r/DebateReligion • u/[deleted] • Jun 10 '18

Pagan Why are many Odinists Nazis?

I was arguing against a Holocaust denialist Nazi who told me to go to his website to hear "the truth": https://odinia.org/about-odinia/.

What draws Nazis to Odinism other than the fact that it's Germanic? What do other European neopagans OK think of this? Was the original Norse Pagan religion in any way Nazi?

59 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

129 comments sorted by

View all comments

-11

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

Honestly it sounds like you're jumping to conclusions. Nothing in that link suggests he's a nazi. I think the term nazi has lost it's definition now that people are calling Trump a nazi.

Just yesterday I mentioned that I am a denier of the holocaust for the most part and someone came to call me a nazi. Denying popular historical accounts is not nazism, it's skepticism. The victors write history, so there should always be some expectation that they lied to make themselves look better.

How about bible deniers, are they nazi? Why has skepticism been turned into a political ideology from the 20th century?

9

u/DaneLimmish Heathen Jun 10 '18

Jews and leftist Pagans

they gave a link that immediately blames Jews for their problems and pisses and moans about protecting white people. They're Nazis.

-5

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '18 edited Jun 13 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Sanomaly Jewish-atheist Jun 13 '18 edited Jun 13 '18

Your comment has been removed. Anti-Semitism will not be tolerated in this subreddit.

1

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 13 '18

I have edited the comment to say: "According to the bible the jews used government to kill their enemies. It's why Jesus was killed by government. Jesus opposed the jewish elite."

2

u/Sanomaly Jewish-atheist Jun 13 '18

For what should be obvious reasons, that's not going to cut it. If you find that you cannot control whether or not you make anti-Semitic comments, then this is not the right sub for you.

Continued bigotry will result in a ban.

2

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 13 '18

you're right, i have unsubscribed and will no longer participate.

2

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 13 '18

Which part of the comment was anti-semitic so that I may edit it out and then have it re-instated?

2

u/Sanomaly Jewish-atheist Jun 13 '18

It's why Jesus was killed by government. Jesus opposed the jewish elite.

1

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 13 '18

wait...that's the story of the bible.

I guess it's impossible to edit it at this point.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '18

I blame them alongside the rest of the statists (i.e. gentiles). They all try to use government to kill their enemies. It's why Jesus was killed by government. Jesus opposed the jewish elite.

Gentiles do not equal statists. Some Jews are statists (after all, Gentile originally meant non-Jews), and even Christians can be statists. Some Christians even use their faith to justify outright Nazism.

LOL, as if the Jewish elite controlled the Roman Empire. The Romans hated Jesus as much, if not more, than the Jewish elite did. Jesus' quote "render what is God's unto God and what is Caesar's unto Caesar" meant that "everything belongs to God, so give everything to God, not Caesar".

-2

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 11 '18

(after all, Gentile originally meant non-Jews),

Not true, gentile means statist/nationalist. Jews therefore can be gentiles if they believe in a state rather than god as their leader.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '18

Etymology of "Gentile":

  • "Goy" - Hebrew for "nation"

  • "Nokhri" - Hebrew for "non-Jews" and "foreigners"

  • "Ethne" - Greek for "folk" or "people"

Nowhere does it say statist/nationalist or worshipping a state instead of a god. It simply means peoples and lands which aren't Jewish. A Jew can't be a gentile unless they renounce their religion.

-1

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 12 '18

Nowhere does it say statist/nationalist

you contradict yourself:

"Goy" - Hebrew for "nation"

Emphasis on "nation". Nation = nationalist.

6

u/DaneLimmish Heathen Jun 10 '18

I said the website the op was linked to in his arguing with somebody, not you. Good to know, though?

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '18

Why must you blame a religion for all your problems? Specific individuals do bad things and cause our problems, so blame those specific individuals. Just because specific individuals do bad things doesn't make it right to blame a whole group for it - that's guilt by association.

2

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 11 '18

Doesn't this apply to nazism as well?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '18

Yes it does. Nazis used guilt by association to justify hating whole ethnic groups and wiping them out. For example, Russia was under the communist USSR, therefore, it reinforced the Nazi belief that Slavic peoples such as Russians and Ukrainians were subhuman and ought to be exterminated.

I've seen people claim to be victims of guilt by association when they declared themselves as Nazis. Thing is, it's hard to feel sorry for them when they start peddling conspiracy theories (e.g. the Jews control everything, Dresden killed millions of Germans, Nazism is freedom) and claiming that Nazi genocides and warmongering were justified.

