nealshim, I want to try an pick up on some of your thoughts.



I will wholly agree with you that Humans are animals, and much of what we do and the way we behave is unconciously driven by our genetic memory, and there is very little genetically to mark us apart from the rest of nature.

As with other social animals we prefer order to anarchy, and that order comes from a social hierachy with a figure of authority at the top.

In the case of humans the authority figure may be a group of figures such as the government, or the religious teachers.

Here is where however I differ from your viewpoint, order does not need any of the intellectual mechanisms you describe, merely a concenus amongst the group to adhere to a common set of values and a shared hierachy.

Where we then differ from the animal kingdom (ususally) is how choose our authority figures. For the most part we have moved away from the tooth and claw approach, and gone for something more civilised. Unfortunately we do not always see the longer term effects of our choices and through the best of intentions a free society can become a totalitarian one. At is then too late to go back, and we have to resort to the tooth and claw method in the of revolution, or make efforts to leave that society.

Laws, at least in the UK, are not designed by philosophers, logicians or scientists. For the most part our laws are evolutionary based on concenus and historical precedence (common law); tradition if you like. Where they are not (civil law), they are drawn up by lawyers attempting to codify sentiments and feelings based on the authority figure's interpretation of the prevailing view of society (the group), approved by the authority figure and handed down to the group.

Philosophers, logicians or scientists, are not necessarily the best people to put in charge of law making. Philiosphy, logic and science are all driven by the current condition of society, and after all scientific knowledge is only our best current guess as accepted by a majority of scientists (I better watch myself else I will be justifying ID next ). As for logic, let us take the apparently logical phrase from that fictional logical being Spock from Star Trek: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one". It appears a fairly sound and logical principle, we can quite satisfactorily use it as the premise for punishing those who transgress society's laws. However put this in the hands of scientist, and it becomes the justification for non-consensual human experimentation.

I was expecting that you would post as you did, bb. I respect your views particularly since they reflect direct experiences that I have not had the opportunity to share. In fact, it is our differences that provide the real catalyst for our discussions. Our basic assumptions "are sufficient unto themselves."

Islam has as little to recommend to me, personally, as does Chrisitianity. They are religions at their worst. Obectively, no other institution has caused more death and suffering in the history of man than Christianity in all of it's magnificent forms. The indictment is not mine; it is history's. Unfortunately, Islam appears determined to do them one better.

Perhaps Islam as both a religion and a culture would have more credibility if these supposed mainstream members had proactively put just half as much energy into promoting peace and tolerance as the extremist Muslims have put into the wanton slaughter of men, women and children simply because they have a different religion.

When Vietnam was on the table, American citizens were outraged. They spontaneously mobilized across the country to demand that their government stop an unjust war. There are many Muslim Americans. There are tens of millions of "mainstrean Muslims" around the world. Why is it that there is virtually no legitimate and heartfelt "rightous indignation," much less outright rage directed against the cold-blooded murder of innocents that is committed in its name?

Of course no individual is a religion much less a society, but if Muslims want credibility then they will have to "walk the talk" just like anyone else. As of right now, they are not even whispering. They are invisible.

I'm sorry, my friend, while I genuinely appreciate your experiences with specific Muslim individuals in the context of their routine day-to-day living; outside of this naturally circumscribed context, it plainly just doesn't apply to the international expression of the Muslim religion or culture.

On a lighter note, I watched a TV programme the other night about ID and its growth in the USA. For the most part the proponents seem to base their arguments on fact that evolution could not have come up with something so unique in design and functionality as the flagella of bacteria.

Whilst watching the programme the animations of the flagella, and the logic of the proponents arguments put me in mind of the TV version of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy from the '70s/'80s, and the Babel Fish. If you are not familiar with the H2G2, and the Babel Fish follow the link and watch the Real Media clip. The logic surrounding the Babel Fish proves ID but the final end point it is not quite what the current proponents are trying to achieve, but it is what they deserve.

Pffffuiii ! seems that hard work is waiting here ! some cafein

First of all, thank you both for your warm encouragements, and especially to julied for having understood what I meant :



This is true and it applies also to all arabized-through-islam peoples on this planet, even those that are now fanatically arabs ! (in the middle-east). Islam is not only one of the -rare- most intrusive religions you can find, it is also a powerful, widespread, multifaced religion, that always retains, inside, its arab nature/way of life. Islam comes from arabic semitic-root SLM which has the meaning of submission, acceptance. the name tells all from the begining.

