Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jews For Genocide
Townhall.com ^ | March 19, 2012 | Mike Adams

Posted on 03/19/2012 5:13:39 AM PDT by Kaslin

Dear Mr. Friedman:

I am deeply disappointed by your refusal to speak with me personally about some remarks you make to my editors at TownHall.com. I have given you ample time to respond to my phone calls. Now, I’m responding to you in this open letter. I really have no other choice given your unwillingness to speak directly to the people you target with your misguided condescension. I’ll respond to your irresponsible remarks one paragraph at a time. Here goes:

Mike Adams is not the first person to draw an analogy between the Holocaust and abortion, but we wish he would be the last one. (Aborting Hitler, Mike Adams, January 30th).

In my column, I correctly referred to the Nazi Holocaust as a Holocaust. I correctly referred to the feminist Holocaust as a Holocaust. I did not deny or in any way minimize any Holocaust. I simply spoke of two instead of speaking of one. If you are anti-Holocaust, then why are you morally superior for talking about one less Holocaust than I do? I just don’t understand your basic premise. Unfortunately, you will not pick up the phone to explain it to me when I call your office.

Referring to abortion as the "American Holocaust", makes for a catchy headline but it also undermines the historical truth of Nazi Germany, and Adams ought to know better. The Holocaust was the systematic industrialized murder of millions and should never translate into 2012 political analogies.

(Author’s Note: The headline was “Aborting Hitler” not “American Holocaust.” Friedman is undermining the historical truth of what I have written. He ought to know better).

Now, I am even more confused. When I assert the truth of one Holocaust, how do I “undermine the historical truth” of another? Why can’t both assertions be true – particularly when I back those assertions with evidence? Furthermore, are you at all concerned that some of the unborn murdered in the womb are little Jewish children who cannot defend themselves? Have you no concern that Planned Parenthood is engaged in industrialized murder? Are you also denying the “historical truth” that the founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist who subscribed to Nazi ideology? Can you not see the connection between the two? Or are you trying to re-write history like the Holocaust deniers you claim to oppose? These are all great questions you could answer if you would just pick the phone.

Adams is entitled to his views on abortion, but his attempt to assert a moral equivalency between abortion, and the murder of millions of people at the hands of Nazis, is not only offensive but is indicative of a lack of understanding about the Holocaust.

Now, I think I understand your position. You don’t think the unborn are “people.” Well, what are they? Are you even prepared to offer an explanation of when a living fetus becomes a “person”?

Here’s where I can help. There are exactly four reasons routinely given for denying the personhood of the unborn. They follow in no particular order of importance:

1. Size – the unborn are smaller and therefore not persons;
2. Level of development – the unborn are less developed and therefore not persons;
3. Environment – the unborn are not persons because they are still in the womb;
4. Degree of dependency – the unborn are not persons because they must depend on others for survival.

I have rebuttals to all of these argument but you do not seem interested in them. Nor did you seem to understand the basic premise of “Aborting Hitler,” which was to assert that the denial of personhood is the motivating force behind Holocausts in general. Because you didn’t get it, now you’re doing it. Do you get it now?

Sincerely,
David C. Friedman
Regional Director, Washington DC Regional Office
Anti-Defamation League

Finally, I must take exception to your decision to sign off using the word “sincerely.” You aren’t sincere. If you were sincere, you would take seriously the argument that the unborn are persons. Then, once you arrived at that conclusion, you would also conclude that abortion is a Holocaust. Abortion provides a clear example of the “systematic industrialized murder of millions.”

Unfortunately, you have become nothing more than a Holocaust denier. The fact that you work for ADL makes you a shameless hypocrite, as well. Of course, you are entitled to lecture someone who sees through your intellectual poverty and moral bankruptcy. But you ought to know better.

Author’s Note: For more on the parallels between the Holocaust and abortion see Ray Comfort’s brilliant film “180.” Click here to view it now. Unfortunately, the film has not been approved by the ADL. It never will be.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: abortions
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 03/19/2012 5:13:42 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Apple Pan Dowdy; Battle Axe; bayouranger; bboop; BenKenobi; Biggirl; Blue Collar Christian; ...

Mike Adams Column


Please Freepmail me if you want to be added, or removed from the ping list

2 posted on 03/19/2012 5:16:16 AM PDT by Kaslin (Acronym for OBAMA: One Big Ass Mistake America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

BAM! That’s going to leave a mark.


