|
Post by Sapphire Capital on Dec 6, 2012 4:35:30 GMT 4
The Haavara Agreement - see transcript of Circular 54/1933 of the Reich Ministry of Finance, August 28, 1933 below - was an official contract between the Third Reich authority and Zionist Authority benefiting the interests of both parties. Haavara was intended to promote both the emigration of German Jews and the export of German products to Palestine.
In 1935 the steamer "Tel Aviv" made its maiden voyage from Nazi Germany to Haifa with Hebrew letters on its bow and a Nazi flag fluttering from its mast. The Captain of the Zionist-owned ship was a member of the Nazi Party. A passenger described the spectacle as a "metaphysical absurdity."
As a result of the Agreement, German exports arrived in Palestine at bargain prices with the help of Jewish capital and Jewish commerical assistance. It boosted the Nazi economy at a time when Jews worldwide were boycotting German goods. Goods worth a total of 139.5 million Reichsmark were transferred by 1939. The Agreement also made it possible to settle a large number of German Jews in Palestine. The outbreak of war in September 1939 ended the transfer practice. Circular 54/1933 of the Reich Ministry of Finance, August 28, 1933
To further the cause of Jewish emigration to Palestine through allocation of the necessary sums of money, without putting too much strain on the currency reserves of the Reich and simultaneously increasing German exports to Palestine, an agreement has been reached with the appropriate Jewish authorities. It is based on the following conditons:
Emigrants on whose behalf the Emigration Advisory Office confirms that further sums of money are necessary and adequate for the purpose of starting a new life in Palestine, and that the minimum amount of 1000 PP [Pal. Pounds] required for immigration into Palestine is insufficient, may be granted an additonal sum in excess of the 15,000 RM on condition that it is paid at the Reichsbank into the Special Account I of the Bank of the Temple Corporation [German colonists bank in Palestine] and credited to a trust company in Palestine specially set up for this purpose (or to the Anglo-Palestine Bank unti the Jewish trust company has been set up). A total sum of 3 million RM has been designated initally for this Special Account I and for a Special Accout II mentioned below; it is to be operated by the Temple Bank as a trust account for the above mentioned Jewish Trust Company. This account is to be used to pay for German goods delivered to Palestine. Emigrants will be paid the equivalent of their deposits by the Palestine trust company according to the funds available from the sale of German goods to Palestine. This will occur in the order and proportion of the payments made into the Special Account I and paid out in Palestine Pounds. The "Palästina-Treuhandstelle zur Beratung deutscher Juden GmbH" [Paltreu, Palestine Trust Office for Advice to German Jews] has been founded in Berlin, Friedrichstraß 218, to advise German Jews in matters concerning this form of capital transfer to Palestine. I request that particular attention is to be drawn to this organization when authorization [for capital trnasfer to Palestine] is being granted.
Furthermore, a Special Account II has been opened at the Reichsbank on behalf of the bank of the Temple Organization. On application the exchange regulation authorities may grant permission to German Jewish nationals, who have not yet emigrated but who are already planning a new existence in Palestine, to deposit up to 50,000 RM per person into this account (and similarly credit it to a German-Jewish trust company to be founded in Palestine or to the Anglo-Palestine Bank Ltd. until this has been founded).
Source: Werner Feilchenfeld, Dolf Michaelis, Ludwig Pinner, Haavara-Transfer nach Palästina und die Einwanderung deutscher Juden 1933-1939, Tübingen 1972, p.26 f.
Herbert A. Strauss, General Editor, "Jewish Immigrants of the Nazi Period in the USA" Vol. 4 - Jewish Emigration from Germany 1933-1942: A Documentary History, K.G. Saur, New York 1992, p. 254.
Example of certificate issued by Haavara to Jews emigrating to Palestine
CERTIFICATE
The Trust and Transfer Office "Haavara" Ltd. places at the disposal of the Banks in Palestine amounts in Reichmarks which have been put at its disposal by the Jewish immigrants from Germany. The Banks avail themselves of these amounts in Reichmarks in order to make payments on behalf of Palestinian merchants for goods imported by them from Germany. The merchants pay in the value of the goods to the Banks and the "Haavara" Ltd. pays the countervalue to the Jewish immigrants from Germany. To the same extent that local merchants will make use of this arrangement, the import of German goods will serve to withdraw Jewish capital from Germany.
