Was Einstein a Nazi?

In 1948 Albert Einstein labeled Zionists as criminals.

In today's political climate anybody with such an opinion is buried under the accusations of nazi and terrorist.

Also in the video: In 1918 the Queen of England already pledged to Lord Rothschild that Britain will make sure the Jews get their own Zionist nation-state.

Interesting when you consider how the stage was set in the years to come.

Was Einstein an idiot-savant who never should have stuck his nose into politics?

Awaiting on the resident experts to set the record straight.

I heard he was a founding member of the SS and Ahnenerbe. Being a Jewish Anarchist he was very popular with the newly elected government in 1933 and of course was a prime candidate for membership in the Party's most elite organisations.

a reply to: 19Bones79

Well, obviously he wasn't, but how quickly history and context die when there's an agenda.

Nazism is a combination of nationalism and socialism (with the emphasis more on nationalism and the accompanying patriotism). In a flurry of published information celebrating Albert Einstein’s centennial in the late 70's, news columnist Joseph Kraft wrote concerning Einstein’s views on nationalism: “[Einstein] set an example in renouncing nationalism. ‘I never identified myself with any particular country,’ he once wrote. He called nationalism ‘an infantile disease . . . the measles of the human race.’” Nearly everybody gets it at one time or another, and it continues to spread. Back in 1946, British historian Arnold Toynbee wrote: “Patriotism . . . has very largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the Western World.” In fact, The Encyclopedia of Religion says that patriotism’s cousin, nationalism, “has become a dominant form of religion in the modern world, preempting a void left by the deterioration of traditional religious values.”

Nationalism is well described by the psalmist’s expression, “the pestilence causing adversities.” (Psalm 91:3) It has been like a plague on humanity, leading to untold suffering. Nationalism with its resultant hatred of other peoples has existed for centuries. Today, nationalism continues to fan the flames of divisiveness, and human rulers have not been able to stop it.

The peoples of all nations are flooded with nationalistic propaganda through their own newspapers, magazines, radio and television. Hemmed in by boundaries and censorship, the peoples’ thinking is confined to their own nation, to worshiping it, to idolizing it. This controlled thinking affects almost everyone’s mind.

The Encyclopedia Americana says: “Nationalism is a state of mind which can be, and often is, induced by governmental and private propaganda. It can be the creature of ambitious leaders who wish to form certain patterns of opinion which they expect to use, for their own purposes perhaps*, or for ends they consider to be in the public interest.” Under the heading “Irrationality” it states: “The ability of governmental and civic leaders to spread the ferment of nationalism among the masses is greatly facilitated by its highly irrational character. The extreme patriot is largely impervious to rational argument. Even in free countries, he may never hear the truth, especially if he reads only tendentious newspapers or tunes in his radio to biased, chauvinistic [blind, enthusiastic] commentators. Moreover, it is difficult to see how adults can consider the international problems facing their nation with any degree of objectivity if as young children their minds were formed by history books that were one-sided and biased.” (The Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 19, page 755,756 1956 edition.)

*: Similarly, in a letter to the editor of Bombay’s “Indian Express” newspaper, an Indian man stated: “I do not believe in patriotism. It is an opium innovated by the politicians to serve their ugly ends. It is for their prosperity. It is for their betterment. It is for their aggrandizement. It is never for the country. It is never for the nation. It is never never for common men and women like you and I. . . . This sinister politician-invented wall shall divide man from man​—and brother from brother; till one day it shall bring about man’s doom by man. Patriotism or nationalism, to my mind, is an idiotic exercise in artificial loyalty. . . . I take no hypocritical pride in being petty this or that. I belong to mankind.”

Nationalism and patriotism are also key elements in generating war fever and thus used as a tool to bring benefits to those who stand to gain from a war policy, “whether economically or socially.” (including gain from proxy-wars and military aid).

... As Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt wrote: “Public opinion is formed by interest groups (politicians, arms manufacturers, the military) that deceive the electorate by giving them false or one-sided information.” In a similar vein, historian H. E. Barnes wrote: “Since the wars of the French Revolution . . . copious and compelling propaganda [has] been continued and greatly increased to protect warfare against popular dissent, opposition, and factual analysis of issues.”

...

