Hitler, Genius or no?

[La Verdad]

I've been thinking about Weininger's ideas about what makes or precludes a man from Genius...
Hitler definitely meets quite a few of them.

1. He didn't bow to "alien law" as Weininger describes it, which I would argue is the second major trait of genius.
He threw all the convential moralities of Europe out the window, and didn't care what anyone thought. He found his philosophy and then exerted it. Which is why I'm not sure if he's the prostitute Napoleon, Alexander, and Caesar are accused of being. Just look at the success the Gleichschaltung program had in winning over some 70 million people; if the Tribune bends the people to his vision instead of vice versa, is he still a prostitute?
After losing the war against 42 countries, he ends his Letze Wille with the words, "and the world will know, I was RIGHT!"

2. He didn't give a fig about women, and possibly not even sex in general. In Landsberg prison, Rudolf Hoess commented he had received enough flowers from female admirers accross the country, to open up a flowershop. And his girlfriend Eva Braun attempted suicide several times because of his constant indifference and inattention to her. There is no evidence he ever had sex.

3. An absolute vision of the Universe. At the Sixth Party Congress, he announces that the empire will last thousands (Jahrtausenden) of years. This is the first time the innacurate (though oft-repeated) phrase "Thousand Year Reich" is ever used, and later more importantly mentioned that the National Socialist government will be the final government of Germany - suggesting Hitler thought he had reached some absolute, eternal truths about man & morality.

I would argue Hitler isn't a genius, just a man with a highly developed masculinity.

And here is the main thing that bars him:

Disregard for truth. He may love wisdom to a degree, though he has no problem with deceiving to achieve his ends, he doesn't have anything in him like the enduring and inconsolable pain that attends a Genius when he is aware he has unconsciously told a lie. And the fact Hitler can consciously lie or omit truth without feeling pain even further precludes him.

Just my take on it, I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others on this.

[sschaula]

I automatically don't trust anyone who says anything positive about Hitler. My view - he is dead. The topic is too touchy, so why don't we just leave it...unless we're discussing history of course.

Is there any reason to bring him up, in the light of genius? Everytime someone does this, it makes me question their intentions. Are they trying to justify their own beliefs, and does that mean they actually don't believe what they think they believe, if they have to ask others?

He's a dead man. He's controversial. To me, it's like discussing Jesus in the light of genius. A lot of people aren't going to pay attention or care. They have their opinions about it, and showing them how their opinions are wrong doesn't do much besides change their opinions to something else which doesn't really matter. I think talking about dead people is pointless, in light of genius. I think we should seek genius in ourselves before ever discussing dead people.

[La Verdad]

I automatically don't trust anyone who says anything positive about Hitler.

Yin and Yang, there is good and bad in all things. There has never been an entirely evil man, and there never will be.

My view - he is dead.

As are most of the philosophers discussed on this forum (...)

The topic is too touchy, so why don't we just leave it...unless we're discussing history of course.

"DUDE don't think about touchy things, unless we have to!!!" isn't exactly the best way to philosophize.

Is there any reason to bring him up, in the light of genius? Everytime someone does this, it makes me question their intentions.

Question them all you want, though when you get around to it please focus on the issue.

Are they trying to justify their own beliefs, and does that mean they actually don't believe what they think they believe, if they have to ask others?

Caught me red handed ...yawn...

He's a dead man. He's controversial. To me, it's like discussing Jesus in the light of genius. A lot of people aren't going to pay attention or care.

Those two characteristics aren't counterarguments at all.. and discussing things based on how popular they are strikes me as a definite mark of a very poor philosopher.

They have their opinions about it, and showing them how their opinions are wrong doesn't do much besides change their opinions to something else which doesn't really matter.

Good thing I didn't come here to change any opinions, as I mentioned earlier, I just want to hear other people's thoughts.

I think talking about dead people is pointless, in light of genius. I think we should seek genius in ourselves before ever discussing dead people.

People usually discover a trait in themselves by first recognizing it in others.
Would studying the qualities that define and characterize genius, help us in coming closer to it? No. That's a waste of time.
"Just look inside yourself dude!! That's what it's all about!!"

