First people aren't going to agree with me on my assessment of Jews. That's fine. You hate them, I don't. That has nothing to do with the assessment of Nazis. If Nazis targeted only people who were "too asian" they as an ideology would not change from my perspective.
There's this idea that the nazis were good because they were targeting Jews and Jews = degeneracy and therefore the cause of the nazis were good and anti-degeneracy.
Things pointed to are that a lot of the books being burned were degenerate and many of those books were written by Jews. Yes that's a historical fact.
This doesn't make a prove racial characteristic, only it proves that Jews typically are where power is, but tons of the Jews in the concentration camps were not powerful. And a lot of the degeneracy pushers such as in Weimar were not Jewish either, but were German. The point is where power, and decadence is, degeneracy follows. Few would disagree with that.
Here's a big problem with the trying to wonder if the nazis were actually good that the young right in the post-truth age wrestle with.
First of all, nazis, socialists, russians, communists, these are all European political systems. We, in America had a completely different overton window and thank goodness for that. While Europe was trying to figure out what flavor of socialism to implement, America was enjoying a level of freedom, including in speech, and especially in religion that essentially no European country could fathom. So to try to tie nazism to Americanism and borrow it is foolish. We already were operating on a superior level than all those brands of socialism.
If you want to know what nazi Germany would look like in the modern day or any day, just look at Germany from the fall of Nazi germany to today.
Germans have not changed one bit in authoritarianism. Did they drop nazism in favor of freedom after the fall of the Nazi regime? Nope, they hopped immediately into the GDR the German Democratic Republic that lasted until the 90s. The GDR hardly differed at all from Nazi Germany in terms of a government being who you feared rather than a government fearing its people. In fact, it was so close in behavior that I was confused when I was shown a film portraying the GDR in school growing up, having to be explained that this was not WW2. Everyone telling the Stasi about neighbors and teachers and everything else, I could see no difference from the Gestapo as the Gestapo were alwas portrayed.
Then you'd think, after that falls, Germany would FINALLY be ready for freedom, right?
Well rank the free-est nations in Europe and tell me where you put Germany. Germany, if you post memes or criticize Islam, the police get sent to your door just like in the UK.
If you want to know what Germany would be like if they continued on with Nazism, well I've got good news for you; you already know what it looks like. The only thing that got dropped from Germany's government was concentration camps. In all other ways Germany looks the same as Nazi Germany ever since.
But here's the other real issue I have with "maybe the Nazi's were the good guys"; and it has to do with the post truth thing.
If it were to come about, that we made being a woke leftist utterly unpalpable. That, rightfully so, they look at the transgender movement and abortion promotion as the abomination it is, and those people get expelled from the society, in 100 years, you'd have other post truth people trying to re-evaluate the woke people, sitting from a place not like the place where we sit, where we know EXACTLY how awful they are and playing armchair historian and philosopher and they too will go "well maybe the woke people weren't that bad" and if we could time travel into the future we'd slap them across the face and go, moron, yes, yes they were, you're just going to have to take our word for it.
Just because communists are as bad as the nazis doesn't make the nazis good. It just makes European politics an example of why Europe is a total craphole. It's why in America, the 1980s was seen as a time of optimizim and patriotism, yet ask any Eastern bloc nation what the 1980s was like for them and they'll explain that it was a time of alcoholism and despair.
America is not Europe and nazism is just another example of the numerous examples of the hopelessness that Europe has always been further down the drain than America, and that's because America was a fresh start from Europe. A blank slate. A chance to not have to share in Europe's rot.
To want Nazism over what America had in the 1930s-1950s is to say "I wish America was set back 100 years and was a shared partaker in Europe's desperately bleak systems"
To look at modern day America and conclude it's a piece of crap is absolutely rational. It's also absolutely rational to want it to be different. No sane man wants America to be like it is today. The answer isn't wishing the Nazis won. It's wishing that the Marxism that was still being promoted from places like Soviet countries weren't allowed to take root and fester in America.
1940s/1950s America was and will always be 100 times better than modern America and 100 times better than Nazi Germany as well as every totalitarian version of Germany we've seen to this day. Why would we look to a tricycle as the model (Socialism via Nazi Germany) when we have a Porsche as the model (1940s/1950s America and earlier).
Ah yes, that completely average Jew that is the scattered rabbis over a few hundred years, and then of the contemporary rabbis, there's splits over whether they even preach it, and if those choose to, there's debate over what parts they preach or don't.
There's Jewish rabbis who choose to only preach what was in the Torah aka the original 5 books of the Bible.
Others use the Old Testament. Others use the Talmud as well and of those some preach in a way to promote Jewish supremacy and it's more vile things to justify beliefs.
Again, if the Quaran were what we measured Muslims by, very little people would have critiques about Muslims despite the fact the Quaran is awful.
