Date: 02 Apr 1999 08:29:00 +0200
From: I-AFD_2-AT-anarch.free.de (Nico MYOWNA)
Subject: Re: "Jewish bankers"


Hi all,

I have to apologize myself for the fail use of the term "jewish bankers".
One jew have arranged the first contact to Hitler (of 3 contacts). It is  
right that 'jewish' isn't related to one's occupation.

One the other hand was 'jewish' a word to identify people who was mosaic  
orientated and take part of the jewish religion -- a word, what jews use  
to identify themself and their institutions.

> >Hi,
> >
> >> so it was "jewish bankers" who bankrolled hitler!!!!!!
>
> >You know, that there are only 3 exemplares of S. Warburg "Who finance
> >Hitler"? S. Warburg is the son of holder of the Warburg bank with offices
> >in Berlin, Hamburg and New York. The Hitler party is at this moment a
> >extrem group without great parlamentarian influence at the ballot box
> >(only 1-3%). S. Warburg, a jew, have arrangend the first connection
> >between american bankers and Hitler. We speak about the time 1920/21.
>
> A point here, Nico.  The paragraph above is better, than the one you just
> sent to Carop, but still guilty of what you get your own knickers in such a
> serious knot about.  In your reply to Carp, you said
>
> >> Get this:  The "Jewish" banking cabal is bullshit.  It never existed.  Of
> >> course you can find books that say the Holocaust never happened too, but
> >> this is beside the point.  Only True American Nuts who hide in Idaho and
> >> Missouri and Arkansas think the jews caused WWII.
> >
> >Simon Warburg have wrote the book "Who finance Hitler". Simon Warburg was
> >a son of the founder of the jewish Warburg Bank with offices in Berlin,
> >Hamburg and New York. Simon Warburg have arrange the contact between not-
> >jewish american bankers and Adolf Hitler. Okay -- you are right in that
> >point that the money wasn't from the jewish side.
>
> Now the point here, dear Nico, is that "Jewish" is a religious and cultural
> identification that is not related to one's occupation.  It matters not a
> fig in any discussion not involving the state of Israel; and only then
> because Israel is a self-avowed Jewish state.  Your persistent  usage of
> this term is, now wait for it....
>
> "Rascist."

Does you remeber what you have written to me about carps use of 'nationa-  
listic' insults?

You have named that such word isn't rassist, because everyone could chance  
his nation or in this case religion. If you say, that my use of "Jewish"  
is "rascist", you name "jewish" not as a religious and cultural identifi- 
cation -- this could change like 'german' -- but again as a term of  
"race". So watch what you say, too.
>
> I realize you don't think of yourself as rascist and don't mean to be so,
> so watch what you say.  When I earlier used the term "Jap," I did not do so
> either in a rascist manner for to me, "Jap" was like "Jew;" merely a
> shorter and more convenient way of saying "Japanese" or "Jewish."  Yet I
> also see that others find the word "Jap" to be rascist (I still don't, but
> that's beside the point), as since they find it rascist, they find it
> offensive (as I find your useage of the modifier "Jewish" in a discussion
> unrelated to religion or culture) and I apologized.

That's true. But I haven't named that the word 'jap' was rascist; I have  
named that the word 'jap' is in some historical context a defamation of an  
entire group -- like 'krauts', 'bosch', 'hjemetysk', 'eskimo' ect....

Therefore I could only apologize myself for the unintentional use of a  
term, who defame an entire religious and cultural group, but not for a un-  
intentional use of an "rascist" word.

Nico

## CrossPoint v3.11 ##