[David Quinn]

La Verdad wrote:

I've been thinking about Weininger's ideas about what makes or precludes a man from Genius...
Hitler definitely meets quite a few of them.

1. He didn't bow to "alien law" as Weininger describes it, which I would argue is the second major trait of genius.
He threw all the convential moralities of Europe out the window, and didn't care what anyone thought.

Only to a degree. He didn't really challenge conventional morality all that much, only some of the more flakey aspects of Christian morality.

For example, he didn't challenge the conventional view that we should spend our time on earth greedily trampling over everyone else others in order to get what we can out of life. That is conventional human behaviour.

He also didn't challenge people on a spiritual level and force them to become disgusted with the falseness and lies in their own lives. On the contrary, he reaffirmed the conventional dictum that a life of lies is a good life.

He found his philosophy and then exerted it. Which is why I'm not sure if he's the prostitute Napoleon, Alexander, and Caesar are accused of being. Just look at the success the Gleichschaltung program had in winning over some 70 million people; if the Tribune bends the people to his vision instead of vice versa, is he still a prostitute?
After losing the war against 42 countries, he ends his Letze Wille with the words, "and the world will know, I was RIGHT!"

This indicates fundamentalism, superficiality, an unchecked ego, a mind lost in a petty fantasy, etc. It doesn't suggest genius.

At root, he imposed his will by shouting at people. Studies have shown that the most successful bosses in companies are loud, angry bullies who create an environment of fear and use it to impose their will upon everyone else. Hitler was simply an extension of this.

Granted, his vision was larger than the standard company boss's vision, but he was still just a company boss nonetheless.

He didn't give a fig about women, and possibly not even sex in general. In Landsberg prison, Rudolf Hoess commented he had received enough flowers from female admirers accross the country, to open up a flowershop. And his girlfriend Eva Braun attempted suicide several times because of his constant indifference and inattention to her. There is no evidence he ever had sex.

This could be due to anything from emotional trauma experienced in childhood to chemical imbalances in the brain. It isn't necessarily indicative of genius. A genius certainly shuns women, but this doesn't automatically mean that everyone who shuns women are geniuses. Most aren't.

3. An absolute vision of the Universe. At the Sixth Party Congress, he announces that the empire will last thousands (Jahrtausenden) of years. This is the first time the innacurate (though oft-repeated) phrase "Thousand Year Reich" is ever used, and later more importantly mentioned that the National Socialist government will be the final government of Germany - suggesting Hitler thought he had reached some absolute, eternal truths about man & morality.

A thousand years quickly shrinks to a fleeting blip and then into nothingness the more you expand your perspective to embrace the true absolute, the Infinite. Hitler was but a microbe trying to conquer other microbes on a tiny flake of crust lying forgotten on the kitchen floor.

I would argue Hitler isn't a genius, just a man with a highly developed masculinity.

For the reasons given above, I would disagree. He was highy developed in some areas (shouting at people, ranting at the public, having a strong sense of purpose, charisma, etc) and very undeveloped in others (philosophical insight, quality of intellect, maturity, ethical behaviour, etc). It is as though he had some of the base materials to lead a highly-developed masculine existence, but not enough to ensure that he didn't squander what he did have on rubbishy aims. It was a case of a large masculine person being bonzai-ed and deformed into chasing tiny feminine whims.

And here is the main thing that bars him:

Disregard for truth. He may love wisdom to a degree, though he has no problem with deceiving to achieve his ends, he doesn't have anything in him like the enduring and inconsolable pain that attends a Genius when he is aware he has unconsciously told a lie. And the fact Hitler can consciously lie or omit truth without feeling pain even further precludes him.

Well, yes, that's a big one. A person cannot really be called a genius if he is not addressing the most critical issue of all - namely, the task of ridding one's mind of all delusion and uncovering what is ultimately true.

In other words, if a person has such a large mental block that he cannot discern the cultivation of wisdom to be the most important and compelling task that has to be performed in life, and that everything else pales into utter insignificance in light of this, then to me it's a sign he is a victim of severe mental incapacity, not genius.

-

[sschaula]

Yin and Yang, there is good and bad in all things. There has never been an entirely evil man, and there never will be.