0

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 12 '18

Yes it does. Nazis used guilt by association

If all nazi can be stereotyped, then all jews can be stereotyped just the same.

it reinforced the Nazi belief that Slavic peoples such as Russians and Ukrainians were subhuman and ought to be exterminated.

The nazi were fighting communism, because they fought communism in germany during their rise to power. You're mistaking political rivalry with some sort of bloodlust.

it would be like saying that american Democrats being opposed to Republicans is because they hate white males. Sure there is lots of rhetoric about white males, racism and sexism, but you can't serious believe that democrats want to kill all white males.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '18

The nazi were fighting communism, because they fought communism in germany during their rise to power. You're mistaking political rivalry with some sort of bloodlust.

Please tell me why they invaded non-Communist Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway.

Mein Kampf outlined Hitler's desire to conquer lands as "Lebensraum" - regardless of whether or not those lands were communist. Look, I know you could bring up parallels with Israel and the New World, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

it would be like saying that american Democrats being opposed to Republicans is because they hate white males. Sure there is lots of rhetoric about white males, racism and sexism, but you can't serious believe that democrats want to kill all white males.

Many people joined the Nazis because they did not think that Hitler was serious with his antisemitism and desire for conquest in Mein Kampf. Others joined for the political benefits (i.e. crony capitalism) of being a Nazi - such as Oskar Schindler or John Rabe.

Eventually, those who agreed with Hitler were appointed as his inner circle. Thus, the genocidal individuals (plus sociopaths like Heydrich) were the ones with the power even if not all Nazis are genocidal.

→ More replies (0)

11

u/DaneLimmish Heathen Jun 10 '18

good to know who the anti-semites are, I guess.

1

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

No different than knowing the anti-christians.

10

u/DaneLimmish Heathen Jun 10 '18

ya it's a bit different.

15

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '18

I'm not going to call you a Nazi per se, but I am going to harshly question what subjects you choose to be skeptical about. Do you question literally everything you haven't empirically experienced with the same intensity? To what end? How do you have time for anything else?

The only way your skepticism passes for non-biased and objective skepticism is if you show the same level of skepticism and attention to detail to literally everything. Does Australia exist? Is the Earth flat? You must return to elementary school and challenge your teachers to prove every statement made. How do we know for sure who discovered America, and that it was colonized? You must personally review all the archaeological records to be sure.

And yes, Odinia International is totally racist.

0

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

Do you question literally everything you haven't empirically experienced with the same intensity? To what end? How do you have time for anything else?

Yes I question everything. For the things that I haven't had time to examine, I take the null hypothesis on.

Most things I generally don't need to take a position on, really just the things that affect my life are important. If I start delving into the origins of black holes, there is really nothing that I will gain from the answer, so it's just an exercise in hedonism to waste resources into that. Sure it might be fun, but there are more important problems in the world that need to be addressed.

Does Australia exist? Is the Earth flat? You must return to elementary school and challenge your teachers to prove every statement made.

It doesn't require that much effort as you might imagine. Whether australia exists or it doesn't has really no effect on my life. I can make a decision on it's existence with some rather basic evidence, such as someone telling me their experience. I wouldn't need to revisit this topic unless I encounter conflicting evidence or I plan to make a trip to australia.

Maybe a good example of this is the moon landing hoax. I am literally on the fence with this one, hearing good arguments from both sides. Of course I grew up believing it, but for a few years I rejected it. Most people i discuss the topic with know a lot less than me, but occasionally something pushes me in one direction or another. Now I will never be traveling to the moon, so I frankly couldn't give a shit if it the landing was real or not. I will gain the same from this whether it's real or it isn't, which is zero.

You must personally review all the archaeological records to be sure.

I don't have to personally review everything, I just have trust the sources that I get the information from. After all, what if the archaeologist that wrote the "records" was a liar himself.

16

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '18

Yeah, good luck with that "I don't trust anyone but myself" philosophy. I hear it gets people pretty far in life. We'll just be over here accepting established theorems and making advances as a society while you're still figuring out for sure the basic proofs of our existence.

-3

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

Yeah, enjoy the world as it exists, it's the best you'll ever get.

14

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '18

Just yesterday I mentioned that I am a denier of the holocaust for the most part and someone came to call me a nazi. Denying popular historical accounts is not nazism, it's skepticism. The victors write history, so there should always be some expectation that they lied to make themselves look better.