----------------------------------------------



Batchoy, what i meant, is that :
1) every species has its means of surviving, we have ONLY our intelligence, inventivity
2)we have a brain, ID-designed to use it, a "bio-computer" if you will
3) the "fuel" of this intelligence is our soul, personnality, unicity. intelligence needs emotion (curiosity, interest, need, passion, dreams). if this naturally complex, unique and rich emotion is recognized, this human becomes naturally productive, useful, in all possible or potentially possible domains.
4) totalitarian insidious cultures, facist groups, "formats" the individuals, destroy everything and replace it with one signle way/color/model/reason/goal/dream/reference
5)practically, these groups are condemned to dumbness, "blindness", so in a fair/normal situation, nature - the real one, not the phantasm - should lead to the destructions/disparition of this group, or its evolution to a normal human state.
6) some ideologies are pure "genius" from a negative perspective, so they hide behind other's achievement, while still deniying that. this is called parasite ! a fierce method of surviving... A simple living example ? who discovered petrol ? who invented the tech to extract, transform, developp, use, understand etc... pertrochemistry/geology ? in what social conditions ? after what intellectual sacrifices ? by having what state of mind ? after rejecting what comfortable yet false/dangerous dogmas ? it is experimentally obvious that only a scientifically - not only technically ! - developped civilisation have achived that. Any normal, under-developped civilization would recognize frankly that, then do something to self-criticize then develop (china, korea, japan, latin america, ...). arab countries are only good to remind that the oil is THEIR ! (MINE ! MINE ! ...the local pride in the region : I have 3 petrol pumps, how much do you have, you huh...)
7)what is the main characteristic ? race ? klingon-sionist-complot against arabs ? all these and more can be proven by counter examples. after eliminating all irrational explanations, we end with only the rational one (Sherlok H. ): religion.




I think that we do not agree about the definition of order here it is distinct from the authority in the sense that is it counsious and transparently human, secular. Order is built from bottom to top, like in democracies, like in building a house, the foundations first the order is "engineered", have an architect somehow. At the opposite, the authority (not the person, the state of the group) is not transparent, or concious. In reality the building is a "cluster" (fr: amas) of stones, that are accumulated without a plan, and the majority of the group while building it look all the time to roof, because authority have magicians, not architects. [ ]



There is no contradiction . I used the terms philosophers, logicians, scientists to stress on the realistic, secular, objective, rationnal way by which laws are designed in europe. UK is a living democracy, and at the foundation of democracy we find greek philosophers, where logic and math played a decisive role, and modern european philosophers, where logical methods of analysis and critics, scientific discoveries and greek/roman expreriences and references played an important role. If you still do not "believe" me, just look at :

0) laws are genric, ideally => equality : that's a fundamental science and math principle, you cannot change the rules when you want for who you want...
1)the principle of division of power, purly scientific to isolate the "interactions" , the mess
2) the principle of freedom of expression (thus of faith as a result) , purely philosophic, where the right to think and to speak absolutly free of everything, to contradict, to oppose, is the foundation of the philosophical debates and theories, and philosophy ITSELF, the mother of all SCIENCES, even if this is rarely recognized
3)the existence of a strict codified order in laws, chronologically - precedence- and spatially - the constitutionnal fundamental laws, then the decrees (fr: les decrets), then the jurisprudence, etc, purely mathematical : axioms, then theorems, then theories etc... from the simplest, most general/abstract, more durable to the local, more precise, less durable
4)the elections : a poll that reflect the objective reality, the choice of the real citizens : keyword : Objectivity, realism
5)the elections, again : that puts the "persons in charge"/politicians toward the reality, obliging him/her to be accountable, to give concrete results, to explain : experimental science, where every step, success and failure is recorded, recognized and published , ideally, to take lessons.
6)written, universally accepted laws : to have a strict writted referential, protected from "subjective" alteration, (mis)interpretations, falsification : more than science, philosophy or logic, just bare strict minimum stone of civilisation.
8) sovreignty : the fundamental state of independance from something, usually territorial but should be the wider possible, physical or cultural. Just a nationnal extension to the natural healthy human instict of autonomy and independance.
9)the never ending projects, actions, corrections, developpents, as a result of all that. Democracies live in the present, and look for the future, and use the past as a tool : this is called in philosophy "the positivism", which is the main "emotionnal" or "cognitive" state of any respectable scientist, 'I have a dream' is perfectly democratic, and scientific