You've made two statements which need to be substantiated. 1 - "There is good and bad in all things" and 2- "There has never been an entirely evil man, and there never will be".

How do you know that there's good and bad in all things? Is there good and bad in a piece of driftwood? If someone murders someone, what good is there in that act? I don't believe that everything contains goodness and badness, unless you prove it to me.

How do you know there's never been an entirely evil man? Maybe there was. How do you know there won't be. There may be, someday. You are guessing!

As are most of the philosophers discussed on this forum (...)

And your point is.......that we should talk about dead people who contributed little towards the purpose of this forum (truth)? Because other dead people have been talked about?

"DUDE don't think about touchy things, unless we have to!!!" isn't exactly the best way to philosophize.

Talking about Hitler isn't exactly the best way to philosophize. He wasn't any kind of promoter of truth. He wasn't a philosopher. If we were to discuss the touchy character of Nietzsche (who constantly demoralized Christianity), then I think it'd be good. He as a philosopher and promoter of truth.

Question them all you want, though when you get around to it please focus on the issue.

What issue? That Hitler may have been a genius? My initial post should have merely said "Who cares?"

Caught me red handed ...yawn...

I may have.

Those two characteristics aren't counterarguments at all.. and discussing things based on how popular they are strikes me as a definite mark of a very poor philosopher.

I'm not a great philosopher and I don't intend to be. Great philosophers write books that I don't care to read. They attend lectures that I don't want to listen to. They debate with students that I don't need to debate with. They don't mix philosophy with everyday life. They keep it as a separate entity which they can manipulate and conquer. Instead of doing that, I let philosophy conquer me daily.

I didn't mean we should only discuss things people agree with, and tiptoe around everyone's stupid belief systems. My point was that talking about Hitler as a genius is borderline retarded.

Good thing I didn't come here to change any opinions, as I mentioned earlier, I just want to hear other people's thoughts.

Why? That's why I'm weary of you. Why do you care what people think of Hitler, if he is a genius or not? Why do you care what people at THIS forum think about that?

There are always reasons.

People usually discover a trait in themselves by first recognizing it in others.

I guess so...

Would studying the qualities that define and characterize genius, help us in coming closer to it? No. That's a waste of time.
"Just look inside yourself dude!! That's what it's all about!!"

Maybe I'm not understanding this. Maybe you're being sarcastic.

You think studying the qualities that define and characterize genius doesn't get us closer to it? That it's a waste of time? I'm guessing that's sarcasm.

Also, I'm not telling you to look inside yourself, "dude". What will you find beyond your organs and entrails? I'm telling you to analyze yourself instead of some dead guy who most people despise.

Oh wait, you argue that we need role models in order to find genius in ourselves. Hitler is yours, I guess?

[La Verdad]

Yin and Yang, there is good and bad in all things. There has never been an entirely evil man, and there never will be.

You've made two statements which need to be substantiated. 1 - "There is good and bad in all things" and 2- "There has never been an entirely evil man, and there never will be".

How do you know that there's good and bad in all things? Is there good and bad in a piece of driftwood? If someone murders someone, what good is there in that act? I don't believe that everything contains goodness and badness, unless you prove it to me.

It isn't provable, just as you cannot dissprove it. It's just what I've come to believe, as a result of reflection and observation.
Is there 'good' in driftwood? If the driftwood serves as a flotation device for the survivor of a shipwreck then yes, there arguably is. If a man is murdered is there 'good' in the act? Well if a serial killer is murdered by the legal apparatus of the state, then yes obviously.
Though what if it's an innocent man. What if an arrow randomly hit Goethe in the face? The good can be that it teaches everyone who survives him to better appreciate life, that no mystical force guarantees you a natural death - unjust acts can reveal unpleasant truths. Not a very consoling good, but a good nonetheless.

How do you know there's never been an entirely evil man? Maybe there was. How do you know there won't be. There may be, someday. You are guessing!

Because every man has at least one trait that is good, even if it's applied to an unethical end. If a catburgler robs a house, he may be a thief, though he's still demonstrated cunning, ambition, and courage.

