Was Einstein a Nazi?

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: whereislogic

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

I don't know if I would describe it quite like that, I also don't know if there is another specific term for what you described (edit: the term "fundamentalism" carries more implications than just what you described, see my next comment), but I do know you're not alone in thinking this way.

Insight on the News (1982)

Rumblings on Religion

Israel’s military advance into Lebanon prompted much comment on what is behind the hatreds that seem to pervade the Middle East. “The great tragedy,” observed Dennis Braithwaite of The Toronto Sun, “is that the Israelis and the Palestinians, both Semitic peoples, should be warring at all over territory in which both are at home and could logically share in peace.” In Braithwaite’s opinion, “all that really divides them is religion; the rest is rationalization, propaganda, lies. . . . Take religious fanaticism out of the equation, and what have Arab and Jew left to fight about?”

But the columnist noted that religious hatreds are not limited to the Middle East: “Observe the insanity in Northern Ireland, where two conceptions of the Christian religion have caused people who look alike, talk alike and spring from the same soil, to lock themselves in a death struggle that baffles the outsider. What but religion keeps the IRA and the Ulster Defence League in constant plots of assassination and reprisal? When they’re interviewed on television, you can’t tell one from the other.”

Braithwaite went on to state that “religion is but one form of nationalism, the concept of ‘them’ and ‘us,’ . . . the greatest threat of all to mankind’s future.” Is it not likely that this awareness of religion as a “threat” will continue to grow and finally bring upon her the anger of the nations? Bible prophecy bears out that militaristic nations soon will turn against religion and destroy her like a hated harlot who has taken advantage of them for too long.​—Revelation 17:1, 2, 5, 15, 16.

Also, nationalism and religion often go together. Dr. Robert L. Kahn, a rabbi, wrote: “Religion and Nationalism always tend to go hand in hand. In times of war, particularly, . . . ‘For God and Country’ becomes a sort of battle cry. This has always been so. [In World War II] one of the popular songs was the war-whoop of a chaplain, ‘Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.”’

It does have a catchy tune:

One dictionary defines nationalism as “a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations.” Ivo Duchacek, a professor of political science, observed in his book Conflict and Cooperation Among Nations: “Nationalism divides humanity into mutually intolerant units. As a result people think as Americans, Russians, Chinese, Egyptians, or Peruvians first, and as human beings second​—if at all.” A former UN secretary-general wrote: “So many of the problems that we face today are due to, or the result of, false attitudes​—some of them have been adopted almost unconsciously. Among these is the concept of narrow nationalism​—‘my country, right or wrong.’”

The well-known British historian, Arthur J. Toynbee, quoted before, said of nationalism:

“It is a state of mind in which we give our paramount political loyalty to one section of the human race, to the particular tribe to which we happen to be tribesmen. Insofar as we are captured by this ideology, we hold that the highest political good for us is our own nation’s sovereign independence; that our nation has a moral right to exercise its sovereignty according to what it believes to be its own national interests, whatever consequences this may entail for the foreign majority of the human race; and that our duty, as citizens of our country, is to support our country, right or wrong.” (The New York Times Magazine, November 3, 1963, page 23.)

originally posted by: sine.nomine
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.

In earlier years most societies lived in an atmosphere of moral certainty based on traditional beliefs. Now those beliefs are challenged or rejected. Many intellectuals assert that there is no God and that man is alone in an indifferent universe. Many scientists teach that mankind is the result of chance evolution, not of the actions of a loving Creator. A permissive mentality prevails. The world is plagued with a loss of moral values on all levels of society.—2 Timothy 3:4, 5, 13.

Fundamentalists hanker after the old certainties, and some of them strive to bring their communities and nations back to what they feel are proper moral and doctrinal foundations. They do all in their power to force others to live according to a “correct” moral code and system of doctrinal beliefs. A fundamentalist is strongly convinced that he is right and others are wrong. Professor James Barr, in his book Fundamentalism, says that fundamentalism “is often felt to be a hostile and opprobrious term, suggesting narrowness, bigotry, obscurantism and sectarianism.”

Since nobody likes to be called narrow, bigoted, or sectarian, not all agree on who is a fundamentalist and who is not. There are, however, certain aspects that characterize religious fundamentalism.