OK, it seems you give logic here its "popular" cold-automatic-closedminded meaning (Spok ? if he's a Vulcan he should be a mystique ) whereas logic, defined by itself, exists only in well-defined contexts (math, philo, _modern_ justice that derivates from philo concepts) so not automatic, is open to critique, so not closedminded) and is only cold for those that think a well-done-precisely job is "not cool", like a math demonstration, or a honest physical proof . What Spok said, is only logically true if it is accepted as such, and even in this condition, you can only use it to punish or exploit a "minority" (not well defined term, which is contrary to _logic_, where vague concepts are forbidden), if there are no other laws that puts the limit of individual rights; which means that this human group is already living in discrimination...more than that, a scientific logical mind does not reject everything or accepts it systematically. So ID _can be_ after all true, who knows ?

from a local moslem perspective, allow me test these simple principles against the actual situation, ready ? go !

0) sharia, if we consider it a law by modern standards, applies only to moslems. Dhimmi, non moslems that live under islam, have nothing guarateed, unless with an interpretation...nothing else outside islam is allowed. full stop.
for countries that tries to have a constitution by modern standard, "illegal" sacrifices have to be done, either from the islamic point-of-view, or from the human-rights POV. Unstable incoherent situation. inequality is the rule.

1)the principle of division of power : there is only ONE, and nothing outside. more than religious, it is cultural : army does the job of police, police the job of politicians, politicians of "happy corrupt tolerance defrenders", clerical are judges and legislators, a fatwa is a law AND an order to excute it ! citizens do not exist. political parties are mostly religious sects, artificial system puppets, artificial external powers' puppets, or rarely real political parties that have to shut-up 99% of the time.

2) the principle of freedom of expression, thus of faith as a result : are you joking ? ask http://www.jp.dk/

3)the existence of a strict codified order in laws, chronologically and spatially : there is not an anarchy in islamland (anarchy : lack of a central political power), there is instead much better : a total mental disorder, as the notion of the order of laws even in sharia changes everytime it is necessary to "escape" from a critique, or to show a new face of islam.
4)the elections : better play lottery. if it is "real", the more radicals win. if it's unfair, the "system" wins.
5)the elections, again : no responsability, no accountability, no problems, no questions, no results. this is a state of mind. the klingons plot agains the moslems, wherever they are, and behind the klingons, there are the sionists, and behind them, the depraved west, and behind it, the perverted danes, led by http://www.jp.dk/ and it explains also the high unemployment rates, OBL and co-caida, the price of petrol ...
6)written, universally accepted laws : written without refendum, accepted because imposed, universally because it's in the name of Alah.
8) sovreignty : it is only a problem when a non moslem nation is implicated. hopefully, there are still some ppl that are proud of their REAL cultural sovreignty, but it won't last, thanks to the dish networks (SA inside). And speaking about personnal autonomy, as a psychologic phenomenon, arabs rarely use "I", 99% "We". "We" who ? How much are there in 1 ?
9)the never ending projects : past is venerated, present is negated, future is apocalyptic. most verbs in arabic are conjugated in past (we were, we did). Past here is so sensitive that is is never taught. "We" teach to little children a veryvery historically-correct version of "our" past. Greeks rarely exists. arabs have invented decimal system. persians? what is this ?

-----------------------
=

It is very unlikely that it could be the case. Hamas is sunna (ethnicity:arab, culture:arabic "motherland":saudiarabia). Iran finances, defends and hosts in fact hezbollah (the party "hizbu" of god "allah") shi'a (ethnicity:arab, but rarely refenrenced unless for other arabs, prefers to use "lebanese", culture:arabic/lebanese/persian "motherland":lebanon/persia).

There is a dangerous mix-up in west between iranian vs. arabs, sunna vs. shi'a and religion-centric groups vs. nation-centric groups. This ambiguity plays the game of : Arabs (as here in Nafrica), sunna (that gain more "importance" in term of media and litterature attention) and SA (that _needs_ and _uses_ this attention as a marketing base for it's ideology domination, i.e islam, wahhabism, salafism, arabity, high-"puritain"-moral etc... it's multi-faced).

