Jewish Agitation: Hitler to Ahmadinejad

A very interesting article that is worth reading whether you agree or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
...Since WWII, [Jews] have been particularly sensitive to any hint of a resurgence of Nazism, either in the United States or Germany, and they have constantly reminded the rest of the world about Hitler and his cohorts.

For this reason, one of the most active aspects of J.W.V.’s postwar program has been keeping Nazis, Nazi sympathizers, and Germany herself under close surveillance. There are several reasons for this—to make sure that America does not reward Nazis, to make sure there is no resurgence of Nazism in Germany, to make sure that Germany does not stray in her obligations, particularly to Israel, and to make sure that war criminals are appropriately punished (Gloria R. Mosesson, p. 123-124).

Jewish Agitation: Hitler to Ahmadinejad

by Weronika Clark, B.A.
May 29, 2007

It is a mistake to historically indict Hitler as the sole antagonist of the Second World War. In actual fact, Hitler ought to bear less responsibility for the Second World War than any one of the four main Allied nations, those being, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, Israel,1 and America. If we are to apply the same measures and standards to Hitler’s Germany that we have to Hussein’s Iraq and Ahmadinejad’s Iran then we must be drawn to the conclusion that Americans, Israelis and even Britons were guilty of the same provocative international actions and aggressive war policies then as they are today. This analysis will focus on the specific details of Jewish agitation for war against Hitler’s Germany, Hussein’s Iraq, and Ahmadinejad’s Iran within a comparative context. It is my intention to demonstrate if not prove that Jewish agitation for war proved to be a decisive component in America’s decision to go to war in 1941, again in 2003, and quite possibly again, this year—in 2007—against Iran.

In a highly biased analysis of 1933, Jewish author Gloria Mosesson (1971) states the following:

Nineteen thirty-three was the year that saw active Comrade Herbert H. Lehman become Governor of New York State, Franklin Delano Roosevelt become President of the United States, and Adolf Hitler, an Austrian paperhanger turned German Fuehrer, become Chancellor of a Germany that was soon to have its name unofficially changed to Nazi Germany (p. 43).

Mosesson not only assigns to Hitler the responsibility and usage of the defamatory label of “Nazi Germany,” but more disturbingly she defames his character by calling him a “paperhanger,” insinuating that this is a career of which one ought to be ashamed. She does not call Roosevelt an ailing and crippled communist, nor does she assign a negative connotation to the then Jewish New York State Governor Herbert Lehman. In fact, she refers to him as an “active Comrade” which can only be interpreted as “active co-religionist.”

Hitler never asked to be called “Nazi” nor did he view himself or Germany as “Nazi.” This term was a creation of the foreign press outfits that were agitating hostility towards Germany. Referring to Germany under Hitler as “Nazi Germany” is the equivalent of referring to modern day Iran as “Islami Iran” since it has evolved from a western-inclined democratic tradition to a more Islamic authoritarian style republic. It was just “Germany” and it is just “Iran.”

She went on to say:

It is the eternal credit of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States that they were the first Jewish organization to recognize the menace of Hitler for what it was, and to take decisive action to fight Nazism wherever they would find it. There had been Jews who had questioned the need for a Jewish war veterans’ organization, who had suggested that its same functions could be handled by American veterans’ organizations or the rest of the Jewish community. But for that matter why then have Jewish hospitals or Jewish employment services (Mosesson, p. 43-44).

Mosesson has asked an important rhetorical question in this passage. Why have Jewish hospitals and employment organizations, indeed! One cannot help but notice that there are no modern day Mexican employment organizations or hospitals, Polish employment organizations or hospitals, Iranian employment organizations or hospitals, Russian employment organizations or hospitals, German employment organizations or hospitals, ad infinitum. Mosesson (1971) has even affirmed that the Jewish people are a “race,” so it would be difficult to argue that these apartheid social organizations were strictly religious-based as opposed to race-based (p. 41). This is a topic which Dr. MacDonald has dealt with extensively in his tour de force, Separation and Its Discontents.

In a SAID summary, MacDonald’s website states:

The basic thesis of this book can be summarized by the proposition that Judaism must be conceptualized as a group strategy characterized by cultural and genetic segregation from gentile societies combined with resource competition and conflicts of interest with segments of gentile societies. This cultural and genetic separatism combined with resource competition and other conflicts of interest tend to result in division and hatred within the society (MacDonald, n.d.).

So, this explains at least in part why many of the Jews in 1930s America wanted a Jewish war veterans’ organization and why author Mosesson was so keen upon defending this desire in her book. Please recall that Mosesson (1971) has argued that this organization in particular was the first to recognize the “menace” of Hitler (p. 44).

As argued by MacDonald, the Jews were especially successful as regards their ethno-social cohesive group strategy; thus, they were able to bring this organization to culmination even though some Jews opposed it. This successful ethnocentric cohesion in turn explains Jewish virulence and hostility towards German National Socialism. In the case of “Nazi” Germany the Jews were not considered part of the newfound German ingroup; rather, they were the ostracized outgroup. Hence, they became the victims of the same discriminatory attitudes and policies that they had so readily utilized in Weimar German society while acting as a cohesive ethnocentric ingroup; in even clearer terms, the Jews found themselves to be the victims of policies identical to their own. This is especially the case with the Nuremberg Laws which mimicked the biblical laws of Ezra almost to the point of plagiarism (Clark, 2005; See endnote here).

Jewish-Zionist activist Lenni Brenner has affirmed this very principle:

Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one’s own tradition ... On the foundation of the new state, which has established the principle of race, we wish so to fit our community into the total structure so that for us too, in the sphere assigned to us, fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible. ... Our acknowledgement of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group ... We believe in the possibility of an honest relationship of loyalty between a group-conscious Jewry and the German state... (Atzmon, 2006).

So, Brenner has not only acknowledged the alien cultural disposition which proved problematic for successful German-Jewish relations throughout the Weimar years, but even more importantly, he has affirmed that the Nuremberg Laws were not to be detested by Jewry because they were based upon the racial laws of the Jews themselves. For the Jews to have detested the Nuremberg racial laws would have exposed them as bigots.

One of the reviews for MacDonald’s SAID briefly summarizes the German-Jewish social phenomenon in Hitler’s Germany:

MacDonald concludes that the National Socialism of (Nazi) Germany was not only a reaction to but a 'mirror image' of what Jews were doing. The similarities, he says, lie in the common focus on genetic purity (and endogamy), eugenic practices, cooperation within the cohesive ingroup, and hostility to and denigration of outgroups (seen in the original Hebrew versions of Jewish religious texts [see Israel Shahak’s (1994) Jewish History, Jewish Religion; John Hartung’s (1995) Love thy neighbor; (Skeptic Magazine, 3{November}:86-99)]. But where in the mirrored images of Jewish activities does one find the massacre of six million gentiles? Nowhere, of course, circa Weimar Germany. But think of the Biblical Joshua’s still celebrated genocide of the Canaanites, and the ongoing and frequently murderous actions taken by Jews in Israel against Palestinian Arabs (e.g., Deir Yassin; Baruch Goldstein), approved of by surprising percentages of Israeli Jews (Hilton, 1998) [emphasis added]....
continued:
http://fairiesandponies.blogspot.com/2007/05/jewish-agitation-hitler-to-ahmadinejad.html