Hitler begged other countries to let Jewish immigrants in. The world denied his offer more than once.
The allies did mass fire bombings on Germany, eradicating civilians (Jews included) in huge numbers.
They did the same thing to Japan. They also put Japanese people in internment camps.
Then in the aftermath they told us how Hitler was the biggest bad guy in the entire history of the world and fabricated a psyop story about gas chambers and ovens at Auschwitz. Just reading the Wikipedia articles on it (which are highly supportive of the psyop) with some critical thinking you can determine the story is fake, heavily embellished for political reasons.
It's important to challenge the status quo especially when it's thrown around daily to control us, such as when questioning why the USA gives a lot of money to Israel, and being labeled an anti-semite. This is not good.
A main component of a Holo-something is the denial of outside aid.
Hitler's opponents were denying the Jews outside aid in the form of immigration. He knew the war would be devastating for them and tried to save them, but that is a very unpopular opinion.
Yeah, it's fucked up and hard to reconcile. The word itself is like a Stockholm syndrome weighing down on any Jew.
Burnt offering means an animal that has been cooked over fire for eating. That is what holocaust means. It does not mean death by fire, such as burning a perceived heretic/witch. The animal can be cooked after it has died humanely, it doesn't literally have to be burnt alive. In fact the Bible has instructions given to the Jews to prepare these burnt offerings in such a responsible way so as not to taint the meat. They are taught by their "LORD" to be good butchers and chefs.
It was called an offering because the animal had to die. It's life was offered to sustain another life.
If it was an offering to the "LORD" then it was probably a nearby king or subordinate officer ordering them to bring him food. Kings do this, they have other people cook and provide them with food. And the Jews were not really known for having their own Kingdom, they were nomads much of the time. Which means Kings came along and ordered them around.
It all gets very confusing when the act of cooking meat (burnt offerings) gets conflated with the bronze statue of Moloch where people were supposedly sacrificed.
Then you have the other angle that perhaps this "holocaust" was embellished from the act of cremating dead bodies, to control the spread of disease like typhus. A form of burial that perhaps the Jews did not appreciate.
Hard to put it all together, but it smells rather fishy.
Why did an omnipotent and all-good god savor the scent of burnt flesh?
I think you made this part up!
Let's say you and your wife walk into a restaurant and ask the waiter to bring you their best dish.
They bring out a searing hot juicy steak for your wife. Then for you, they bring out a cold potato.
What's so difficult to understand? You'd rather have the steak.
Abel is the breadwinner and thus he is awarded a wife who will bare him children who he can take care of with his propensity for fat sheep. Fat sheep = fat bloodline. Potato = famine.
Furthermore in order to rear a fat sheep you must have good animal husbandry skills. A shepherd has that, he can lead his flock, and thus is the desirable husband for the wife to rear a flock of children, not just any children, Abraham's bloodline. Shepherd is the man for the job.
Check this video series out, some really interesting ways of looking at the scriptures from someone tasked by the Vatican with helping prepare the “official” Spanish translation of the old testament. That is, before he was fired for voicing some intense divergences from the dogma inspired by his intense and focused analysis of the texts he was tasked with translating.
He mentions that when you look at the text it isn’t the meat itself that pleased god, it was the odor of burnt flesh, a “holo caust” of the original definition.
In 1936, Chaim Weizmann (who decided not to attend the conference) declared that "the world seemed to be divided into two parts – those places where the Jews could not live and those where they could not enter."
The Australian delegate T. W. White noted: "as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one".
The only countries willing to accept a large number of Jews were the Dominican Republic, which offered to accept up to 100,000 refugees on generous terms, and later Costa Rica.
This happened during a conference in 1938, before the Holocaust started up in 1941.
If international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, the result will be not the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.
It seems like he's saying there is a class of Jews (international finance/bankers) who aim to carry out Bolshevik style revolutions in existing nations and that this would lead to annihilation of the Jews in Europe. Notice he did not say annihilation of Jews in Germany. Nor did he say the Germans will annihilate Jews. He meant Europe will annihilate them. The Europe who would not accept the Jewish immigrants.
These words were similar to comments that Hitler had previously made to foreign politicians in private meetings after the Kristallnacht pogrom in November 1938. The speech was made in the context of Nazi attempts to increase Jewish emigration from Germany, before the outbreak of World War II in September 1939.
They took many steps to deport Jews rather than kill them. Is that not an attempt to save their lives?
Hitler begged other countries to let Jewish immigrants in. The world denied his offer more than once.