There are good/honest Iranian intellectuals in west, that can give you a much better expalantion of the subtle , yet decisive and revealing, differences between sunna and shi'a. but please keep in mind the ethnical interests in play here. From a political perspective, "heretic" movements were born to protect a nation's culture originality against a dominant foreign, and often contradictory, norm transported "inside" a religion's interpretation, laws, way of life etc... (Ex in Christianity: arianism for some german tribes, orthodoxy for slavic, anglican for britain, protestant, copt in egypt, donatism in Nafrica/imazighen, voodoo in Westafrica/dahomey/benin etc etc... Ex in Islam: fatimides in egypt (disapeared, or "exterminated", kharijites in Nafrica (disapeared), cirkess in lebanon, druzes in lebanon, ismaelites in pakistan, shi'a in persia and persian influence zone, i.e half of irak... ).

In "Islamland" (Dar-al-islam : the house of islam), "heretics" that do not show promptly an allegiance to SA indirectly -same laws, interpretations...- or directly -direct refenrence to the _arabo_islamic supermacy, where SA plays the natural role of the GodFather, the protector - are subject to population's exclusion at best (in zones of freshly converted to islamland), or to physical violence at worst.

Shi'a have suffered centuries due to alliegence to persia ( few arab referential, even for arab-shi'a) and to difference in beliefs. they are also the closest group intellectually, mentally to civilization : mainly sedentarian (not nomads or tribalized ) for hundreds of centuries, great "humanist" old civilisations (sumer, babylon, persia, phoenicia), played an important role in "rationnalism" and logical sciences (philosophy, the unsensored one, not the "islamic philosophy parody", maths, logic, algebra, translation of summerian astronomy, greek masterpieces, etc...), they have also a perception of themselves as a nation, not as a member of the umma.

However the modern-islamic-iranian regime is sthealtly transforming iran to a culturally-sunna-apparently-shi'a to normalize (with it's enraged neighbours) and to capitalize on the powerful sunna "zombi"-like culture (that would ease the pressure of the embarrasing complex and intelligent iranian heritage). The main tool : arabic as a second language (why?) and the adoption of the arabic-palestinal-israeli conflict.

http://www.iranian.com/
http://phoenicia.org/
some different point of views...


This is the weakness of binary-minded-persons. If only GWB understand that 'The enemy of my enemy is not necessarly my friend', the whole US policy would be more efficient, choosing good allies, and intelligent : seeing the post-urss world in HDTV, not in monochrome...


--------------------------------------------------


the full exercise of free speech is not only the fundamental value of democracy (by itself a complex and artifical construction) , it is the most visible verbal or artistic side of the unicity of individuals, the only means to be oneself and not just a "clone" of a hypotethical "prophet". Everything can be (re)bluit thanks to absolute, illimited, unconditionnal, free speech. Nothing can be done outside that. An example ? the religiously-correct politically-correct historically-correct musically-correct "freedom" of expression , of course not religion, to which moslem countries are so much attached that they are ready to "bomb" and kill for it, have led these wonderfully human rich countries to live in the most ridiculous and absurd human conditions that humanity ever known : petrol-sick countries that have big unemployment, crime, poverty rates; Systematic disrimination against foreign workers (pakis "lose" their passports in SA...) 24/7 hate channel in arabic to enhance the "intelligence" in the region, wonderful fatwas that asks if a moslem should "make love" (oops ! have sex is better...) with his clothes, really ,no kidding... dramatic, or funny... Hugh Hefner should begin to fear




I get it

-------------------------------------------



sure Batchoy ,we're talking about humans and they are all different. islam is not an ethnicity by itself, ideally, and only ideally. Which mean that you will find different ppl, just here in my small town that do even support http://www.jp.dk/ and danemark , even if they are tradisionnalist moslims ! their main explanation is "who cares !".