The Trust and Transfer Office,
HAAVARA, LTD.
We hereby confirm, that in accordance with the above arrangement, we have transferred to-day, by order of Messrs. ______ the sum of (Haavara) Reichmarks: _____ in payment of invoice dated _____ as per order dated ___. Equivalent of above amounting to ___ has been received by us. Dated ____ The above sum in Reichmarks has been transferred to the exporter/s ________ of __________,
|
|
|
Post by fireopal on Dec 6, 2012 4:39:59 GMT 4
Book Review The Third Reich and the Palestine Question
THE THIRD REICH AND THE PALESTINE QUESTION by Francis R. Nicosia. Austin: The University of Texas Press, 1985, Hardbound xiv+ 319 pages, $35.00, ISBN 0-292-72731-3.
Reviewed by John M. Ries
Although Zionists today are loath to admit it publicly, the fact remains that the Zionist movement, during the period leading up to the Second World War, worked closely with the National Socialist government in Germany to solve the so-called Jewish question. Needless to say, professional historians have largely neglected this surprising cooperation. Two works by Jewish journalists, Lenni Brenner's Zionism in the Age of the Dictators and Edwin Black's The Transit Agreement, have dealt with the aspects of it, but their books must now be regarded as superseded by Francis R. Nicosia's The Third Reich and the Palestine Question, the first (and probably definitive) study of National Socialist Germany's Palestine policy in the 1930's.
On August 25, 1933, the Ministry of Economics issued a circular to all German currency control offices informing them of the recently concluded agreement with the Jewish Agency for Palestine. Known as the Haavara, or Transfer Agreement, it tied the emigration of Jews to Palestine to the sale of the German goods. By permitting each Jew who indicated a willingness to emigrate to Palestine the opportunity to take along a fixed portion of assets in the form of German goods, Germany's tight currency restrictions were circumvented, while the depressed export economy of the Reich received a much needed stimulus. Above all, the arrangement greatly promoted the removal of Jews from Germany, a principal domestic goal of the Hitler regime.
Nicosia also feels that there is reason to believe that the Jewish anti-German boycott, begun shortly after Hitler came to power in January 1933, may have been neutralized as a result of Haavara. In any event, even though Germany became the number-one exporter of goods to Palestine by 1937 due to the Haavara Agreement, its significance did not reside in its economic benefits, but in the fact that it created a consensus in the German government for Palestine as the principal destination for German Jews. This lasted until the effects of the Arab revolt beginning in 1936 and the Peel Partition Plan the following year forced a reconsideration. Thereafter, the consensus was altered, but the policy of promoting Jewish emigration remained the same.
The German Zionist Organization was employed by the government to "re-educate" the largely liberal assimilationist German Jewish community on the desirability of the Palestine option. The SS oversaw the establishment of occupational retraining centers run by the Hechalutz, the principal Zionist youth organization, to teach young Jews the necessary skills in demand in Palestine. Located throughout Germany, the centers also provided training for Jews who planned to emigrate to other countries. The British Embassy in Berlin issued its stamp of approval in a memorandum of April 3, 1936, pointing out that they "enabled the Jewish Agency to select suitable candidates for admission to Palestine, better prepared for absorption into the economy of the country."
The German government accorded preferential treatment to Zionist organizations at the expense of liberal/assimilationist ones. For example, in February 1935, Heydrich ordered the prohibition of speeches and activities that counseled Jews to remain in Germany. The SD (Sicherheitsdienst) attended Jewish meetings, censoring speakers who advocated the continuation of a Jewish presence in Germany while encouraging propaganda activities on the part of Zionists. By May 1935, "a general ban on all meetings and speeches of Jewish organizations in Germany was issued by the Gestapo ... although local Jewish cultural and sports activities, as well as the activities of Zionist organizations, were exempt." Nicosia's statement that "this was in keeping with the Nurnberg laws of September 1935, according to which all German Jews were formally placed beyond the pale of German citizenship" is in error, since the Nurnberg laws had not yet been enacted. Nevertheless, it is important to note that when they were passed on September 15,1935, they were welcomed by Zionist groups which considered them important in breaking down the resistance of the majority of German Jews, who still regarded the Hitler regime as a temporary phenomenon. The net effect of this German-Zionist connection was to make Zionism the principal movement among Jewish youth in Germany in the 1930s, relegating support for liberal assimilationism to the older generation.