Austrian economist Schumpeter wrote: “The orientation toward war is mainly fostered by the domestic interests of ruling classes but also by the influence of all those who stand to gain individually from a war policy, whether economically or socially.” These ruling classes have been defined as “elites [that] are at all times involved in trying to manipulate other elements of the population, or the public mood itself, so as to perpetuate themselves in power.”​—Why War? by Professors Nelson and Olin.

Every nation has its ruling class, even though that group may be divided into different political factions. However, many observe that the power of the military elite in every nation should not be underestimated. Former U.S. Ambassador John K. Galbraith describes the military establishment as “by far the most powerful of the autonomous processes of government.” ...

...

Nationalism​—The “Sacred Egoism” That Divides

Sometimes the people are not in favor of a war. On what basis, then, can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims? This was the problem that faced the United States in Vietnam. So, what did the ruling elite do? Galbraith answers: “The Vietnam War produced in the United States one of the most comprehensive efforts in social conditioning [adjusting of public opinion] in modern times. Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?

Professor Galbraith again supplies the answer: “Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.” This systematic conditioning prevails in communist countries as it does in Western nations. [whereislogic: and now you know why you see so many flags waving around at rallies and demonstrations concerning the Israel - Hamas war. “Nationalism’s chief symbol of faith and central object of worship is the flag, and curious liturgical forms have been devised for ‘saluting’ the flag, for ‘dipping’ the flag, for ‘lowering’ the flag, and for ‘hoisting’ the flag. Men bare their heads when the flag passes by; and in praise of the flag poets write odes and children sing hymns.”​—What Americans Believe and How They Worship (1952), by J. Paul Williams, pages 359, 360.]

Charles Yost, a veteran of the U.S. Foreign Service and State Department, expressed it thus: “The primary cause of the insecurity of nations persists, the very attribute on which nations pride themselves most​—their sovereign independence, their ‘sacred egoism,’ their insubordination to any interest broader or higher than their own.” This “sacred egoism” is summed up in divisive nationalism, in the pernicious teaching that any one nation is superior to all others.

... The emphasis on nationalism and sovereignty denies the basic concept that we all belong to the same human family, regardless of linguistic or cultural differences. And that denial leads to wars.

Yes, the experts can come up with all kinds of explanations of why man systematically sets out to destroy those of his own kind. Yet there is one primary factor that most commentators ignore.

The Hidden Cause of War

...

Source: War—Why? (Awake!—1986)

To not leave you completely hanging concerning that last subject:

a reply to: whereislogic

Excellent post with a lot to think about. Although I wish these astute observations would push the envelope even further and acknowledge the role of the banker's which influenced and encouraged wars long before any military industrial complex came into existence.

I have a question for you.

Isn't an absolute belief in one religion's story a form of spiritual nationalism for lack of a better description?

a reply to: 19Bones79

I think you're describing fundamentalism. It's ok to have beliefs and not be absolutist about it, in my opinion.

Just for your information there was not a Queen on the UK throne in 1918. The monarch was George 5th, he had a Queen consort but she had absolutely no role in anything.

a reply to: sine.nomine

Would "there is only one truth that guarantees you a comfy place in the afterlife and everyone else is a heathen who will face our loving God's wrath" qualify as a fundamentalist statement?

a reply to: crayzeed

According to Craig Jardula he's bringing out a video on it within the next week so it would be interesting to see what he's got.

originally posted by: TheValeyard
a reply to: 19Bones79

Well, obviously he wasn't, but how quickly history and context die when there's an agenda.

Lol children (and childlike minds) will say literally anything on the playground, to disparage their hated enemies.
US, UK, and other countries have been retarded well by the eternal troublemakers of the world.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Just for your information there was not a Queen on the UK throne in 1918. The monarch was George 5th, he had a Queen consort but she had absolutely no role in anything.

Woops
Yikes
Crikey

Shut down the OP !

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: sine.nomine

Would "there is only one truth that guarantees you a comfy place in the afterlife and everyone else is a heathen who will face our loving God's wrath" qualify as a fundamentalist statement?

Yeah probably.

I would like to believe that most people these days understand that God speaks to a massive number of different cultures, languages, historical realities, and sensibilities, that have created a wonderful, widespread palette of different images and existences of Him.

How in the world would this not be obvious and inevitable ?

Not exactly a cause for damnation lol.