3 posted on 03/19/2012 5:24:27 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy ("And the public gets what the public wants" -- The Jam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Amen I say


4 posted on 03/19/2012 5:25:39 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Here’s the bottom line: Liberals just make stuff up and have absolutely no concern for truth. They make things up and then just walk away, moving on to their next lie. They simply don’t care about truth because they have long since figured out that truth will never substantiate them.


5 posted on 03/19/2012 5:40:24 AM PDT by Obadiah (We are all Brietbarts now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
In my column, I correctly referred to the Nazi Holocaust as a Holocaust.

The correct translation for "holocaust" is: "an accepted burned offering." Now think back to what they did with many Jewish bodies after gassing them in the camps.

Creepy, huh?

"The holocaust" was a cynical invention of an anti-Semitic media. The correct word is "Shoah," which simply means "disaster."

6 posted on 03/19/2012 6:36:06 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Unfortunately, there are some Jews who have made the word "holocaust" into a registered trademark. They don't wany anyone else to employ it under any circumstances as they believe this will blunt the emotional effectiveness of the word in its political use.

I'm NOT a Holocaust denier. However, I am willing to recognize that some people may employ the word in a very cynical, self-serving fashion as a political weapon. These people should be ashamed.

7 posted on 03/19/2012 6:42:31 AM PDT by Dr. Thorne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Note to self: Read the whole article before posting. After demonstrating his ignorance of what "holocaust" actually means, Mr. Adams goes on to construct his false analogy, thus stepping deep into Mr. Friedman's little trap.

Now, I think I understand your position. You don’t think the unborn are “people.” Well, what are they? Are you even prepared to offer an explanation of when a living fetus becomes a “person”?

The crux of the false analogy is that Mr. Friedman's distinction is not about "personhood;" it is about collective intent for genocide, which is a different crime than murder for convenience. The goal of abortion is not to kill all babies of only a particular race. Mr. Adams should learn better.

8 posted on 03/19/2012 6:43:44 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Excellent!


9 posted on 03/19/2012 6:46:51 AM PDT by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I find it worrisome that the far left now argues for post-birth abortion. Newborn babies are almost as small as they were just before birth, and within the first couple weeks they are usually noticeably smaller. The newborn are only slightly more developed than the unborn. Newborns require a protected environment. And newborn babies must depend on others for survival. Former US Senator Obama argued for legal killing of the accidentally born children who survive attempted abortions, and that view is moving toward the mainstream in the far left fringe that controls the Democrat Party. The only justice in their stance is that most democrats are at a lower level of mental development, require a protective environment, and must depend on productive Americans for survival. If they get the powerful centralized government they are working to create, liberals will be its first victims.


10 posted on 03/19/2012 6:48:38 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The people who did the killing in the Holocaust first had to alter their conscience or superego. They had to accept the absurd notion that the Jews, Gypsies and others were not really human beings and exterminating them while unpleasant was not in their mind a moral transgression. These murderers actually had families and slept well. Similarly those who do the abortions and acquiesce to abortion have made a similar accommodation. They have convinced themselves that killing pre born human life is somehow not a transgression against nature. They profit and live well, and fully expect their neighbors to applaud their killing. They do have a lot in common with the Nazi killers. Personally I never trust a “pro abortion” individual. When someone announces they are “pro choice” (the politically correct term for the killing), they have shown they are capable of virtually any moral transgression. it is best to have only superficial relationships with such people.


11 posted on 03/19/2012 6:49:50 AM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make.

I would say that the Jewish Holocaust was a disaster that killed 6 million Jews. It seems that you would accept the word "Shoah" to describe this.

I would say that the Abortion era has been a disaster that has killed 50 million people. Would I be justified in using the term "Shoah" for this disaster? Could I use the word "holocaust"?

On a strictly numerical basis, one might say that the Abortion disaster is nearly ten times greater than the Jewish Holocaust -- but numbers are not everything, and I see no advantage to anyone saying this atrocity is worse than that atrocity. These atrocities are simply terrible and neither needs to win "the prize" of being the worst.

I am also reminded of the child sacrifices to Moloch, and how people who did not know God would throw children into the flames as burnt offerings.

Personally, I think that Mike Adams is justified in calling the Abortion disaster a "holocaust".