An important aspect of German Palestine policy was the relationship of Germany to Palestine's Arab population. From 1933 on, the Arabs of the Middle East sought German help against the influx of Jews into Palestine, feeling that the anti-Jewish policies of the Hitler regime could be employed in behalf of the Arab cause for independence from the British Mandate. However, this was not to be the case. German policy in the 1930's was based on the acceptance of two things: Zionism and British imperialism. Any official encouragement of Arab nationalism would have upset the status quo in the region, a state of affairs totally unacceptable to Germany. As a result, aside from a few insignificant shipments of arms to Arab insurgents in the late 1930s, along with a brief dalliance on the part of German Intelligence at the same time (probably without the approval of Hitler), nothing substantial was done to change this policy of willful neglect.
As mentioned earlier, the outbreak of an Arab revolt in 1936 forced a reconsideration of Germangs Palestine policy and prompted the first genuine debate over the primacy of Palestine as the destination for German Jews. The Peel Partition Plan, an unsuccessful attempt to divide the country into Jewish and Arab sectors, conjured up the specter of a Jewish state, a state which was opposed by all German government and party figures. Nicosia points out that it was not simply for ideological reasons that National Socialism opposed the Jewish state (a section of the book is devoted to just such a discussion). Rather it was the fact that "the anti-Semitic policies of the Hitler regime would make a Jewish state a natural enemy of the Reich and a dangerous addition to the growing coalition of nations hostile to the new Germany." However, as the chances for such an occurrence began to diminish, Hitler reaffirmed his support for Palestine as the Zielland for German Jews, although efforts were made to explore alternatives, such as Madagascar (Poland had already made repeated overtures to the French for its use as a site for the large Polish Jewish population). This change was prompted by the realization that Palestine had a limited capacity to absorb the growing number of Jewish immigrants, as the resistance of the Arab population and the resultant tighter restrictions placed on Jewish immigration by British authorities made increasingly clear.
Nicosia claims that by late 1937 Hitler began to "prepare for war" as the chances for British cooperation with his proposed changes in the European territorial arrangement seemed more and more remote. This thesis has been challenged by Revisionists, if for no other reason than the meeting held between Hitler and British foreign secretary Halifax at Berchtegaden in November 1937, at which Halifax agreed in principal to all of Hitler's territorial demands. In any event, a transfer of authority over Jewish policy in Germany took place at this time, with the SS given complete control over all its aspects. The mechanism for voluntary emigration established by the Ha'avara Agreement earlier became obsolete with the confiscation of Jewish capital from 1938 on. Henceforth, the legal niceties of the Reich's previous Jewish emigration policy were overlooked as the SS began to cooperate with the Zionist Mossad le Aliyah Bet (Committee for Illegal Immigration) with the full knowledge of both British and U.S. authorities. This policy of "compulsion" was to continue until the "Final Solution," the nature of which Nicosia is careful to avoid specifying.
Aside from a couple of minor discrepancies which in no way detract from the credibility of this book, e.g. January 27 instead of January 26, 1932, as the date given for Hitler's Düsseldorf Industry Club Speech, the main thesis of The Third Reich and the Palestine Question is quite convincing. Perhaps Nicosia's rather strong reliance on Hitler's musings in Mein Kampf as a blueprint for his later foreign policy initiatives should be challenged, as they indeed have by various Revisionists, but that is more properly the subject of another study. What is important is the author's recognition that Hitler had no desire to go to war against England or to challenge the integrity of the British Empire. The German acceptance of the status quo in the Middle East is further confirmation of this fact.