Religious fundamentalism is usually an attempt to preserve what is believed to be the original traditions or religious beliefs of a culture and to oppose what is perceived as the secular spirit of the world. That is not to say that fundamentalists oppose all that is modern. Some use modern communication very effectively to promote their point of view. But they fight against the secularization of society. (“Secularization” means stressing the secular, as opposed to the spiritual or sacred. The secular is not concerned with religion or with religious beliefs.)

Some fundamentalists are determined not only to preserve for themselves a traditional structure of doctrines or way of life but to impose these on others, to change social structures so that they conform with the fundamentalists’ beliefs.

Fundamentalists are distinguished above all by their deep-rooted religious convictions. Thus, a Protestant fundamentalist will be a convinced proponent of the literal interpretation of the Bible, likely including the belief that the earth was created in six literal days. A Catholic fundamentalist has no doubts about the infallibility of the pope.

It is understandable, then, why the term “fundamentalism” evokes the image of unreasoning fanaticism and why those who are not fundamentalists are uneasy when they see fundamentalism spreading. As individuals, we may disagree with fundamentalists and be appalled by their political maneuverings and their sometimes violent actions. Indeed, fundamentalists of one religion may be horrified at the actions of those of another religion! Still, many thinking people are concerned about the things that provoke the spread of fundamentalism—the growing moral laxity, the loss of faith, and the rejection of spirituality in modern society.

Is fundamentalism the only response to these trends? If not, what is the alternative?

A Better Way (1997)

a reply to: chr0naut

I started a reply and got busy and only after typing my response did I realize I incorporated your previous response as well so I apologize for any confusion if any.

inventing the concept of a dark secret society of "Zionists" who were trying to take over the world

What's your personal take on how accurately the protocols describe the world we find ourselves in today?



From the Wikipedia link:

The Protocols is a fabricated document purporting to be factual. Textual evidence shows that it could not have been produced prior to 1901: the document alludes to the assassinations of Umberto I and William McKinley, for example, as though these events were plotted out in advance.

That's weird. Assassinations are usually plotted out in advance.

Reading up on Umberto I he was quite the controversial nuisance for his time.

As for McKinley,

restored prosperity after a deep depression; rejected the inflationary monetary policy of free silver, keeping the nation on the gold standard; and raised protective tariffs.

It's not hard to see how he might have upset the international bankers.

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.

What were the reasons he gave for saying that? Were they in positions to have influenced these events? And does it line up with what is written in the protocols?

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.

Why was the idea of Jewish genocide in Europe written about from a Jewish perspective multiple times over several decades prior in various European countries in different newspapers?

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.

These events were hot topics of discussion not only in the protocols but also elsewhere long before the rise of the nazis, and the two issues are definitely intertwined as necessary objectives according to certain viewpoints.

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.

And they their opinion mattered not as they were not the ones calling the shots. They were powerless in organizations such as the international Jewish congress.

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.

Indeed. Which makes it all the more peculiar why they were expelled hundreds of times during this time period from most of not all European countries and/or territories.

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.

It's fair to say there are innocents among EVERY group of people.

Just like the Palestinians.

Although there are people supporting Israel in the present day conflict who agree that they must either relocate all the Palestinians and send in the IDF to eradicate all those who refuse to leave.

The more things change the more they stay the same it seems...

a reply to: FlyersFan

Or maybe he just didn't give a # about his race or heritage?

originally posted by: 19Bones79

Who were these true zionists?

Like a lot of things, people don't seem to understand that whoever were if any back then are like 110+ years old now...lol Even if just born in 1940 we are talking 83 years old.

a reply to: 19Bones79

" Was Einstein a Nazi?"

Short Answer , No .


Zionists are Not " Real " Hebrews , they Despise the True People of Israel . If Einstein were a Real Nazi , he would have Never Left Germany in the First place and Helped them Build an Atomic Bomb .

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: chr0naut

I started a reply and got busy and only after typing my response did I realize I incorporated your previous response as well so I apologize for any confusion if any.

inventing the concept of a dark secret society of "Zionists" who were trying to take over the world

What's your personal take on how accurately the protocols describe the world we find ourselves in today?