12 posted on 03/19/2012 6:55:55 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy ("And the public gets what the public wants" -- The Jam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Google the demographics of abortion.

Now, consider that abortion may be ‘chlorine for the gene pool’. Wouldn’t want to stand in the way of evolution, would you?

Just sayin’.


13 posted on 03/19/2012 6:58:06 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allendale
Some otherwise moral Christian people think that abortion prevents that child from being brought into a world where they would be mistreated and abused. In other words “it's for the children”. Twisted logic.
14 posted on 03/19/2012 7:02:25 AM PDT by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The crux of the false analogy is that Mr. Friedman's distinction is not about "personhood;" it is about collective intent for genocide, which is a different crime than murder for convenience. The goal of abortion is not to kill all babies of only a particular race. Mr. Adams should learn better.

Whether you are correct may depend on which features of the Holocaust should be considered central to its moral repugnance. Is genocide a central element? Or would the government eliminating a similar number of families either to take their assets or simply because they would not conform to the new order be just as immoral? I worry about the effect of insisting on genocide as a central element of the Holocaust's evil. While genocide was an additional element of evil in the Holocaust, I don't see a huge moral gap between Hitler's targeted mass murders of Jews, gays, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other "undesirables", and the less narrowly targeted but still horrifying mass murders committed by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others who interpreted socialism as violently as Hitler did but included more diversity among their victims.

15 posted on 03/19/2012 7:03:13 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

mike Adams has good instincts, but he is a psychologist who has discovered how bankrupt and evil psychology is. Unfortunately, he is lacking in serious education, but he is coming along.


16 posted on 03/19/2012 7:07:51 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A+


17 posted on 03/19/2012 7:08:52 AM PDT by Lady Lucky (Gingrich 2012: Open Throttle for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allendale

I totally agree.


18 posted on 03/19/2012 7:12:03 AM PDT by yldstrk ( My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The goal of abortion is not to kill all babies of only a particular race.

Nor was that the goal of the "Final Solution".

The Third Reich killed 6 million Jews.

They also killed 5-7 million Gentiles - Gypsies, Communists, the physically/mentally defective and others they found inconvenient.

19 posted on 03/19/2012 7:28:12 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The goal of abortion is not to kill all babies of only a particular race.

Thinking back, the original goal of Margaret Sanger was, in fact, to kill all babies of a particular race ... "human weeds" she called them.

20 posted on 03/19/2012 7:29:21 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The crux of the false analogy is that Mr. Friedman's distinction is not about "personhood;" it is about collective intent for genocide, which is a different crime than murder for convenience. The goal of abortion is not to kill all babies of only a particular race. Mr. Adams should learn better

Respectfully disagree. The evil of the Nazi Holocaust was not in the killing of Jews, as such. It was in the killing of people. That the Nazis made a false distinction between Jews and all other human beings does not require us to accept their premise -- or to mimic it by saying the unborn aren't really people. They were killing people, period. We are doing the same.

You might want to reexamine WHY they were doing it. Not because they had studied up on the theology of Judaism and decided it was worthy of capital punishment. The evil motives were political and economic -- a diabolical hash of envy, scapegoating, greed and ignorance -- and all this had been brewing a long time in the German mind. Nazi politics, half-baked modernism, eugenics, 20th century science combined to make it a distinctive atrocity, but at base it was about killing people; murder. Our American Holocaust is of liberal politics, thoroughly baked modernism, eugenics and 20th century science. Redefine humanity to exclude Jews there; redefine humanity to exclude preborn babies here. Good Germans held their noses and knew nothing, good Americans do much the same, saying it's none of their business, it's between a woman and her doctor.

It's murder. In the millions.

21 posted on 03/19/2012 7:31:39 AM PDT by Lady Lucky (Gingrich 2012: Open Throttle for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
the original goal of Margaret Sanger was, in fact, to kill all babies of a particular race ... "human weeds" she called them.

Margaret Sanger did not put the idea in Hitler's heart.

22 posted on 03/19/2012 7:33:57 AM PDT by Lady Lucky (Gingrich 2012: Open Throttle for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Stalin, Hitler, Sanger, Mao, Pol Pot. She’s right up there with the worst.


23 posted on 03/19/2012 7:42:17 AM PDT by Karliner ( Jeremiah 29:11, Romans 8:28, Romans 8:38"...this is the end of the beginning."WC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky
Eugenics is an old idea that could be traced back at least as far as Plato. But the modern view of eugenics really goes back to Sir Francis Galton. He read The Origin of Species by Darwin and decided that humans should engage in eugenics.