The purely evil man requires the existence of absolute evil and since I don't believe in something comparable to Satan, I have no basis for claiming this exists.

As are most of the philosophers discussed on this forum (...)

And your point is.......that we should talk about dead people who contributed little towards the purpose of this forum (truth)? Because other dead people have been talked about?

My point is being dead is no argument against discussing a person.

"DUDE don't think about touchy things, unless we have to!!!" isn't exactly the best way to philosophize.

Talking about Hitler isn't exactly the best way to philosophize. He wasn't any kind of promoter of truth. He wasn't a philosopher. If we were to discuss the touchy character of Nietzsche (who constantly demoralized Christianity), then I think it'd be good. He as a philosopher and promoter of truth.

You have to be a promoter of truth for someone to glean wisdom from your life? Since philosophy is pursuit of truth and how best to live, obviously all lives are fair game and useful to the philosopher. Even if only to serve as examples to learn what not to do.

Question them all you want, though when you get around to it please focus on the issue.

What issue? That Hitler may have been a genius? My initial post should have merely said "Who cares?"

Exactly - "who cares" isn't the topic, and contributes nothing, if you didn't care you wouldn't respond.

Those two characteristics aren't counterarguments at all.. and discussing things based on how popular they are strikes me as a definite mark of a very poor philosopher.

I'm not a great philosopher and I don't intend to be.

Oh man, who woulda guessed?

Great philosophers write books that I don't care to read. They attend lectures that I don't want to listen to. They debate with students that I don't need to debate with. They don't mix philosophy with everyday life. They keep it as a separate entity which they can manipulate and conquer. Instead of doing that, I let philosophy conquer me daily.

Whatever that means.

I didn't mean we should only discuss things people agree with, and tiptoe around everyone's stupid belief systems. My point was that talking about Hitler as a genius is borderline retarded.

Good thing I didn't come here to change any opinions, as I mentioned earlier, I just want to hear other people's thoughts.

Why? That's why I'm weary of you. Why do you care what people think of Hitler, if he is a genius or not? Why do you care what people at THIS forum think about that?

*wary
Can't possibly be tired of me already :P

I care because I'm trying to figure out what genius is and what it isn't. Why on THIS forum? lol hmm I wonder.

There are always reasons.

And this is where I doubt you have any more than superficial interest in philosophy.
It never occurs to you that someone could want to know something simply to know it. There is always the advancing of either personal or group interests in a material world - in material contests. Nothing can ever simply be about dispassionate pursuit of wisdom.

Would studying the qualities that define and characterize genius, help us in coming closer to it? No. That's a waste of time.
"Just look inside yourself dude!! That's what it's all about!!"

Maybe I'm not understanding this. Maybe you're being sarcastic.
You think studying the qualities that define and characterize genius doesn't get us closer to it? That it's a waste of time? I'm guessing that's sarcasm.

lol er.. yes that's sarcasm.

Also, I'm not telling you to look inside yourself, "dude". What will you find beyond your organs and entrails? I'm telling you to analyze yourself instead of some dead guy who most people despise.
Oh wait, you argue that we need role models in order to find genius in ourselves.

And you agreed with the major premise by which I reached that conclusion:

"People usually discover a trait in themselves by first recognizing it in others."

Although I'll admit self-analysis has it's merits - once you know what you're looking for.

Hitler is yours, I guess?

And here is the second time I doubt you have a more than passing interest in philosophy. Try listening to what the person is saying instead of trying to assign them to an 'ism' as quickly as possible.

[David Quinn]

There is an interesting film called "Max" which centers around Hitler's early life as a struggling artist before he went all political. I think it captures Hitler's personality very well - intense, rancorous, narcissistic, immature, socially inept, full of self-loathing, artistically untalented, etc - and shows just how lacking in genius he really was. He had a very limited personality, but was able to force it upon everyone else through sheer loudness, bravado and opportunism.

-

[La Verdad]

Heard about it, finally signing up for NetFlix, so I'll get around to seeing it. Hopefully it's not as 2-D as most.
I agreed wholeheartedly with your earlier post. Especially this part:

A thousand years quickly shrinks to a fleeting blip and then into nothingness the more you expand your perspective to embrace the true absolute, the Infinite. Hitler was but a microbe trying to conquer other microbes on a tiny flake of crust lying forgotten on the kitchen floor.