Any convincing lie has to have some small kernel of truth, but I think that the most obvious truth is that these Middle Eastern people are closely related, and are as human as each other, and can choose to live in peace and seek other avenues to resolve the ongoing issues (and there are some issues that have nothing to do with long standing issues from before the birth of this current generation).

There are people who totally believe the justifications for violence that both sides have put forward. But they cannot be resolved by doing more violence. Someone has to 'give' to allow the peace process to get a fingernail hold in there.

From the Wikipedia link:

The Protocols is a fabricated document purporting to be factual. Textual evidence shows that it could not have been produced prior to 1901: the document alludes to the assassinations of Umberto I and William McKinley, for example, as though these events were plotted out in advance.

That's weird. Assassinations are usually plotted out in advance.

But not centuries in advance.

Reading up on Umberto I he was quite the controversial nuisance for his time.

As for McKinley,

restored prosperity after a deep depression; rejected the inflationary monetary policy of free silver, keeping the nation on the gold standard; and raised protective tariffs.

It's not hard to see how he might have upset the international bankers.

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.

What were the reasons he gave for saying that? Were they in positions to have influenced these events? And does it line up with what is written in the protocols?

No, I don't think so. He was more interested in power and it was easy to get the most un-reasoning adherents to conspiracy theories on side as his 'army' of eager 'bovver bois'.

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.

Why was the idea of Jewish genocide in Europe written about from a Jewish perspective multiple times over several decades prior in various European countries in different newspapers?

Because they had frequently been isolated, vilified, and persecuted based on ethnic and religious profiling.

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.

These events were hot topics of discussion not only in the protocols but also elsewhere long before the rise of the nazis, and the two issues are definitely intertwined as necessary objectives according to certain viewpoints.

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.

And they their opinion mattered not as they were not the ones calling the shots. They were powerless in organizations such as the international Jewish congress.

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.

Indeed. Which makes it all the more peculiar why they were expelled hundreds of times during this time period from most of not all European countries and/or territories.

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.

It's fair to say there are innocents among EVERY group of people.

Just like the Palestinians.

Although there are people supporting Israel in the present day conflict who agree that they must either relocate all the Palestinians and send in the IDF to eradicate all those who refuse to leave.

The more things change the more they stay the same it seems...

a reply to: chr0naut

But not centuries in advance.

What are you talking about?

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: chr0naut

But not centuries in advance.

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about conspiracy theories that suggest that events such as nationalist based assassinations had been devised from a time before the nation, or the political role of the victim, even existed, or was even believed to be a possibility.

The timelines of some alleged conspiracy theories are often ignorant of temporal sequence, and there are numerous historical instances of that (for instance the posts that suggested the George Soros was a member of the SS, when the truth was that he was actually 14 years old, three years too young to be allowed to join the SS, when the Nazi's were defeated in 1945).

a reply to: chr0naut

Sure, but nobody claimed any assassinations to have been planned centuries in advance.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: chr0naut

Sure, but nobody claimed any assassinations to have been planned centuries in advance.

Not tacitly, but by inference there are people with no idea of history who hold beliefs about things allegedly done by groups who have already achieved their political aims and therefore have no real reason to still exist.

But as boogeymen in conspiracist nightmares, the ideas and allegations still remain.

Case in point, how many "Illuminati" conspiracists are there, even after the illuminati were ended by purges and there are hardly any actually powerful monarchies left for the Illuminati oppose?

a reply to: chr0naut

Sure, I guess

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: sine.nomine
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.

In earlier years most societies lived in an atmosphere of moral certainty based on traditional beliefs. Now those beliefs are challenged or rejected. Many intellectuals assert that there is no God and that man is alone in an indifferent universe. Many scientists teach that mankind is the result of chance evolution, not of the actions of a loving Creator. A permissive mentality prevails. The world is plagued with a loss of moral values on all levels of society.—2 Timothy 3:4, 5, 13.

Fundamentalists hanker after the old certainties, and some of them strive to bring their communities and nations back to what they feel are proper moral and doctrinal foundations. They do all in their power to force others to live according to a “correct” moral code and system of doctrinal beliefs. A fundamentalist is strongly convinced that he is right and others are wrong. Professor James Barr, in his book Fundamentalism, says that fundamentalism “is often felt to be a hostile and opprobrious term, suggesting narrowness, bigotry, obscurantism and sectarianism.”