From Galton come all the racial purity people who followed: Sanger, Hitler, Farrakhan, etc.

24 posted on 03/19/2012 7:43:19 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy ("And the public gets what the public wants" -- The Jam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky

I never said she did.

I was rebutting someone else who claimed “The goal of abortion is not to kill all babies of only a particular race. “.

Margaret Sanger did want to kill all babies of a particular race.


25 posted on 03/19/2012 7:48:12 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
Whether you are correct may depend on which features of the Holocaust should be considered central to its moral repugnance. Is genocide a central element?

'Whether I am correct,' is a construction that makes you the judge and jury. I'm not accepting that. Genocide was obviously the goal in the case of the Jews and while the killing included "undesirables" no similar program of public propaganda as regarded mass intent was directed at each of these groups.

Or would the government eliminating a similar number of families either to take their assets or simply because they would not conform to the new order be just as immoral?

It's not a matter of immorality, but whether they are the same intent. That's why we have the word, "genocide" instead of "mass murder." They're different.

Oh, and paragraphs are your friend.

I worry about the effect of insisting on genocide as a central element of the Holocaust's evil. While genocide was an additional element of evil in the Holocaust, I don't see a huge moral gap between Hitler's targeted mass murders of Jews, gays, Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other "undesirables", and the less narrowly targeted but still horrifying mass murders committed by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others who interpreted socialism as violently as Hitler did but included more diversity among their victims.

Well go ahead and worry. The sheer mass of propaganda directed against 'the Jew' was totally different than the others who got lumped in (I noted your omission of the infirm, retarded, and insane). If you want to lump the Jewish people in with them when the intent was clearly different, go ahead and you may even earn the distinction of a letter from Mr. Friedman someday to which you can reply similarly.

26 posted on 03/19/2012 7:48:57 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
Thinking back, the original goal of Margaret Sanger was, in fact, to kill all babies of a particular race ... "human weeds" she called them.

I'd considered that, but I'd bet you the farm that neither the average abortion doc nor his customers today are thinking about eugenics. As I said, the distinction is mass intent to destroy an ethnicity.

27 posted on 03/19/2012 7:51:50 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky

The knee-jerk “liberal” reaction is always to say Sanger was “taken out of context”.


28 posted on 03/19/2012 7:54:17 AM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky
That the Nazis made a false distinction between Jews and all other human beings does not require us to accept their premise -

It does when it comes to naming a historical event, not to evaluating whether or not it is evil. If you want to come up with similar term for abortion (which is advisable) then go for it.

You might want to reexamine WHY they were doing it.

Oh really? I take it you know all about the Sabbateans.

The evil motives were political and economic -- a diabolical hash of envy, scapegoating, greed and ignorance -

That was the pitch, but not the motive. I suggest you bone up on the three-hundred-year history that led to this particular genocide.

It's murder. In the millions.

Set intersection does not mean subset inclusion. They are both killings (murder being a legal term), but they are different. That's why we have had a word for "genocide" from long before the Shoah.

29 posted on 03/19/2012 7:58:17 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
Unfortunately, he [Adams] is lacking in serious education, but he is coming along.

Understood, but he really stepped in this one because he got passionate and pushed it before checking with an Orthodox Jew as to what Friedman might be saying that he didn't know.

30 posted on 03/19/2012 8:12:29 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: allendale
When someone announces they are “pro choice” (the politically correct term for the killing), they have shown they are capable of virtually any moral transgression.

Wow, that is a conclusion that i should have gotten to, but had not thought of. Thank you.
31 posted on 03/19/2012 8:14:19 AM PDT by wafflehouse (RE-ELECT NO ONE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All

here is another excellent piece:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40517


32 posted on 03/19/2012 8:24:10 AM PDT by pepperspray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

53+million babies, in America, alone! That is so mind-boggling, but our country wants to kill the person who brings the message about it, not the industry doing the killing.

Watch the movie, if you haven’t! I sent it to every friend via email.


33 posted on 03/19/2012 8:29:21 AM PDT by Shery (in APO Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; Kaslin; ClearCase_guy
You assert that that the word "holocaust" to describe the Nazi mass-murder of Jews was "a cynical invention of an anti-Semitic media."