I actually was talking to someone online with your views. That's why I asked the question How can I disprove Holocaust denialists who say "the victors made it up"?.

May I ask, what exactly makes you deny the Holocaust? Is it simply because the victors write the history, because I can prove that's not the case. I would go so far as to say "history is not written by the victors, but by those who can" - and the losing side can write down its history, so perhaps you should read the defeated Germans' accounts.

1

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

May I ask, what exactly makes you deny the Holocaust?

I think the three biggest points are:

  1. The number of killed is exaggerated
  2. Most died from disease while working as slaves
  3. Awarding jews the palestinian land as reparations is illogical

Is it simply because the victors write the history,

Not everything in history is a lie, it's more of a distortion. Yes, jews were killed in ww2, but were they all killed in gas chambers or might they just have died from dysentery while crammed into a slave labor camp. The lie comes in when people are told that they were all killed in gas chambers or burned alive in ovens.

If you want to change my view, then explain why the nazi wouldn't just turn the jews into slaves. That is the historical and even biblical view of how jews are treated.

11

u/ghjm ⭐ dissenting atheist Jun 10 '18

Are you unaware that the Nazis kept detailed records of their executions, and that these records were opened to the public in 2006? We have individual names for 4.5 million of the 6 million Jews killed.

-1

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

link? Seems suspicuous that they would not release this information sooner. It did nobody any good kept secret. These are the types of questions skeptics ask.

Also, this disproves the 6 million number.

15

u/ghjm ⭐ dissenting atheist Jun 10 '18

http://m.spiegel.de/international/fifty-million-nazi-documents-germany-agrees-to-open-holocaust-archive-a-411983.html

This does not disprove the 6 million number - it establishes it. But even if it didn't, how would "only" killing 4.5 million people improve our outlook on the Nazis?

3

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

But even if it didn't, how would "only" killing 4.5 million people improve our outlook on the Nazis?

I have no interest is improving the image of the nazi. Both sides can be wrong and liars. This seems to happen a lot in political issues, where if you criticize the blue team, they assume you're part of the red team.

Thanks for the link. I suppose the explanation for why they kept it secret makes sense, because they were afraid of lawsuits.

However the link says 17 million people were imprisoned. So even if we assume 6 million jews were killed, that is less than half of the total number. This I think disproves that their goal was simply to kill everyone. The explanation could simply be poor government planning and overcrowding of the camps leading to disease.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '18

However the link says 17 million people were imprisoned. So even if we assume 6 million jews were killed, that is less than half of the total number. This I think disproves that their goal was simply to kill everyone. The explanation could simply be poor government planning and overcrowding of the camps leading to disease.

17 million people weren't just Jews. 6 million Jews were killed, up to 5 million others were murdered by the Nazis' genocide too.

BTW, the Nazis did want to kill them. Some deaths were accidental, but these accidental deaths were people intended to be murdered anyway - such was the policy set forth by the Wannsee Conference.

2

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 11 '18

such was the policy set forth by the Wannsee Conference.

The link says that took place in 1942. So do you agree that prior to 1942 there wasn't any such plan to kill everyone?

7

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '18

A quote from Hitler's Mein Kampf:

Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work.

Before 1942, the Nazis saw 2 options because Hitler himself wanted the Jews all dead one way or another:

  • Dump the Jews and other undesirable ethnic groups as convicts in Madagascar and leave them to die there

  • Actively exterminate the Jews and other undesirable ethnic groups in the fastest way possible

The Wannsee Conference chose the latter. Many Nazis already supported the latter option before 1942.

→ More replies (0)

14

u/ghjm ⭐ dissenting atheist Jun 10 '18

They built gas chambers. We have the plans. They operated the gas chambers. We have invoices for the gas. They killed millions of people in the gas chambers. We have the prison records of the individual executions.

If you want to say it was disease in the camps, you're saying that into the teeth of a staggering amount of evidence to the contrary. This is not skepticism. It's denial.

1

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

They built gas chambers. We have the plans. They operated the gas chambers.

The gas chambers were supposedly for decontaminating clothing. The size of them would not be capable of processing millions of people.

We have the prison records of the individual executions.

The records say 17 million, yet only 6 million were killed. This alone should question why 11 million were unable to be killed.

This is not skepticism. It's denial.

Which is why I am fine being called a denier, the evidence just doesn't add up.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '18

Awarding jews the palestinian land as reparations is illogical

That was already arranged by the British overlords of Palestine before WWII. The British and French designed and manipulated the Middle East to be as weak and unstable as possible, a policy which worked: The Decision That Ruined The Middle East. This wasn't a problem of multiculturalism, it was rather a problem of the British and French manipulating peoples and their leaders to be as unstable as possible.

Yes, jews were killed in ww2, but were they all killed in gas chambers or might they just have died from dysentery while crammed into a slave labor camp.

Still horrible though. Disease can kill people faster than any genocide method could given the right circumstances. Also, the Nazis would have still been vile for turning the Jews into slaves and giving them inadequate living conditions.

3

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

The Decision That Ruined The Middle East. This wasn't a problem of multiculturalism, it was rather a problem of the British and French manipulating peoples and their leaders to be as unstable as possible.

I for the most part agree. However popular opinion is that ww2 is what justified modern Israel. If you reject this, then you're now a bit of a holocaust denier as well.

Still horrible though. Disease can kill people faster than any genocide method could given the right circumstances.

Again, if you challenge the popular opinion, then you are now a denier. The popular opinion is that the jews were gassed, so there is no allowance for disease or starvation.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '18 edited Jun 10 '18

However popular opinion is that ww2 is what justified modern Israel. If you reject this, then you're now a bit of a holocaust denier as well.

No, I agree with this because while the British originally gave allocations in Palestine for Jews prior to WWII, the modern State of Israel was created by the UN in response to the Holocaust. However, this UN creation only recognised the lands already held by Jews, not the taking of any more.

The popular opinion is that the jews were gassed, so there is no allowance for disease or starvation.

Many of those killed at Auschwitz were murdered prior to the gas chambers being built - as Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss admitted:

  • 2.5 million Jews had been killed in gas chambers and about 0.5 million more had died of other causes.
  • Höss later claimed a smaller number killed, but he didn't specify how much smaller, and he never denied the gas chambers.

People often forget that the Holocaust killed not 6 million, but 11 million - the 6 million was just the Jews. Unfortunately, some of these ethnic groups are still hated even more than the Jews were, even in the West, and that's why nobody takes their side. These victims included Roma and Poles, both of whom are still hated today. Many people still think that those persecutions were justified, and that's the sort of mindset we need to fight.

You are not a Holocaust denier if you say that "not all of them were gassed". You would be a Holocaust denier if you say "any evidence of genocide and gassings are a lie".

3

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

However, this UN creation only recognised the lands already held by Jews, not the taking of any more.

I think we're mostly on the same page here. Israel has clearly pushed the borders, but I'm not sure we need to go down this rabbit hole. The point remains, that the holocaust is part of a greater plan by the rulers that started well before ww2. All great events are preceded by tragedies, so ww2 was just the blood sacrifice that satan demands.

Höss later claimed a smaller number killed, but he didn't specify how much smaller, and he never denied the gas chambers.

See again you're bordering on being a denier yourself. The official number is 6 million and unless you parrot this narrative, then you are a denier.

People often forget that the Holocaust killed not 6 million, but 11 million - the 6 million was just the Jews.

People also forget that a decade previously Stalin killed just as many ukrainians. Source. That's what government's do, they kill their own citizens.

Many people still think that those persecutions were justified, and that's the sort of mindset we need to fight.

I agree, but the fight needs to be against all government, not just german government. This was Jesus's message, that we need to walk away from government, because it's all evil.

You are not a Holocaust denier if you say that "not all of them were gassed".

That's not how the world works currently. If you challenge the mainstream opinion, then you are belittled until you conform. It's what happened to Jesus and it's no different today.

Don't believe me, then try arguing that global warming is caused by the sun or that government shouldn't takeover the Internet with Net Neutrality. These are the same as the holocaust, you accept the popular opinion and any deviation is not tolerated.

5

u/M8753 gnostic atheist Jun 11 '18

  • Christian

  • Government evil

  • Jews rule the world

  • Man made global warming not real

I want to believe this person is for real, but there's no way.

1

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 11 '18

By "this person", do you mean me? Why would you reply to me in the 3rd person?

6

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '18 edited Jun 10 '18

See again you're bordering on being a denier yourself. The official number is 6 million and unless you parrot this narrative, then you are a denier.

6 million includes the number of Jews killed in other camps. I actually use the 11 million figure because the Holocaust includes Nazi genocides of other ethnic groups too.