Most people are very short sighted, Hitler reached far, but only to strengthen things that eventually pass away. That probably is the larger part of genius - stretching your consciousness until you've gotten to the eternal perspective, and most profound and absolute truths.

[sschaula]

La Verdad,

You're more intelligent than I initially thought.

I care because I'm trying to figure out what genius is and what it isn't. Why on THIS forum? lol hmm I wonder.

I'll just say that all I was trying to do was help you out with this. I've been here for a few years and I've learned a little bit.

I suppose I'm too stupid to teach anything to someone as intelligent as you, though. I don't even know how to use the word, wary.

I haven't been exposed to much philosophy. Goethe...unknown to me.

[MKFaizi]

I have read plenty about Hitler.

He was a deluded psychopath. He had no conscience. I think he was quite womanish; manipulative.

He did like females. He was in love with his niece. She committed suicide.

He perverted the writing of Nietzsche and used it for his own purposes. To this day, people associate Nietzsche with Nazism. Nietzsche abhorred anti-Semitism and he considered most of his contemporary Germans to be assholes.

Faizi

[suergaz]

Hitler wrote that the highest goal of humanity is preservation of the race. He was no genius.

[La Verdad]

He was a deluded psychopath. He had no conscience. I think he was quite womanish; manipulative.

He did like females. He was in love with his niece. She committed suicide.

Much has been made of his relationship with Geli Raubal, I've never seen anything showing his love for her was more than platonic.

He perverted the writing of Nietzsche and used it for his own purposes. To this day, people associate Nietzsche with Nazism.

The party corrupted the idea of the Ãœbermensch to have a biological meaning, not Hitler specifically. If anyone Nietzsche's sister bears the lion's share of the responsibility.
I've heard a lot about people associating Nietzsche with Nazism, though in all my years discussing philosophy I've never actually seen this. Virtually all with enough interest to know of Nietszche know he not only didn't support anti-semitism, but was infatuated with a jewish woman.

Nietzsche abhorred anti-Semitism and he considered most of his contemporary Germans to be assholes.

Well he preferred to consider himself of Polish descent.
And he would probably place the vast majority of people in the asshole category.

[Cory Duchesne]

Allegedly, Hitler read Weininger - but probably protected himself from the full significance of Otto's work.

An excerpt from wikipedia:

Isolated parts of Weininger's writings were used by Nazi propaganda, despite the fact that Weininger actively argued against the ideas of race upheld by the Nazis. Adolf Hitler is reported to have said something to the effect of "There was only one decent Jew, and he killed himself."[3] Nevertheless, Weininger's books were denounced by the Nazis, most probably because Weininger encouraged women to think for themselves, and to determine their own future, which went directly against the Nazi idea of the role of women in society.

[MKFaizi]

Whoever wrote:

Much has been made of his relationship with Geli Raubal, I've never seen anything showing his love for her was more than platonic.

I have.

Ever seen his nude sketches of her? Ever seen the photo of Hitler lounging in a chair with Geli at his feet? Did not look like the picture of a kindly uncle talking with his niece. Looked like a man smitten with pussy.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

I am very well aware that Nietzsche's sister altered some of his writing and perverted it for anti-Semite purposes.

As leader of the Nazi party, I am certain that Hitler was aware of Nazi use of Nietzsche's writing.

Many people do associate Nietzsche with Nazism. The best example of this I can provide is a well educated German man in his thirties who used to write to Genius.

He abhorred Nietzsche because of Nazism and Hitler.

Faizi

[La Verdad]

The two models are so different it's ridiculous:

One is a vague biological Overman arrived at via eugenics, adherence to the Führerprinzip and the other various tenets of the National Socialist ideology.

The other is an Overman arrived at by man realizing he lives in a world without God, and that he is strong enough to exist without God. He is freed by this fact and spurred to profound levels of creativity and desire to produce because he recognizes there is no world beyond this one.

The only thing in common is the end: the transcendence of humanity.

If these people are impressionable or superficial enough to confuse the two, I have little reason to care what they think.