Evidence shows that the origins of this term, as applied to the Jews, are neither cynical nor anti-Semitic.

The term 'holocaust' was used as early as 1852, to mean masses of people killed in a revolution; it was used in 1867 referring to all of the Africans horribly slaughtered in the name of European imperialism.

In 1943, in an ad taken out in the New York Times, the New Zionist Organization of America demands the establishment of a free, Jewish state in Palestine. They note that Jews around the world are fighting alongside the Allied forces in this "holocaust of blood and sweat and tears." This usage of holocaust refers more to the war in general rather than to the specific actions taken by the Nazis against the Jews.

The first mention of the holocaust to refer specifically to the slaughter of the Jews occurs in an obituary the deceased Benjamin Winter, who tirelessly worked on behalf of Polish Jewry. Written in 1944, this obituary decries the fact that the Jews were suffering immensely "during the present holocaust which has destroyed more than two millions of its number."

So for almost 100 years, English-speaking people have been using the word "holocaust" simply to mean atrocious slaughter or mass murder.

No irony, no anti-Semitism implies.

The same slaughter in mid-20th-century, when capitalized and using the definite article ("The Holocaust") means the same as "the Shoah," "the Churban" (a rare Yiddish usage) or "The Final Solution".

34 posted on 03/19/2012 8:53:06 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Mit brennender Sorge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
The term 'holocaust' was used as early as 1852, to mean masses of people killed in a revolution; it was used in 1867 referring to all of the Africans horribly slaughtered in the name of European imperialism.

The term derives from a Greek word, "holokaustos" which means what I said it means. To apply it to a people slaughtered and burned in assembly line fashion, is cynical.

35 posted on 03/19/2012 9:00:24 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; Kaslin; Pollster1
Carry_Okie, I'm not going to devote much time to you here, for there's just so much writing I'm willing to do for free, and you seem to be enjoying yourself with your little authority.

I'll just note that you wrote to Kaslin: " 'The holocaust' was a cynical invention of an anti-Semitic media. The correct word is 'Shoah,' which simply means 'disaster.' "

And to Pollster 1 you wrote: " 'Whether I am correct,' is a construction that makes you the judge and jury."

I find that mildly amusing, but then I haven't seen your copyright of the English language.

I suggest you bone up on the three-hundred-year history that led to this particular genocide.

Use of the word "holocaust" to refer to mass murder goes back as far. You might want to bone up on that.

You may have the last word. (Noblesse oblige!)

36 posted on 03/19/2012 9:02:56 AM PDT by Lady Lucky (Gingrich 2012: Open Throttle for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
You've really lost me. Perhaps you think you are making your point clearly, but I do not think that is the case. Simple questions:

1) The killing of Jews by the Nazis -- You would call this "Shoah"?
2) The killing of Jews by the Nazis -- You do not like the term The Holocaust for this tragedy?
3) The abortion of babies as a widespread industry -- You do not like this to be called a holocaust?

Really trying to understand your expectations for how these terms are used.

37 posted on 03/19/2012 9:10:34 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy ("And the public gets what the public wants" -- The Jam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky
Carry_Okie, I'm not going to devote much time to you here, for there's just so much writing I'm willing to do for free, and you seem to be enjoying yourself with your little authority.

It has nothing to do with my authority. If you have a problem with facts, too bad. "American Holocaust" is a crappy term. Wide use of it is a transgression. Christ taught you how to deal with that.

I find that mildly amusing, but then I haven't seen your copyright of the English language.

The word isn't originally English; it is Greek.

You may have the last word. (Noblesse oblige!)

Droit de siegneur. Use of the word "holocaust" to refer to mass murder goes back as far. You might want to bone up on that.

I said the term from which the word was "translated," so I suggest you bone up on your reading skills.

You may have the last word. (Noblesse oblige!)

Looks more like droit de seigneur.

38 posted on 03/19/2012 9:15:35 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
1) The killing of Jews by the Nazis -- You would call this "Shoah"?

The Orthodox already do.

2) The killing of Jews by the Nazis -- You do not like the term The Holocaust for this tragedy?

The Orthodox really don't.

3) The abortion of babies as a widespread industry -- You do not like this to be called a holocaust?

I doubt the Jewish people do. I respect their wishes on this one.

39 posted on 03/19/2012 9:17:47 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
'Whether I am correct,' is a construction that makes you the judge and jury.