|
|
|
Post by shantiacquilar on Dec 6, 2012 4:42:00 GMT 4
Zionist-Hitler Haavara (Transfer) Agreement 1933 Posted on February 25, 2012 rehmat1.com/2012/02/25/zionist-hitler-haavara-transfer-agreement-1933/In November 1932 German election, National Socialist Party receieved only 33% votes and was not in a position to form government alone. Its leader Adolph Hitler agreed on a Nazi-Conservatives coalition. German President Paul van Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor of Germany in a government dominated by the Conservatives on January 30, 1933. Within less than two months after Hitler took power, American-British militant Jewish organizations and their boot-licking Christian Zionists declared war against German people on March 24, 1933 – as they’re repeating similar sanctions against Iranian people. They called for ‘crippling boycott’ of German goods as part of blackmailing the new German government to help World Zionist movement to establish the Zionist entity in British mandate Palestine. As result of severe western economic sanctions, in August 1933 – the Hitler regime agreed with Chaim Arlosoroff of the World Zionist Organization to let tens of thousands of German Jews to migrate with their wealth to British occupied Arab Palestine. This agreement is known as the Haavara (Hebrew for “transfer”). The Agreement allowed 60,000 German Jews to imigrate to Palestine and settle on Arab land during 1933-1941. On this basis of their similar racist ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Jewish extremists (Zionists) worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interest. As a result, the Hitler government vigorously supported Zionism and Jewish emigration to Palestine from 1933 until 1940-1941, when the Second World War prevented extensive collaboration. The official SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, proclaimed its support for Zionism in a May 1935 front-page editorial: “The time may not be too far off when Palestine will again be able to receive its sons who have been lost to it for more than a thousand years. Our good wishes, together with official goodwill, go with them.” In 1984, American Jewish award-winning journalist, lecturer and author, Edwin Black published his book ‘The Transfer Agreement‘. In the book, Edwin Black, documents the close collaboration between Nazi and Zionist leaders. Black was born into a Polish Zionist Jewish family. His parents migrated to US after WW II. As youth, Black was a blind supporter of the Zionist entity. He lived in a Kibbutz and had planned to settle on stolen land from native Palestinian. When Black decided to write this book, both of his parents severely opposed the idea. In August 2005, Edwin Black questioned the life imprisonment of Jewish spy Jonathan Pollard convicted for spying for “a friendly country Israel”. The Zionist-controlled mainstream media doesn’t want the western people to know about the part the ‘World Zionist Organization (WZO)’ and the ‘American Jewish Council (AJC)’ played in the Nazi crimes against Gypsie, Christians and Jews. Both organizations were adamant that Jews emigrate nowhere else than Palestine. The Germans had tried to arrange emigration to Madagascar and Uganda but those possibilities were closed by Jewish organizations. What remained is a working relationship with the Zionist organizations Irgun and Haganah to facilitate emigration to Palestine. The British made this difficult. “The economic relationship with Germany was indispensable in the creation of the State of Israel. Without Germany and the Nazis, there would have been no “aliyah” to the Holy Land,” says Black. “The cooperation which existed between Heydrich’s Gestapo and the Jewish self-defense league in Palestine, the Haganah, would not hve been closer if it was not for Eichmann who made it public…the commander of Haganah was Feivel Polkes, born Poland, whith whom in February 1937, the SD troop leader Adolf Eichmann met in Berlin in a wine restaurant, Traube, near the zoo. These two Jews made a brotherly agreement. Polkes the underground fighter got in writing this assurance from Eichman: ‘A body representing Jews in Germany will exert pressure on those leaving Germany to emigrate only to Palestine. Such a policy is in the interest of Germany and will be executed by the Gestapo,” wrote Henneke Kardel, an Austrian Jew in his 1974 book ‘Adolf Hitler: Founder of Israel’. In 1964, German Jewish author, Dietrich Bronder, documented the reason behind Nazi-Zionist collaboration in ‘Before Hitler Came‘ – their common Jewish Heritage of Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Reichsmarshall Hermann Goering, Dr. Josef Goebbels, Gregor Strasser, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank, Heinrich Himmler, Reichsminister von Ribbentrop, SS Leader Reinhard Himmler, and Hitler’s bankers, Ritter von Strauss and von Stein. Abraham Foxman, national director ADL, in a twist, praised Black’s book for proving that without Zionists’ negotiations with the Nazis, all those Jewish lives would have been lost!
|
|
|
Post by Noor on Dec 6, 2012 13:53:11 GMT 4
Sapphire and others,
Thanks for the interesting links...lots to review and study in detail.
|
|
|
Post by MMM on Dec 6, 2012 23:04:04 GMT 4
Anglo Palestine Bank is now a das Bank Leumi.