[DHodges]

He was a deluded psychopath. He had no conscience. I think he was quite womanish; manipulative.

Being on a steady diet of methamphetamine and cocaine probably didn't help his mental health too much.

[MKFaizi]

La Verdad wrote:

If these people are impressionable or superficial enough to confuse the two, I have little reason to care what they think.

Certainly, I agree with you. I was pointing out that many people still associate Nietzsche with Nazism. You do not have to care what they think. I am saying that the association still lingers.

Faizi

[jmack]

Hitler liked Goethe, and french impressionist artists, though his attempts to capture the romanticism of Manet and Renor looks amazingling like postcards from hell. It is not right to interpolate hitler's taste backwards on those he favored. That would be like blaming Jack Daniels for a post mortem alcoholic.

[La Verdad]

Hitler liked Goethe, and french impressionist artists, though his attempts to capture the romanticism of Manet and Renor looks amazingling like postcards from hell. It is not right to interpolate hitler's taste backwards on those he favored. That would be like blaming Jack Daniels for a post mortem alcoholic.

In the Bundesrepublik Germans born even today are still paying Holocaust reparations. Who ever said being born after something is said and done morally relieves you of responsibilty for it?

[MKFaizi]

Who ever said being born after something is said and done morally relieves you of responsibilty for it?

I am a southern American and my ancestors owned slaves. I do not feel morally responsible because my great grandfather owned slaves.

That said, I don't think that is what Jmack meant. I think he was saying that just because Hitler liked Manet and Renoir and Goethe that does not mean that these artists were Nazis or pro-Nazi any more than Nietzsche was pro-Nazi or anti-Semetic.

Yet, no one ever dreams of saying that Manet was an anti-Semite. Never even occurs to anyone. Obviously, Nietzsche's sister must have had a lot to do with the Nazi association.

Faizi

[La Verdad]

In the Bundesrepublik Germans born even today are still paying Holocaust reparations. Who ever said being born after something is said and done morally relieves you of responsibilty for it?

sarcasm ^
Guilt and moral responsibility are strictly personal, non-transferable phenomena - people treat it like it's some contagious disease, when it's better compared to a deformity.

Obviously, Nietzsche's sister must have had a lot to do with the Nazi association.

lol, I'll say

Nueva Germania ("New Germania") is a village in rural Paraguay. It was founded in 1888 in a remote jungle as a racially pure, utopian settlement of the Aryan race by Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche (the sister of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche), and her husband, the anti-Semitic agitator Bernhard Förster.

A handful of families (originally five; then fourteen) emigrated from Saxony to this 'New Germany' - envisioned as a fertile paradise in which would blossom a model rural society that demonstrated the qualities of German culture and Lutheran religion. The area's remoteness was thought to allow protection for their unique German culture and allow it to flourish.

The experiment failed. The settlers were unprepared for the hardships of working the land, which was not suitable for German methods of farming. Illness ran rampant, and transportation to the colony was slow and difficult. With the project increasingly mired in debt, Bernhard Förster poisoned himself to death in a Paraguayan hotel, and Elisabeth returned home.

After the fall of the Third Reich, Nueva Germania is believed to have sheltered hundreds of fleeing Nazi war criminals, including Dr. Josef Mengele, the infamous medical scientist who eventually made his way to Brazil.

Their descendants, some of whom intermarried with the darker-skinned locals, many of whom were marred with genetic diseases due to inbreeding, are among the poorest people in one of the poorest countries in South America.

Wikipedia

[MKFaizi]

Lverdad wrote:

sarcasm ^
Guilt and moral responsibility are strictly personal, non-transferable phenomena - people treat it like it's some contagious disease, when it's better compared to a deformity.

I have an antennae problem picking up sarcasm in written word -- sometimes.

I do not consider moral responsibility for what was done in the past. I do not own slaves. I cannot even conceive of owning a slave.

I do not think that I have a moral deformity.

Faizi

[Leyla Shen]

La Verdad wrote:

In the Bundesrepublik Germans born even today are still paying Holocaust reparations. Who ever said being born after something is said and done morally relieves you of responsibilty for it?

sarcasm ^
Guilt and moral responsibility are strictly personal, non-transferable phenomena - people treat it like it's some contagious disease, when it's better compared to a deformity.