"Whether I am correct" was a construction intended to convey the idea that I had not thought this issue through completely and hoped to have a discussion on the question, not that I knew that I was correct and simply chose to humor you (if that is what you thought I meant).

The sheer mass of propaganda directed against 'the Jew' was totally different than the others who got lumped in (I noted your omission of the infirm, retarded, and insane).

My omission of those groups is probably parallel to your omission of communists, Poles, and some other groups that we both left out - an omission that I assume was triggered by the broad scope of the atrocities in Nazi Germany. Can you explain why the murder of more than six million innocent people, primarily entire families, is much worse when genocide and racial purity are part of the motivation than when political purity suffices to identify the victims for systematic mass extermination of "undesirables" and their entire families? [If you'll excuse a little snark, and a long paragraph, "Can you explain why" is a construction that invites you to be not quite the judge and jury but at least the prosecuting/defense attorney.]

40 posted on 03/19/2012 9:19:16 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Thank you for your kind response. That was very helpful.

My only (mild) confusion now is the term for the abortion disaster. As you have pointed out, "holocaust" is a Greek word. And if people refrained from using "The Holocaust" as an alternate term for Shoah, then I guess I don't see why Jewish people would take much interest in how anyone else uses a particular Greek word.

I feel that "a holocaust" is a long-standing term to describe widespread, horrific killing. I believe that it is in common usage in just that way.

On what grounds would Jewish people oppose describing abortion as a holocaust? I could perhaps see why if the Jews wanted Holocaust to be a specific term for what the Nazis did, but you are telling me that Holocaust is not an appropriate term for what the Nazis did. On that basis, I would think that "holocaust" becomes an available term to describe what America is doing today.

41 posted on 03/19/2012 9:25:52 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy ("And the public gets what the public wants" -- The Jam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
Can you explain why the murder of more than six million innocent people, primarily entire families, is much worse when genocide and racial purity are part of the motivation than when political purity suffices to identify the victims for systematic mass extermination of "undesirables" and their entire families?

I think I've been fairly clear about this. The Orthodox Jewish people do not like the term "holocaust;" they prefer Shoah for the reasons I discussed. After the atrocities they suffered, I respect their wishes on that. Wouldn't you?

Whether or not a crime is "worse" has nothing to do with whether or not we have terms for describing particular crimes. The Shoah was an attempted genocide against the Jewish people in particular, as opposed to the other NAZI crimes against various peoples.

Moreover, the motives within the NAZIS varied by group. For example, the communists were reviled because they were competitors, as they both derived from very similar ideologies. In fact, early NAZI propaganda swore almost perfect alignment with Leninism. So much of the bile directed against Poles and communists was to justify what they were going to do anyway, although they did have a beef against a Polish Jewess in the person of Rosa Luxembourg while Poland was a center of Reform Jewish communist ideology as derived from the Bund der Gerechten. Remember too that "Poles" then controlled much of what had been Prussian territory. There was bad blood over that. Similarly, the flamings against "Gypsies" were directed against those who controlled what had been a corner of pre-WWI Germany.

The commonality for the mass-killing of many of these ethnic groups is that of using the justification of grievance. The ironic (and hypocritical) part is that the Jewish very bankers who financed the early NAZI Party went untouched during the Shoah. Personally, I think there is truth to the quite reasonably established hypothesis that Hitler was the illegitimate scion of a Rothschild.

42 posted on 03/19/2012 9:40:19 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; ClearCase_guy; Pollster1; luckylady; Mrs. Don-o

1. Jews are an ethnic group, not a race.

2. Various criteria have been used throughout time to individuate groups targeted for deliberate slaughter. These include, without limitation, ethnicity, class, religion, ideology, race, location, birth order, and economic cost/inconvenience (e.g. as when the Nazis used “life unworthy of life” as a basis for murdering the old, infirm, handicapped, etc. and the feminists targeted unborn babies). In every case, there is collective intent. In the case of abortion it has gone one step further: the murder is now conducted on a commercial basis and the “businesses” engaged in the slaughter get to advertise for victims. This, I believe, is unprecedented. Of course, the commercialization of this form of mass murder has only been able to proceed because of “collective intent” (Note that “collective intent” can’t mean “unanimity”. Nevertheless, I don’t know of an instance of mass murder that has been more extensively or energetically promoted legally and publicly than abortion.).