On 27th February 1902, a subsidiary of the Jewish Colonial Trust called the "Anglo-Palestine Company" (APC) was established in London with the assistance of Zalman David Levontin, one of the first members of Hovevei Zion who had founded Rishon Le-Zion in 1882.. This company was to become the future Bank Leumi. Unlike the Trust, the Anglo-Palestine Company started out with the rather modest capital of 50,000 Pounds.
The first chairman of the Bank's Board of Directors was David Wolffsohn, Herzl's successor as the leader of the Zionist Movement. Its first General Manager was Zalman David Levontin.
The opening of the Bank's first branch in Turkish Jaffa, on August 2, 1903 was promptly followed by the issuing of an order by the Turkish military governor instructing that the bank should be closed on the grounds that it had no license. The demand of the Turkish military governor was rejected-since 1878, all European powers were allowed to open institutions, postal authorities and banks without the need for an Ottoman license.
The Anglo Palestinian Company was responsible for granting the necessary loans to the Achuzat Bayit Association, which made possible the development of the Jewish suburb of Jaffa, later to be renamed Tel Aviv.
Following the death of Levontin's assistant, Eliahu Saphir, in 1912, Eliezer Ziegfried Hoofien, Wolfson's financial secretary, was appointed Deputy Manager of the Bank. He was to play a major role in the development of the Bank and in the growth of Palestine's and Israel's economy until his death in 1957.
The Bank progressed slowly but surely. It opened additional branches in: Jerusalem, Beirut, Haifa, Hebron, Safed and Tiberias. Just before the outbreak of the First World War, a branch was also opened in Gaza. It also established the first cooperative agricultural societies and was instrumental in the establishment of industry and construction in Palestine.
In 1914, upon the outbreak of war, both the Jewish settlement and the Bank were faced with a severe crisis. A state of war had been declared between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain & Russia, and the APC-a registered British firm-was forced to close its branches. Levontin, the Bank's General Manager and a Russian subject, who had left for Egypt just before the outbreak of war, was not allowed back into Palestine. However, Hoofien, a neutral Dutch subject, managed to continue much of the bank’s activity while working from the Spanish Consulate in Jerusalem.
During the war, the Bank issued registered French Franc checks at different values. The issuing, which became a legal procedure, helped sustain the public during the harsh period of deflation.
In 1925, Hoofien became sole General Manager of the Bank. During the post-war era, the Bank (now known as the Anglo-Palestine Bank) was involved in all major economic ventures in Palestine. One of the major achievements was undoubtedly the establishment of the Tel Aviv port. Hoofien founded a company called "The Marine Trust", which was responsible for the issuing of shares used to finance the construction of the port in 1936. At a time of severe riots, when the dockers of Jaffa port were boycotting the Jewish settlement, the opening of the new port enabled the physical and economic survival of the Jews in Palestine.
In 1947, Hoofien was appointed chairman of the Bank's Board of Directors and Aaron Barth became General Manager of the Bank.
Despite the founding of the State of Israel on May 15th 1948, currency of the British Mandate was still used by the public. The Anglo-Palestine Bank was trusted with the establishment of the newly born state's monetary system. It was ordered the printing of money notes in the United States, while simultaneously preparing a stock of emergency notes in Tel Aviv.
On August 16th 1948, three months after the establishment of the State, an agreement was signed between the Bank and the temporary Government. The official charter appointing the Bank as the Government's financial agent was signed by Hoofien and the Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. On that very day, the official bank notes of the new state, bearing the name of the Anglo-Palestine Bank and the signatures of Hoofien and Barth, were distributed.
The Bank, however, was still registered in London. Since it was inconceivable that the official State Bank of Israel would remain a British firm, a company named "Leumi Le'Israel" (The National Bank) was established in Tel Aviv in 1950, which on May 1, 1951 fully accepted the obligations and assets of the Bank founded in 1902.
The second series of money notes issued by the State of Israel carries the Bank's present name.
The foundation of the Bank of Israel in 1954 marked a new phase in the history of Bank Leumi; the bank could now concentrate its efforts into its various banking activities.
|
|
|
Post by Sapphire Capital on Dec 7, 2012 7:11:32 GMT 4
for those who read German: derhonigmannsagt.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/das-haavara-abkommen-teil-1/Unfortunately most sources are German and there is a lot of push from Israel and the US not to get to deep into that part of the History. And while the Haavara Agreement was terminated when the War started (according to the History Books) the Trust Accounts where not
|
|
|
Post by Noor on Dec 7, 2012 16:12:23 GMT 4
Thanks for the link. All languages welcome! Hopefully, truth is always strong enough to stand on her own feet and bright enough to be recognized...
|
|
|
Post by fireopal on Dec 7, 2012 23:06:30 GMT 4
While the word Truth comes from the old German trewwj and means having good faith the old english used it more for loyalty, honesty and good faith; 'truth' involves both the quality of "faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, sincerity, veracity", and that of "agreement with fact or reality", in Anglo-Saxon expressed by sōþ. Correspondence theories state that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs, while for coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system and social constructivism holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community; consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon. Then there is Pragmatism and negative pragmatism which are also closely aligned with the coherence theory of truth in that any testing should not be isolated but rather incorporate knowledge from all human endeavors and experience. The universe is a whole and integrated system, and testing should recognize and account for its diversity. As Feynman said, "... if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong." Some philosophers even reject the thesis that the concept or term truth refers to a real property of sentences or propositions. and so it goes on, there are at least 20 different theories what ruth is. Like lawyers (no offense) the answer alwas is: That depends! Guess truth will not bring us far! I like to go with reality but thats screwed up as well.
|
|
|
Post by Noor on Dec 8, 2012 0:03:04 GMT 4
Fireopal, impressive to say the least, but I stick to the following two:
1) "You will know the truth and the truth will make you free" - when it was said there must have been quite a bit of lying going around as it is typical of human nature. Truth has to be understood as truth about things as they were, as they are and as they are to come. If you just live in the now, as much as important it is, you have got a limited view of space and time.
2) "Be in the world, but not of the world". This means to me that as much as we partake of the daily life and its reality whether it is our own or we are sensitive to that of others, too, we must realize that life in this world is a very limited window compared to eternity. Maintaining the right space-time perspective not just at this time, but having a most holistic approach is rather refreshing.
|
|
|
Post by fireopal on Dec 8, 2012 1:36:32 GMT 4
So you refer to the Bible for the Truth? John 8, 32 follows in the translaton the "Faith" reading of the meaning of Truth. And then John 15, 17 , which frankly while there in the NT goes back much further into the Thoth teachings and is a staple of humanity.
|
|
|
Post by Noor on Dec 8, 2012 10:47:50 GMT 4
I guess all ancient "Masters" even before those of Egypt went to bed in the evening having faith they would wake up the following morning to teach their students!
|
|
|
Haavara
Dec 12, 2012 16:59:43 GMT 4
Post by Noor on Dec 12, 2012 16:59:43 GMT 4
By the way, why should I feel offended? I am neither a prosecutor, nor a lawyer, just an observer! As for reality, we already had a talk about that before. I stick to the truth that we live in a multi-realities cosmos and the screwed reality belongs to the lower kingdoms of chaos. While the word Truth comes from the old German trewwj and means having good faith the old english used it more for loyalty, honesty and good faith; 'truth' involves both the quality of "faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, sincerity, veracity", and that of "agreement with fact or reality", in Anglo-Saxon expressed by sōþ. Correspondence theories state that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs, while for coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system and social constructivism holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community; consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon. Then there is Pragmatism and negative pragmatism which are also closely aligned with the coherence theory of truth in that any testing should not be isolated but rather incorporate knowledge from all human endeavors and experience. The universe is a whole and integrated system, and testing should recognize and account for its diversity. As Feynman said, "... if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong." Some philosophers even reject the thesis that the concept or term truth refers to a real property of sentences or propositions. and so it goes on, there are at least 20 different theories what ruth is. Like lawyers (no offense) the answer alwas is: That depends! Guess truth will not bring us far! I like to go with reality but thats screwed up as well.
|
|