in islam, there no infidel. Worse. A multilevel system of 'infidelity' : "mu-umin" : faithful muslim believer. "muslim" : technically muslim. "Ahl-al-kitab" ppl of the books/bible, i.e christians and jews, but beware, here the 2xLanguage begins : the ISLAM's definition of the bible. not the actual one. the actual christians and jews are fake. "issa" jesus is Only a prophet, not the christian-jesus . full stop. any other official claims are only to "cool down", or by ignorance, not the islamic reality. nontheless, coran guarantees to ahl-al-kitab some rights moral and physical, but could be subject to interpretations (good and bad). This kind of double language, and continuous hijaking of others' concepts/beliefs while islamazing them is a permanent algorithm that exists everywhere (the coran as the sacred unaltered divine arabic source is also a source of arabic, thus when 'strangly' a persian word appears, it becomes borrowed-from-arabic-to-persian !). After that we have the "mushrik plural: mushrikune", a beliver, likely polyteist, animist, syncratic, heretic, or simply who does not agree with some principle. then the "kafir plural: kuffar) : genrally a mushrik considered like an ennmy, an atheist, a philosopher (yes) , an ahl-al-kitab that tries to defend his religion or his religious POV, a powerful group that is out of direct contol, etc... there is also a special case which is a "Dhimmi" (pronouced thimmi like 'the') a non moslem that lives in dar-al-islam, likely a native or autochtonous, that did not convert, or is too 'weak' to be a 'threat'. from the shariia POV, there is a tax his have to pay in order to be protected (understand : from moslims). The complexity, flexibility thanks to interpretation depending on the rapport-de-force, of these concepts give the advantage to moslems to never be obliged to be in direct confrontation. There concepts are also not recognized or used everywhere in islamland, as the regions/countries are diffrent, but they are a part of this religion.



no, absolutly not. But from what I've observed, the more religious a moslim becomes, the more violently he behaves or is likely to. When it comes to pacific moslems, they are generally what are called "culturally moslems", a way to say "not moslems", or "should be more religious than that". There is also a bunch of intelligent ppl that are understanding better the west (it's weaknesses and complexes), and using more effective means to have what they want. You can recognize some of these from their "tolerance" speech, which are never clear, and never useful for the real victims of intolerance inside the umma. There is no doubt that there are other "profiles". we talk about humans, so no wonder



There is a fanatical core, that represents the real, only version of islam. tolerant islam, secular islam, honest islam are really another religions, that only happens to have the word "islam" inside them. and some of it's folklore, not it's spirit. and until now, even the 'heretical' versions of islam happened to be at least as totalitarian as it's salafist sunna regular form. The exceptions (that were killed, burned, marginalized, hidden) are philosophies, not beliefs, like 'al-muutazilla, literaly, 'those that isolated themselves', that analysed the coran with the logic, considered that Alah cannot/does not speak arabic (because he is GOD !, this should be clear to every normal mind, but until now nobody is able to say it again clearly !), concluded that nothing in the coran was compulsory, as the meaning was more important than the expression etc etc but is not heretical, it was revolutionnaly, in Bagdad and Bassora...and the adventure ended there.



this is something that cannot be understood by religions, and especially those that are still based on fundamentalism.

-------------------------------



Perhaps. while myself a beliver in God, but with no special ritual-obsession or political-cultural-sectarian allegence, I think that the religions that are the more human, constructive, are those that approcaches spirituality. even atheism is one of them , because there is inside a strong belief of the INexistence of gods, BUT replaced by some moral constant referential. In my uninformed opinion about christianity (i read only the bible and i know some old and modern history), i find it the more spiritual in all the middle-eastern religions. of course, we should get rid of this ID first .





x-men ?
this is part of araboslamic education, or better, childhood brainwashing. a "normal" child should :
1- shut-up
2-obey
3-accept
4-not ask embarrasing question (in all cases there are no answers)
5-better not ask at all
6-the "others" are always the problem (the neighbours, the other part of the country, the other social classes, the other nations, planets, galaxies etc etc)
7-a girl is not like a boy. full stop. and when there are explanations, they are worse than saying nothing , thus the spectacular rationnal culture
8-the umma, the umma in the MEast until egypt, less umma in NAfrca but the 'arabity' (uruba) replaces it (it smells like the 'baath' know that I've noticed it)
9-the West is either 'venerated'-> complex of inferiority, frequent in NA, or hated, dispised ->complex of superiority, much more frequent in the ME.
10-do what the others do.

RESULT:
________
-No autonomy, personnality,
-No viable tools for autonomy, personnality i.e logic, reasoning, listening, contradicting, relativizing..only violence, censorship and hypocrisy
-No social context that permits that, ppl always agree, always stick to the current trend...
-Absolute intelligent sense of hypocrisy, thanks to this overdevelloped sense of compromise...
-Fear, fear, fear : from Alh, from others, from family, from honour/reputation, from nuk powers, from anything,
-Inertia : ppl never take a decison, always follows. and when he begins to think or contest, is become violent and anarchic.