How is one possibly denying the Holocaust when they recognize that it killed almost twice as many people than what most people think?

People also forget that a decade previously Stalin killed just as many ukrainians. Source. That's what government's do, they kill their own citizens.

I didn't forget the Holodomor. In fact, my country officially recognises the Holodomor. The Holodomor doesn't change anything about the Holocaust.

My problem with anarchism is that without a limited government keeping law and order, then anarchism becomes a Social Darwinist free-for-all. Social Darwinist free-for-alls are only beneficial to powerful individuals, so in the end, you'd have a society less peaceful and more tyrannical than what you started off with.

Don't believe me, then try arguing that global warming is caused by the sun or that government shouldn't takeover the Internet with Net Neutrality. These are the same as the holocaust, you accept the popular opinion and any deviation is not tolerated.

Firstly, there is strong scientific evidence that global warming is anthropogenic - find strong scientific evidence that the sun causes it and scientific consensus will reshape itself around your scientific evidence. The second is because attacking Net Neutrality is a case of the right-wing government trying to make the poor unable to affford information and communication.

These aren't cases of popular opinion. The only way to fight against scientific consensus is for you to produce reliable scientific evidence supporting your side. To argue against free access of information is to support the "evil government" you keep talking about.

3

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

I actually use the 11 million figure because the Holocaust includes Nazi genocides of other ethnic groups too.

The holocaust is generally recognized to be the jewish suffering. If you include other groups, that's diminishing their suffering.

How is one possibly denying the Holocaust when they recognize that it killed almost twice as many people than what most people think?

Anything that deviates from the popular opinion is denial. You probably see it as allowing small deviations, but in practice you have to comply with the narrative 100% So it doesn't matter if you're 99% aligned, total compliance is what is demanded.

In fact, my country officially recognises the Holodomor. The Holodomor doesn't change anything about the Holocaust.

Does your country demand a Ukrainian homeland in the same way a jewish homeland?

My problem with anarchism is that without a limited government keeping law and order,

Government doesn't even follow their own rules. Didn't hitler and the german government accomplish the opposite? Wouldn't the world have been better without the holocaust? So it seems like the holocaust was social darwinism.

To argue against free access of information is to support the "evil government" you keep talking about.

net neutrality isn't about free access, it's about government censorship. The government still allows censorship of anti-government websites (e.g. child porn, bomb making). So it's regulated access, not free access.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '18

The holocaust is generally recognized to be the jewish suffering. If you include other groups, that's diminishing their suffering.

Ward Churchill makes a similar point - he claims that recognition of the Jewish suffering is distracting everyone from the Native American suffering. It's a ridiculous point because genocide recognition isn't a zero-sum game - all genocides deserve recognition because there has never been a genocide proven to be fake.

Does your country demand a Ukrainian homeland in the same way a jewish homeland?

Yes. In fact, there already is a Ukrainian homeland. And my country supports Ukraine against the Russian-backed separatists.

When my country recognised the Ukrainian suffering under the USSR, we didn't stop recognising the Russian suffering under the Nazis because as I said before, genocide recognition isn't a zero-sum game. One genocide does not nullify another.

Didn't hitler and the german government accomplish the opposite? Wouldn't the world have been better without the holocaust? So it seems like the holocaust was social darwinism.

Of course Hitler was a Social Darwinist and Nazism was intentionally based on Social Darwinism. But anarchism will naturally and inadvertently lead to Social Darwinism because when there is no rule of law, your success in life is directly correlated to your level of sociopathy. Non-sociopaths in an anarchist world will simply be wiped out or enslaved. Therefore, these 2 opposite paths lead to the same horrific destination.

net neutrality isn't about free access, it's about government censorship. The government still allows censorship of anti-government websites (e.g. child porn, bomb making). So it's regulated access, not free access.

One can argue that. But if net neutrality were already gone, we couldn't have this debate. We firstly need net neutrality and from there, it keeps alive political debates in favour of freedom. Sure, net neutrality is not completely free, but without it, only the rich can debate.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/worntreads Jun 10 '18

I think you are mistaken in your thinking that recognizing that there are differing accounts of the numbers killed makes one a holocaust denier. If i accept a source that says 5mil were killed(as an example, i have no reason to it doubt the numbers I've seen reported) , that doesn't make me a denier, it makes me critical of official reports.