It is the behavior of Muslims that people have an issue with. The terrorism and everything else, and unlike Jews, the averages, the numbers play out in a way that is not in the muslims favors.
You can see a lot of average aka non powerful muslims who are highly impacted by the Quaran by their actions.
The average Jew, aka not the globalists or the Jeffery Epsteins of the world, it's hard to see much to any demonstration to an allegience to the Talmud.
The Talmud is like the the writings of the church fathers. Catholics pick and choose especially depending on the individual catholic. A "progressive" catholic like the pope will pick church father writings that seem "nice" while ignoring any that seem harsh.
Same goes with Jews relationship with the Talmud, and even then, whereas Catholics have it as dogma that church fathers are on equal footing with scripture, Judaism doesn't have that dogma in regards to the Talmud. The Talmud's legitimacy in regards to the old testament according to their religion is debated and fractured all over the place.
Umm, no we don't.
Fair enough, I'm not a Catholicism expert. The point is there's an analogue there in the sense that if a church father said something really bad, one time in a long history of many people and many statements, anti-Catholics would use that as cherry picked ammunition, despite the fact it's not unanimous or representative of all Catholics.
Similarly the scattered writings of the Talmud are not necessarily representative of Jews to the degree the anti-Jews want to make it out to be.
It's cool, I appreciate that.
Shalom!
I agree the sarcasm was not necessary, but it was only the first sentence.
Everything else wasn't emotional, it was a purely clinical breakdown.
I don't know where you see "overly emotional" in my response.
Second, nothing was non-sequiturs that failed to address your point or had no logic or reasoning.
Your entire point was just "The talmud". So to address that point, I have to 1 define what the talmud is, which I did in my first sentence, which to be fair I led with sarcasm which wasn't necessary and set the wrong tone.
then I had to give a historical analogue. The Talmud existing and using it to paint Jews is like knowing that SCUM (the society for cutting up men aka the let's kill men play that was created by feminists) exists and hating feminists for it. I am anti-feminist because of the behavior and actions of feminists, not because of the writings of their most radical adherents.
I don't see in everyday life the manifestations of Talmudic beliefs except for extreme fringe cases like Jeffery Epstein types. Again not the average Jew. The average feminist is awful. I don't need to point to edge cases to dislike feminists.
If I could see the average Jew, I would indict them if their behavior warranted it. But I can't see the average Jew because the average Jew runs the gamut of different shades of American. Some Jews are like that pizza reviewer guy who's really famous, Dave something, others work in tech and who's biggest concern in life is becoming the top speedrunner for a niche game when he's not working.
That's my point.
Islam shows itself to be a scurge by the actions of the mass everywhere they go. With Jews, there really isn't a mass to point to "racial indictment" them with. You have visible elites and you have averages who blend together with "America" as a general and are no more visibly damaging to the country than the Asian working in the same company that the Jew is.
I'll put it this way. Your neighborhood can't be white anymore as a hypothetical, and it can't be Asian, so it has to be Muslim, ghetto black, Indian or Jewish. What do you choose? I choose the Jews. We all know the outcomes of the other 3 categories and in all scenarios your neighborhood becomes more leftist so that's unnavoidable, so then the choice becomes who is the least disruptive to my life.
Jews are going to be the least disruptive in terms of turning the neighborhood.
Anthony Cumia, radio host, "inflammatory" conservative, when he lived in New York, he was the only non Jew in his New York rich neighborhood he lived in. He talks about how he was the only house that had Christmas decorations at Christmas which he found funny.
If it were a Muslim neighborhood, his house probably would have been attacked. If it were a ghetto black neighborhood, he'd be afraid to leave his home. If it were an Indian neighborhood the cultural differences would be so vast he'd never want to talk to his neighbors as there'd be very little common ground to talk about anything. Indians don't make for the best conversationalists when you're an American in my experience.
So while you're saying it's a non-sequitur, it's not, because it's all to say, whatever influence the Talmud has it's not enough to shape the average Jew. Does it shape it's strongest adherents? Absolutely. Just like Satanists, they come in two forms. Edgy satanists who are just like "do drugs and listen to metal", and read some of the Satanic Bible but couldn't quote it, and eventually get out of that phase and cringe looking back at it, and true believers in the Anton Lavey philosophy and internalize "do what thou wilt" to the logical extreme and become hedonists who kill themselves at the age of 40 because their dopamine is fried and they've led an empty life.
Because their culture is downstream of the Talmud. You may as well say that we don't live in Christian societies because most people don't go to church, even though our every institution, our morality, and the actions taken as reasonable by ordinary people are all fundamentally Christian.
I must challenge one of your assertions here.
Muslims are evil because of their beliefs. Not the other way around.
Individuals who profess evil beliefs, but have yet to act upon them, are by definition unsuitable for a civilized society.
This applies equally to all of the non Christian religions, as Christianity IS civilization.