He was no nazi. He was a self hating Jew with a sucky opinion on politics. Everyone has them.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
He was no nazi. He was a self hating Jew with a sucky opinion on politics. Everyone has them.

Maybe despite his brilliance, accomplishments, and fame, he was just another feeble dipsh!t like Gates, Zuckerberg, Olbermann, etc.

originally posted by: 19Bones79

Also in the video: In 1918 the Queen of England already pledged to Lord Rothschild that Britain will make sure the Jews get their own Zionist nation-state.

Could be true, but no Queen, and it was also during the time the Treaty of Versailles happened, but what does that have to do with anything? The Jews should have been a nation 3000 years before too.

a reply to: blindmellojello


Oh yeah.

That's me told off.


Let's see if it has the desired effect, shall we?

a reply to: FlyersFan

I'm beginning to think you're a self-hating Jew, the way you support Israel towards disaster.

a reply to: 19Bones79

The concept of Zionism was invented before the existence of an Israeli state, by pre-Nazi pundits who wanted to vilify people of ethnic Jewish origin.

These pre-Nazi's wrote "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", inventing the concept of a dark secret society of "Zionists" who were trying to take over the world. The Nazi Party synthesized several similar existing conspiracy theories into its ideologies. Hitlers book "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle) explained his belief that all the problems Germany had suffered; from losing the First World War, hyperinflation, and the inability of the Weimar Republic to govern, were all due to the influence, and were at the plan of, Zionism.

These Nazi's classified millions of fairly normal and peaceable people, who had retained their ethnic culture, but had also integrated with European society quite well, as if they were terrorists plotting the downfall of all 'native' ethnicities. The Nazi's initiated a genocide against Jewish people based upon little but ethnicity, where about 6 million people were murdered.

True Zionists (i.e. people who believed the Nazi lies and sided with the goals of the alleged secret society), were criminals and terrorists. As were the Nazi's themselves. They were both extremists pushing an evil ideology.

At the time of the Nazi governance of Germany, there was no state of Israel and although there were movements to establish a homeland for the Jewish people, this was different than a secret society trying to rule the world.

Many orthodox Jewish groups were critical of the creation of the state of Israel, for fear that it drew attention to them, ethnically, so shortly after the Holocaust.

This was what was being acknowledged by Einstein, who was not a Zionist, nor a Nazi, but was an ethnic Jew.

a reply to: chr0naut

The concept of Zionism was invented by pre-Nazi pundits who wanted to vilify people of ethnic Jewish origin.

Throw a link my way would you? I would like to read more about the originators of that document.

These Nazi's continued to classify fairly normal and peaceable people, who had retained their ethnic culture, but had also integrated with European society quite well, as if they were terrorists plotting the downfall of all 'native' ethnicities.

That's wrong. History paints a different picture.

True Zionists (i.e. people who believed the Nazi lies and sided with the goals of the alleged secret society), were criminals and terrorists.

Who were these true zionists?

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: chr0naut

The concept of Zionism was invented by pre-Nazi pundits who wanted to vilify people of ethnic Jewish origin.

Throw a link my way would you? I would like to read more about the originators of that document.

Done, updated into my previous post.

These Nazi's continued to classify fairly normal and peaceable people, who had retained their ethnic culture, but had also integrated with European society quite well, as if they were terrorists plotting the downfall of all 'native' ethnicities.

That's wrong. History paints a different picture.

There had been opposition to Jewish people all through history, as they tried to not intermarry outside of their 'tribes', based upon their religious beliefs, but many still did eventually did intermarry and many were secular and abandoned their faith/s and/or converted to Christianity.

Consider that they had been there, living in Europe, for nearly 2,000 years before the Nazi's. That's a fair amount of time to integrate into the community.

Most of the people killed in the Holocaust would have declared themselves Germans (or Polish, or whatever), although they were probably aware of their Jewish heritage somewhere in their past, especially when the details had been recorded in passports, census records, tax returns, synagogue membership lists, parish records and police registration forms for at least centuries.

Read "The Diary of a Young Girl" by Anne Frank to get some idea of the relative 'normalcy' of those who were caught up in the Holocaust (note, Anne Frank died in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp).

True Zionists (i.e. people who believed the Nazi lies and sided with the goals of the alleged secret society), were criminals and terrorists.

Who were these true zionists?

Zionist political violence - Wikipedia