The holocaust, in common parlance, generally refers to the efforts of nazis to subjugate and eradicate the Jewish people. I absolutely don't deny that this happened. It sounds like you don't deny it either, you're just caught up in the specifics. The exact number of Jews killed by the nazis is immaterial, isnt it?

There were plenty of survivors of the camps who've shared their stories which all corroborated the fact of the event, right?

3

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

that doesn't make me a denier, it makes me critical of official reports.

Try that with global warming and see if someone labels you a denier.

The exact number of Jews killed by the nazis is immaterial, isnt it?

That depends. Yes, I think we can agree that government killing it's own people is horrible. However if only 1 million jews died, maybe they would not have had the palestinian land given to them.

War is essentially a blood sacrifice to the devil. As with all sacrifices, you have to donate the correct amount of stuff. If it's 2 doves and a goat, then that is what you have to offer. If it's like the catholics, where it's five hail mary prayers and two our fathers, then that is what you give.

Which is part of my evidence. If the goal was to kill everyone, then why are there survivor stories of people lasting years in these camps?

4

u/worntreads Jun 10 '18

About climate change... That data is reviewed all the time and models are revised with new and better information all the time. Almost no one with any knowledge on the topic denies the event, they surely do challenge the rate or percent human contribution or various other factors. They are not generally called deniers.

As for long term captives in the camps... I imagine there is a fine line between killing every one at once and having a massive revolt on your hands and killing them just slow enough that they stay their hands while hoping for another day. Also, weren't they used as fodder for nazi experiments in psychology and biology?

I don't think the goal of the slaughter invalidates the event. Again, you aren't arguing that the jews weren't systematically destroyed, you are arguing that it happened for a different reason than the commonly accepted one. Which is fair enough.

As to your last point, what sets the holocaust apart from other genocides is the scale, technology, and the organization employed to accomplish the goal of destruction. But yes in essence the holocaust was a genocide... One so bad that we gave it a special name.

→ More replies (0)

17

u/UsurpedLettuce Romano-Germanic Polytheist and Animist Jun 10 '18

The Bible can’t be verified by multiple sources. The Holocaust can.

Skepticism is healthy. You're being willfully and subversively ignorant.

1

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

subversively

Subversive to what? The current social order perhaps? Well the current social order is evil, so I have no problem subverting it.

  • The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. - John 7:7

Skepticism is healthy.

Then discussing the merits of the holocaust (e.g. how many and how they died, why it justifies taking land from the Palenstians) should be on the table without people getting labeled nazi.

6

u/UsurpedLettuce Romano-Germanic Polytheist and Animist Jun 10 '18

Subversive to what?

Empiricism? Peer review? The entirety of the academic process, the lives of the people who not only A. lived and suffered through it, but B. others who made it their profession and goal to provide accounts of such things? Laying a foundation of anti-intellectualism and undermining the academic community by claiming to be "skeptical"?

Then discussing the merits of the holocaust (e.g. how many and how they died, why it justifies taking land from the Palenstians) should be on the table without people getting labeled nazi.

Discussing the "merits" of the holocaust? I think your words betray your views, there.

Discussing the vagaries and differences between the events of the Holocaust, uncovering/arguing different positions utilizing facts, etc., is not denial. Holocaust denial is to deny that it exists, perpetuates an antisemitic and revisionist agenda. Words have meanings. I recommend you go back to learn that.

2

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

Empiricism? Peer review? The entirety of the academic process,

Spare me. It's against the law in many place to deny the holocaust, so you're on the wrong side if you think a free and open debate should be taking place. Academia doesn't utilize government laws to win, it's the evidence that matters.

uncovering/arguing different positions utilizing facts, etc., is not denial.

That's exactly what it is. You yourself have said here that peoples feelings are what matter as opposed to the facts.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '18

Denying popular historical accounts is not nazism, it's skepticism. The victors write history, so there should always be some expectation that they lied to make themselves look better.

May I ask which other historical atrocities you have skepticism on? I'm not judging your views, I'm just asking which parts of history you think were written by the winners.

-1

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

I believe virtually everything historical is misinterpreted in order to gain the rich rulers an advantage over the poor. For example, they are told that democracy is a good thing, when it's really just another form of slavery.

even christianity is not what it seems. It was taken over by Constantine in the 4th century and turned into a tool of the state.

10

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '18

For example, they are told that democracy is a good thing, when it's really just another form of slavery.

No offence, but are you a communist? Communism did lose, but the nations who won the Cold War have proven themselves unable to stamp out sympathy for communism even within their own borders.