3. In the 20th Century alone the list of peoples or groups deliberately murdered is depressingly long.

4. The “Shoah” was indeed a disaster and a horror. The fact that it was not a unique moral/hisorical event doesn’t diminish the utter evil of what the Nazis did to Jews.

5. Attempting to claim that different moral significance attaches to the various rationales for mass murder is senseless. It does not matter morally if people are murdered merely because they are kulaks, Armenians, Jews, class “enemies”, Hutus, “intellectuals”, not first-born, or handicapped or otherwise “inconvenient”. For example, claiming that murdering someone merely for being Armenian is “different” from murdering someone merely because he is a kulak is a distinction without a moral difference.

6. To the extent this thread is degenerating into a bizarre discussion of the alleged moral merits of the use of “holocaust”, “Shoah”, and “genocide” it is becoming absurd.


43 posted on 03/19/2012 9:41:05 AM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"The Holocaust" as an alternate term for Shoah, then I guess I don't see why Jewish people would take much interest in how anyone else uses a particular Greek word.

That's a good point technically, but in practice I can see why the Friedmans of this world get tweaked by the usage.

I feel that "a holocaust" is a long-standing term to describe widespread, horrific killing. I believe that it is in common usage in just that way.

Absolutely true. I was merely reporting on what might be the source of Mr. Friedman's contention of which Mr. Adams was clearly ignorant.

On what grounds would Jewish people oppose describing abortion as a holocaust?

They think it cheapens the horror of their years of suffering, abuse, starvation, disease, and final "solution." I tend to agree with them in that the pro-life movement would have been well advised to pick a different term.

We both know that Jewish Marxists like Mr. Friedman are among the most strident backers of abortion, and IMO for reasons more sinister than you might suppose (sorry, I'm not going into that today).

On that basis, I would think that "holocaust" becomes an available term to describe what America is doing today.

While I am certain you can justify the rationale, I am advising against it. The reason is this: The pro-life movement is using the term precisely because it is associated with the horrors of the detention camps. There is no such apparent horror in an abortion clinic. There is no arrest in the middle of the night; the mother arrives to kill her baby of her own volition. There is no train stinking of feces and disease; she drives her car. There is no internment camp of slave labor, horrid food, minimal clothing, bad beds full of lice, mud, disease, etc. all of which go on and on...

It's different. It's deliberately inflammatory. To the families of the victims, it is potentially offensive. I suggest using a different term for the mass killing of babies by their mothers.

44 posted on 03/19/2012 9:51:50 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Thanks for your response.


45 posted on 03/19/2012 10:03:53 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy ("And the public gets what the public wants" -- The Jam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

“We both know that Jewish Marxists like Mr. Friedman are among the most strident backers of abortion, and IMO for reasons more sinister than you might suppose (sorry, I’m not going into that today)”

OK. I’ll bite: what is the sinister reason? It is just that leftists generally continue to share a variation on Sanger’s views? Or is it something else?

As a former New Yorker, I would speculate that it is that liberals “love minorities” but just wish that there were fewer of them. I think many libereals actually see abortion as the corrective for the “excess breeding” that their welfare state p[olicies make possible.


46 posted on 03/19/2012 10:27:15 AM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000

“... this thread is degenerating into a bizarre discussion...”

Yes it is. The Holocaust vs. the holocaust. After reading carefully, it sounds to me like some people just want to sound like they are smartest person in the room.

Use of “Shoah” by orthodox jews is an interesting footnote, but has nothing to do with the current, common, acceptable usage of the word holocaust to refer to events outside of The Holocaust. The fact that everybody reading this will understand this distinction proves this point.

As you point out, drawing moral distinctions between holocausts is pointless and not a little bit silly to me as well.


47 posted on 03/19/2012 10:27:45 AM PDT by Owl558 ("Those who remember George Satayana are doomed to repeat him")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Adams should have called feti “untermenschen”, subhumans, to get the point across to Friedman. Noting that Sanger was decorated by Hitler would have also been useful.


48 posted on 03/19/2012 11:17:40 AM PDT by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

The goal of many pro-abortion people is to kill undesireables, especially non-whites. This has been true from Margaret Sanger until today.


49 posted on 03/19/2012 11:20:17 AM PDT by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

50 posted on 03/19/2012 4:14:33 PM PDT by SJackson (The easiest way to find something lost around the house is to buy a replacement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson