give the jews a nation where the Khazar kingdom formerly was, in addition to some land in Israel. Then deportations, with some compensation payments to help them out in their new lives.

If ethnicity does not matter, why does Israel not just merge to become one government with Palestine, and let all the Palestinians in? Would that not end all the conflict? I think ethnic conflicts have an origin in human evolution.

Rarely mentioned is the many ethnic conflicts and tension in several former Soviet states, due to the legacy of forced (and sometime voluntary) migrations of peoples of one ethnicity into another area with other ethnicities. I think ethnic tensions have an origin in human evolution.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

It had nothing to do with their religion.

Yes, it was to do with their religion or because they were apparently genetically a Jew. You have just said it was because they were Jews and Jews outside Germany were stirring up anti German feeling and wanting a boycott of Germany. You excused these Jewish civilians being systematically killed because

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

There are no "rights" in war, many bad things happen, and it is often a messy affair. During such an intense struggle, utility often takes precedence over ethical considerations.

resulting from a Jewish led boycott of Germany to supposedly get Jews to leave and go to Palestine when they don't want to????????????

There was no intense struggle from Jews in Germany. They from what I have read tended to like Germany very much and be very loyal to it. As I say this is like trying to justify vilifying all Muslims because of radical ones. It is an excuse to justify acting in an unjustifiable way.

Can you not begin to get an idea on why the Frankfurt School believed an investigation into the psychology going on at the time was needed?

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

I am against genocide, but sometimes wars degrade to that level. Sometimes the only we to win a war is through genocidal tactics unfortunately. This can be seen in Africa time and time again.

I am thinking a bit about what one of the psychiatrists asked Breivik. He asked him if he thought it was 'manly' to kill helpless adolescents. You've lost it here. We are talking about Germany 70 years or so ago and helpless men, women and children.

Originally Posted by alexa

I am thinking a bit about what one of the psychiatrists asked Breivik. He asked him if he thought it was 'manly' to kill helpless adolescents. You've lost it here. We are talking about Germany 70 years or so ago and helpless men, women and children.

So now you are trying to compare me to Brevik? Politically-motivated attacks on civilians come from both sides (Joe Stack for example).
What about all that poverty that could potentially result in the future from bringing in so many migrants? Does not poverty kill people also?
If Brevik was concerned his country's standard of living would head back towards historical levels because of the burden of all those migrants, it is not impossible to be at least partially sypathetic towards views. Because poverty is very bad, it can in some ways worse than death. Democracy does not guarantee that people will not starve to death; we can see this in India. No one ever seems to talk about it, but living conditions are absolutely HORRIBLE for 3 out of 4 of India's people. I think my country has a right to refuse migrants just to avoid ever becoming like India, if not for any other reason.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

So now you are trying to compare me to Brevik?

Your attempt to try to justify the killing of helpless men women and children simply reminded me of the psychiatrist who asked Breivik, who believes himself to be very manly, if he thought the killing of defenceless adolescents was manly.

From what I have read you have though given up your holocaust denial, moving instead into a holocaust justification.

Justification not accepted, hence the need for the Frankfurt school to hire some psychologists to find out how people in general could come to think such a thing was OK.

As you are now trying to deflect into waffle or some attempt to now justify Breivik, I think we have probably gone as far as we can.

The nations of India, Pakistan, and to some degree Mexico, have killed far many more people in the last several decades than the Nazis. But these extermination policies have generally not been recognised as such, as it is not obvious killing in the conventional sense of the word, but gradual indirect killing of a small segment of society. Through severe impoverishment. The poor are prevented from growing food or building shelter. Now of course, part of the reason for this phenomena is structural, some order has to be maintained. But it is the equivalent of mass-murder nonetheless. The disturbing thing is that these are all democracies, and this type of thing could potentially become a problem in the future for any of the other nations. What India, Pakistan, and Mexico have in common are overpopulation and ethnic diversity- two factors that can not be ignored, and are a big part of the reason for the poor conditions. So what is the United States, Australia, and Western Europe going to do to prevent this from happening?

Embracing ethnic diversity, encouraging migration, and ignoring overpopulation all have the potential to result in horrible violence and death in the future. In some ways this may simply be inevitable. In other words, trying to suppress ethnic tensions now could lead to much greater problems in the future. We can see countless examples of ethnic diversity in other parts of the world that have only led to violence and genocide. It is naive to think this does not have to cause problems. There eventually will be problems, perhaps not soon, but eventually in the future.

Is Brevik so competely different from the Norwegian Resistance movement during the second world war that killed 10 innocent Norwegians on Lake Tinnsjø, just to destroy some heavy water? The saboteurs planted a bomb to sink the steamship SF Hydro, knowing there would be civilian casualties. 8 german soldiers guarding the heavy water were also killed. Yet the saboteurs were not regarded as terrorists by the Norwegian people. Rather, it was almost as if they were reluctantly seen as heroes. It was only much later that it was realised that the barrels of heavy water were actually very dilute, so the ammount of heavy water onboard was not very significant, only about 5-10% of the quantity that would be needed for a nuclear reactor. The Norwegian Resistance was willing to kill innocent people to try to prevent massive death tolls in the future. The heavy water was only one small component of what would have been needed by the germans to help develop a nuclear bomb.

I am not advocating killing innocent people, but the Norwegian people should have the right to live in their own nation without ethnic diversity. Perhaps the media should be focusing more on all the horrible murders, killings, and war happening in Africa.

Originally Posted by alexa

Justification not accepted, hence the need for the Frankfurt school to hire some psychologists to find out how people in general could come to think such a thing was OK.

The Marxists of that time wanted to put in place their system, and for the most part were willing to do it by any means possible. This was clearly evident by the terrorism, and later the harsh tactics used in the Soviet Union and China that killed millions of citizens. I think the Labour Party is an offshoot of Marxism to an extent more so than many people realise.

I am not defending some of the mistreatment during the second world war, but things should be put in perspective.
A one-sided view of history is being used for political purposes and social objectives. The real reason is not so much about preventing a Holocaust from happening again, but about setting the foundations for political change and a complete restructuring of the economic framework.

Perhaps when progressives stop mentioning "the Holocaust" every time there is a debate on immigration (or whenever an issue that has racial implications comes up), I will stop arguing over what actually happened in the past. In the meantime, I want to prevent an "India" or "Mexico" from ever happening again!