Since nobody likes to be called narrow, bigoted, or sectarian, not all agree on who is a fundamentalist and who is not. There are, however, certain aspects that characterize religious fundamentalism.

Religious fundamentalism is usually an attempt to preserve what is believed to be the original traditions or religious beliefs of a culture and to oppose what is perceived as the secular spirit of the world. That is not to say that fundamentalists oppose all that is modern. Some use modern communication very effectively to promote their point of view. But they fight against the secularization of society. (“Secularization” means stressing the secular, as opposed to the spiritual or sacred. The secular is not concerned with religion or with religious beliefs.)

Some fundamentalists are determined not only to preserve for themselves a traditional structure of doctrines or way of life but to impose these on others, to change social structures so that they conform with the fundamentalists’ beliefs.

Fundamentalists are distinguished above all by their deep-rooted religious convictions. Thus, a Protestant fundamentalist will be a convinced proponent of the literal interpretation of the Bible, likely including the belief that the earth was created in six literal days. A Catholic fundamentalist has no doubts about the infallibility of the pope.

It is understandable, then, why the term “fundamentalism” evokes the image of unreasoning fanaticism and why those who are not fundamentalists are uneasy when they see fundamentalism spreading. As individuals, we may disagree with fundamentalists and be appalled by their political maneuverings and their sometimes violent actions. Indeed, fundamentalists of one religion may be horrified at the actions of those of another religion! Still, many thinking people are concerned about the things that provoke the spread of fundamentalism—the growing moral laxity, the loss of faith, and the rejection of spirituality in modern society.

Is fundamentalism the only response to these trends? If not, what is the alternative?

A Better Way (1997)

I'm sorry. My response was too succinct. Can you explain your point farther in depth?

Honestly confused about your point here.

Also honestly, I don't care about what you're on about. We're clearly on different wavelengths here.

a reply to: 19Bones79


Maybe . Antarctica Germans are Secretly Controlling World Governments ?

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Protip : It's not the Germans, it's the Penguins.

They're sick of our #.

a reply to: 19Bones79

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

Was Einstein not an outspoken advocate for civil rights, pacifism, and international cooperation?

Hardly synonymous with being a Nazi IMHO.

As to his political motivations, seemingly he was not only concerned with scientific pursuits but also with the betterment of society as a whole.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

It's a crazy thought, isn't it?

That would suggest the bankers are allowed to inevitably crash the global financial system at the behest of the descendants of the original nazis in order to usher in the 1000 year rule of the 4th Reich.

After declaring victory at the end of WW2 the banker supported Allies could not turn around and tell the world that the nazis have settled an impregnable fortress at the South Pole.

It would destroy their whole narrative and the Germans knew it.

And so began the unlikeliest cooperation between two would be rulers of the world.

All the sightings of UFOs could be nazis threatening to go overt if the banker's didn't want to play ball..

Which would go a long way to explain the secrecy and Satanism involved at the top of the hierarchy in order to keep those in the know in line and loyal lest their dirty secrets get exposed.

Have you seen the video of the Dutch guy who left that world and confessed how ugly things are at the top?

Could the bankers be in bed with the nazis?

a reply to: 19Bones79

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

As an intelligent man, he knew how to differentiate perfectly between the Jewish religion and the Zionist ideology.

The Jews and their religion is as respectable as any other belief system. No one can judge any person's belief as long as it is not used to harm others, spirituality is too personal.

Zionism is a nationalist, supremacist and colonizing political movement, whose sole purpose was (and continues to be) to establish a state expelling from their homes and region natives who had been living in peace with other ethnic groups for hundreds of years.

Einstein saw that the Nazi nationalist ideology was not far from the Zionist nationalist ideology.

a reply to: 19Bones79

He also acknowledged the Arab peoples living in Palestine as “kinfolk,” and feared that any attempt to create a Jewish state on Arab land would lead to decades of hostility.This however quickly changed as Jews started to become limited such as quotas on how many could attend college. As Nazism rose to power he changed his mind and decided that indeed the news needed their own state free from racism and oppression.

He was never truly antizionist and by the start of ww2 he was sternly in the camp of the news needed a homeland. So in reality he was never an antizionist. More that he hated any form of nationalism.