I say they are political and, thus, quite “transferable” indeed.

I don’t think The States pay reparations to black Africans. Oz is having some trouble here with Aboriginal land rights.

But since the idea is that “Jews” (a religion) was almost wiped out, Germany -- under the original virtue and values of a Christian West -- must, of course in some way, fund a breeding programme so the Jewish religion doesn’t die off. Yet, the Zionist movement was in motion way before Hitler.

I wonder what they think about funding the war in Palestine against a people who can only retaliate over being violently expelled from their homes with suicide bombings? By what virtue of moral responsibility does this come to us as nations?

In 1922, the League of Nations whipped up the “Palestine Mandate” with Britain in charge of the territory as Administrator. This document was based on the 1917 Balfour Declaration (after the fall of the Ottoman Empire):

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that *(1) nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or *(2) the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour

*(1): an obvious “failure”
*(2): another “failure”

How would it be possible to establish a majority Jewish state and not prejudice a subsequent Arab minority at the same time?

The one thing that sticks out like a throbbing thumb, politically: “…Jews in any other country.” What were the rights and political status of Jews in other countries at the time of this letter and, notably, before Hitler and the well-peddled Holocaust? Do we suddenly forget the pogroms of the Crusades, for instance?

So, the difference between the Jews of Palestine and the Jews in any other country is the making of Palestine as the national home of Jews; as Israel. How does that deliver the same rights and political status enjoyed by those Jews in other countries when it is a completely different thing altogether?

[La Verdad]

I say they are political and, thus, quite “transferable” indeed.

No, just because it's political doesn't make it 'transferable'. If you are born after something happens you simply bear no responsibility. If someone demands money for something you haven't done then that person is immoral for doing so, and you're morally incompetent if you acquiesce.
I don't see the French demanding reparations because Caesar slaughtered a million Gaulish men, women, and children during his campaign in that region. States are not human beings, they do not have anything analogous to a conscience.

I don’t think The States pay reparations to black Africans. Oz is having some trouble here with Aboriginal land rights.

lol, no the American government has never payed reparations, and (wisely) has never apologized, although it has for the more recent internment of Japanese citizens during WWII.

But since the idea is that “Jews” (a religion) was almost wiped out, Germany -- under the original virtue and values of a Christian West -- must, of course in some way, fund a breeding programme so the Jewish religion doesn’t die off. Yet, the Zionist movement was in motion way before Hitler.

Well this confused me a little on the one hand you reject the idea they are a people not a religion (or nebulous combination of both), “Jews” (a religion) , and in the same sentence talk about a breeding program so the religion doesn't die off?
Can we 'breed' a couple thousand buddhists while we're at it?
o.O

I wonder what they think about funding the war in Palestine against a people who can only retaliate over being violently expelled from their homes with suicide bombings? By what virtue of moral responsibility does this come to us as nations?

We have no moral duty.
The only duty of a nation's leadership is to serve the interests of it's citizenry, that is what they're appointed and entrusted to do, and any other path is betrayal.

In 1922, the League of Nations whipped up the “Palestine Mandate” with Britain in charge of the territory as Administrator. This document was based on the 1917 Balfour Declaration (after the fall of the Ottoman Empire):

Quote:
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that *(1) nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or *(2) the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour


*(1): an obvious “failure”
*(2): another “failure”

How would it be possible to establish a majority Jewish state and not prejudice a subsequent Arab minority at the same time?

By having these two peoples geographically seperated as thoroughly as possible (with exceptions made for religious functions & pilgrimage), and having them live under seperate governments of their own respective choosing.

The one thing that sticks out like a throbbing thumb, politically: “…Jews in any other country.” What were the rights and political status of Jews in other countries at the time of this letter and, notably, before Hitler and the well-peddled Holocaust? Do we suddenly forget the pogroms of the Crusades, for instance?

This is dated November 2nd, 1917, offhand I can't think of a European country where they wouldn't enjoy virtually equal rights, except with regards perhaps to their immigration processing.