Most of this is insidious, and a great amount of 'national brains' is purely wasted thanks to that education. once again, this profile describes better the ME. the farther you get _culturally_ from this region (space and also Sat TV channel, official TVs...), the better ppl become, from a human perspective (more open minded, more sense of humour, more tolerant etc..)





The contrary definition in "our" cultures thank alah !



excellent, hilarous i've never found this masterpiece of fine absurd art. once again thank god and Her Majesty that british do exist for the Monty Python, Douglas Adams and the rest

Unfortunately the by quirk of fate, or deliberate design the horror and carnage of the Nazi concentration camps is irrevocably linked to the Jews and the formation of the State of Israel, to the neglect of history and the other races and nationalities who also suffered these atrocities. The treatment of the jews not just by the Nazis during WWII is often used as an appology for Isreals treatment of Israeli Arabs and the Palestians, lest condemnation of Israel be construed as anti-Semitism.

It is a problem we have in the UK, that everytime the crime figures are published we get the Chief Rabbi complaining about the increase in anti-semitism, however what the figure does not deliniate is attacks on Jews because they are Jewish (Anti-Semitic), and attacks on Jews because they mistakenly seen as being connected to Israel (Anti-Israel).

The formative history of modern Israel is founded on anti-British and anti-Arab terrorism by Jewish groups whose views were not a million miles from an exact mirror image of Hamas and unfortunately though they might say otherwise the actual actions of the Israeli Armed forces on the ground are very much akin to the central tenets of those original terrorist groups. This should however to come as too much of a surprise since the groups to whom I refer were dissolved and absorbed into the IDF.

Your image of Israel being founded as the surviving Jews around the world limped to a home and sanctuary, is very romantic, but for many European Jews their reception in Israel was hostile and discriminatory. They were seen by the activists who had fought for the State of Israel as cowards who were getting something they had not fought for and who had surrendered to the Nazis rather than resisting. This rather than being seen as victims that they truely were.

Our viewpoint in Europe is shaped by our history, and whilst we in Britian were not occupied during WWII we played host to many whose countries were. As result we can understand some of what drives the Palistians, and whilst not seeking to condone or justify their action can say there but for the grace of God and the Americans. It is this depth of history and understanding, which often appears as recalcitrance to frustartion of Americans and why we get Donald Rumsfeld talking about 'old Europe'. It is also why we can at times and as nations seem to treat the USA as a parent would a child, at one and the same time consoling them an pointing out the error of their ways.

It might also explain your apparent position of wanting to look at situations purely in the here and now, consigning history to the bookshelf, and my position of saying the here and now is a product of history, and we have to consider history if we are to have a meaningful and permanent solutions. Take Iraq, form my viewpoint I would contend that the Iraqi constitution and the recent elections are inherently unsound and that once the common goal of removing foreign armmed forces from their soil is achieved the situation will collapse into internecine war. Simply because the constitution does not solve the issue of the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shias, and the election was split along religious lines not political ones.


What happened in Germany is sadly not unsual and this is why many groups get irritated arround holocuast memorial time. Not because they were perpetrators but because the were victims not only of the same genocide that was inflicted on the jews but becasue they were victims of other incidents of genocide, and they see the holocaust being presented as purely against the Jews and as the only incident of its kind. They are not saying and nor am I, that Holocuast was any less of an atrocity or that the Jews were not subjected to genocide, but that we should remember all victims of all incidents genocide. Genocide is what happens when feelings of racial, national or relgious supremecy get out of hand, and in the case of the NAZIs when this feeling of supremecy is coupled with the theory of Eugenics being put into practise. After all if you are willing to experiment on lesser species, and exterminate vermin, and you view other races, nationalities and religion as vermin or a lesser spicies, the transition from exprimenting on animals to humans is very easy. One of the few films about WWII era that I would recommend viewing, as makes good use of what few facts remain, is 'Conspiracy', which seeks to re-enact the infamous Wannsee Conference of 1942. I have now watched this film several times, the tribulations the players go through in attempting to define who is and who is not German and to what degree they are German, would be comic if one was not aware of the consequences. However this might be a tangent to you current research.