The allies did mass fire bombings on Germany, eradicating civilians (Jews included) in huge numbers.
They did the same thing to Japan. They also put Japanese people in internment camps.
Then in the aftermath they told us how Hitler was the biggest bad guy in the entire history of the world and fabricated a psyop story about gas chambers and ovens at Auschwitz. Just reading the Wikipedia articles on it (which are highly supportive of the psyop) with some critical thinking you can determine the story is fake, heavily embellished for political reasons.
It's important to challenge the status quo especially when it's thrown around daily to control us, such as when questioning why the USA gives a lot of money to Israel, and being labeled an anti-semite. This is not good.
A main component of a Holo-something is the denial of outside aid.
Hitler's opponents were denying the Jews outside aid in the form of immigration. He knew the war would be devastating for them and tried to save them, but that is a very unpopular opinion.
Yeah, it's fucked up and hard to reconcile. The word itself is like a Stockholm syndrome weighing down on any Jew.
Burnt offering means an animal that has been cooked over fire for eating. That is what holocaust means. It does not mean death by fire, such as burning a perceived heretic/witch. The animal can be cooked after it has died humanely, it doesn't literally have to be burnt alive. In fact the Bible has instructions given to the Jews to prepare these burnt offerings in such a responsible way so as not to taint the meat. They are taught by their "LORD" to be good butchers and chefs.
It was called an offering because the animal had to die. It's life was offered to sustain another life.
If it was an offering to the "LORD" then it was probably a nearby king or subordinate officer ordering them to bring him food. Kings do this, they have other people cook and provide them with food. And the Jews were not really known for having their own Kingdom, they were nomads much of the time. Which means Kings came along and ordered them around.
It all gets very confusing when the act of cooking meat (burnt offerings) gets conflated with the bronze statue of Moloch where people were supposedly sacrificed.
Then you have the other angle that perhaps this "holocaust" was embellished from the act of cremating dead bodies, to control the spread of disease like typhus. A form of burial that perhaps the Jews did not appreciate.
Hard to put it all together, but it smells rather fishy.
What was it about Abel’s offering to god (burnt flesh) that Cain’s offering (fresh produce) was so insulting?
Why did an omnipotent and all-good god savor the scent of burnt flesh?
I think you made this part up!
Let's say you and your wife walk into a restaurant and ask the waiter to bring you their best dish.
They bring out a searing hot juicy steak for your wife. Then for you, they bring out a cold potato.
What's so difficult to understand? You'd rather have the steak.
Abel is the breadwinner and thus he is awarded a wife who will bare him children who he can take care of with his propensity for fat sheep. Fat sheep = fat bloodline. Potato = famine.
Furthermore in order to rear a fat sheep you must have good animal husbandry skills. A shepherd has that, he can lead his flock, and thus is the desirable husband for the wife to rear a flock of children, not just any children, Abraham's bloodline. Shepherd is the man for the job.
Do you have a more reasonable explanation?
https://youtu.be/j4MXLB6SwPg
Check this video series out, some really interesting ways of looking at the scriptures from someone tasked by the Vatican with helping prepare the “official” Spanish translation of the old testament. That is, before he was fired for voicing some intense divergences from the dogma inspired by his intense and focused analysis of the texts he was tasked with translating.
He mentions that when you look at the text it isn’t the meat itself that pleased god, it was the odor of burnt flesh, a “holo caust” of the original definition.
Hitler knew the war would be devastating for the Jews and tried to save them? That's not an "unpopular opinion," that's a retarded falsehood.
Perhaps not. Hitler was friends of the Mizrahi community. He also had Jewish attendants that were treated very well.
This happened during a conference in 1938, before the Holocaust started up in 1941.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference
Yes, I know. But that has nothing to do with Hitler trying to "protect the Jews" or whatever ludicrous theory you're trying to push.
Have a look at this statement Hitler made:
It seems like he's saying there is a class of Jews (international finance/bankers) who aim to carry out Bolshevik style revolutions in existing nations and that this would lead to annihilation of the Jews in Europe. Notice he did not say annihilation of Jews in Germany. Nor did he say the Germans will annihilate Jews. He meant Europe will annihilate them. The Europe who would not accept the Jewish immigrants.
They took many steps to deport Jews rather than kill them. Is that not an attempt to save their lives?
No, thats what's called a "threat."
Preach.
I don't personally buy into the Holocaust-was-fake conspiracy, but it's infuriating to see good-faith holocaust deniers being branded as evil.
France let in a large portion of those that were deported. lots more were sent to Palestine.