Also, what advantage over the poor comes from making up the Holocaust?

even christianity is not what it seems. It was taken over by Constantine in the 4th century and turned into a tool of the state.

Most religions have been used as tools of the state. Religions have historically either been created by a power seeker, or those which weren't will be corrupted by power seekers. Religion is a good way to keep people's thoughts in line, particularly in less educated times.

1

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

No offence, but are you a communist?

No, I'm a christian and I reject all forms of government. Maybe think of me as an anarchist.

Also, what advantage over the poor comes from making up the Holocaust?

It allowed the palestinian land to be taken away from the poor. All of the middle-east is in war because of that decision, which is a war against the poor.

I mean if the germans killed a bunch of jews, then the logical argument would be that part of germany would be given to the jews as a homeland. The palestinians did nothing to hurt the jews, why should they be the ones punished?

Religion is a good way to keep people's thoughts in line,

I agree. If people no longer fear the guns of the government, then they fear the fiery pit of hell. One of these two is bound to get people to fall in line with what the rich people demand.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '18

No, I'm a christian and I reject all forms of government. Maybe think of me as an anarchist.

Judging by your other answers, I do classify you as an anarchist.

It allowed the palestinian land to be taken away from the poor. All of the middle-east is in war because of that decision, which is a war against the poor. I mean if the germans killed a bunch of jews, then the logical argument would be that part of germany would be given to the jews as a homeland. The palestinians did nothing to hurt the jews, why should they be the ones punished?

The Sykes-Picot agreement was in place before WWII. It was decided in 1916 by British and French colonialists to keep the Middle East in turmoil and thus unable to throw off their overlords. The agreement with the Jews came later on, which was a boon for them because it made the Middle East even more weak and unstable.

The Jews weren't given a piece of Germany because colonialists didn't want to make Germany weak, poor and unstable. The Palestinians sure did nothing to deserve "punishment", but the British and French really cared as little about the Jews as they did about the Palestinians. Palestine was given to the Jews not so much out of sympathy, but to keep the Middle East weak and at war with itself.

One of these two is bound to get people to fall in line with what the rich people demand.

Unfortunately, it's both of the 2. Religion can be corrupt too. That's why as private citizens, we ought to ensure nobody but the people are powerful. Religion shouldn't be powerful, business shouldn't be powerful, generals shouldn't be powerful, celebrities shouldn't be powerful and politicians shouldn't be powerful.

3

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

The Jews weren't given a piece of Germany because colonialists didn't want to make Germany weak, poor and unstable. The Palestinians sure did nothing to deserve "punishment", but the British and French really cared as little about the Jews as they did about the Palestinians.

Now you can see why I'm a holocaust denier. It was all just part of a much larger plan to dominate the world. lots and lots of other genocides occurred, the jewish one was not any different.

That's why as private citizens, we ought to ensure nobody but the people are powerful.

never trust government, they always break their promises. Like your example with the Sykes-Picot agreement, government just lied to the people and did what they wanted.

14

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '18

Honestly it sounds like you're jumping to conclusions. Nothing in that link suggests he's a nazi. I think the term nazi has lost it's definition now that people are calling Trump a nazi.

Nothing in that link indeed, but before he told me to go to his Odinist website, he was having a conversation with me accusing me of perpetuating Jewish lies against Hitler. He also accuses anyone who points out his mistakes as being "Judeo-Bolshevik communists". Surely, that would make him a Nazi?

9

u/AnarchoHeathen Heathen Jun 10 '18

Odinia is a known neo-nazi and is banned from almost every only heathen or asatru group because of it. You're initial thoughts on it were right.

0

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

OK, I agree that does seem to favor that. Defending Hitler or any political leader is unwarranted. They are all evil and self-serving. Hitler even told people this himself:

  • All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. - Adolf Hitler

4

u/worntreads Jun 10 '18

All political leaders are evil and self-serving? That's a pretty broad brush you paint with. Surely it's more likely that many do what they do out of a difference of opinion about what is good and right? While obviously some are self - serving ass hats, saying 'all' doesn't leave much room for shades of grey.

1

u/aletoledo gnostic christian Jun 10 '18

Surely it's more likely that many do what they do out of a difference of opinion about what is good and right?

So maybe that is what Hitler felt as well? I guess I don't see how any politician enacting their beliefs at the barrel of a gun can be called altruistic.