SecureSignals
No bio...
User ID: 853
SecureSignals
1d ago
If it is sustainable over generations then no
It's always been a feature of European culture. In 5th-century BC Athens, laws mandated that sons provide fathers with food, care, housing, and protection and they lost citizenship as a penalty if they failed to provide. If Elder care is not sustainable then it's a societal failure. A foreign diaspora harming the host nation is a much different kind of dynamic than elder care.
It's not at all a distant issue, the concept of social relations between races of people being characterized as "parasitism" originated with Jewish/Gentile cohabitation. That characterization of that as a foreign guest/host relationship originated at least with Marin Luther's writings but the concrete association goes back to the 18th century, i.e. the Enlightenment philosopher Johann Herder (1791):
The people of God, to whom heaven itself once gave its fatherland, has been a parasitic plant on the tribes of other nations for millennia, almost since its creation; a race of clever negotiators almost all over the world who, despite all oppression, long nowhere for their own honour and home, nowhere for a fatherland.
But I pointed to a more concrete example of Dreamers or in the general sense mass third world migration, foreign diasporas who deman some right to access to the United States and Europe and massive political, economic, and cultural concessions. Nor is the concept of aggressive mimicry only limited to that historical relationship, I have indirectly accused you of engaging in that behavior by appealing to concepts like "fair competition" that appeal to Whites but are just empty words you use to try to justify your presence among us. You only signal those values in order to obfuscate the threat of genetic replacement from the third world by making it some natural outcome of "fairness", i.e. signaling values you know we have an affinity for, but for an aggressive purpose.
Other examples of mimicry would be Kash Patel's humorous attempts to appeal to White culture, which very often become that Inglorious Bastards three-fingers meme.
Parasitism, stripped of the morally-loaded connotation, is ultimately a classification of a symbiotic relationship between different species of organisms. The notion that symbiosis is an extremely widely-observed behavioral pattern in the Animal Kingdom, but for some reasons human relations can never be understood like that, is an artifact of political correctness. As far as the question over when is it appropriate to refer to someone as a parasite, you can say almost never. But when is it appropriate to understand relations between races of people as symbiotic, the answer is almost always. Take something like the behavior observed in the Animal Kingdom we call aggressive mimicry:
Aggressive mimicry is a form of mimicry in which predators, parasites, or parasitoids share similar signals, using a harmless model, allowing them to avoid being correctly identified by their prey or host. Zoologists have repeatedly compared this strategy to a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Foreign races of people establishing themselves in a host society- their identity, cultural signals, political influence, is unequivocally a symbiosis, its mere existence is derived from its interaction with its host.
But is in-group elderly care a parasitic relationship? The Elders of a society are typically the ancestors of the descendants investing in their care, so describing that as parasitism would not really conform with that classification of relationship observed ecologically. The impetus for elder care has in-group evolutionary advantages that explain its existence.
Take a racial and cultural identity like black. It exists purely in symbiosis with a host society. It depends on the host society for everything. It only exists relative to its host society. Without its host, it would not exist. Same with "Dreamers", foreigners who embed themselves in a host society. "Dreamers" only exist because of the long-term interaction between foreigners and their host body. That is a symbiotic relationship, in contrast with elderly care.
There are clearly non-parasitic symbiotic relationships. "Chimerica" is a symbiosis between America and China but one that is mutually beneficial. But when foreigners embed themselves in a host and demand all sorts of political, cultural, and economic concessions that harm the host Nation, it's valuable to understand that as parasitism, in order to properly understand the nature of the threat, even if it's not constructive to call anyone a parasite.
SecureSignals
4d ago
For this specific search? Of course it's small. But for generating, in the future, images, TV shows, and Movies I think a lot of users will be clamoring to generate content that violates the cultural bounds established by OpenAI.
OpenAI also just declared they aren't permitting any videos to be generated of Martin Luther King, because users were making "disrespectful" images of him. There's definitely a market there.
AI Browsers- an extension of what Google is already doing
An X user, using the new OpenAI browser, gave a simple search query to "look up videos of Hitler" and the web browser gave this response:
I can't browse or display videos of Adolf Hitler, since footage of him and Nazi propaganda are tightly restricted for ethical and legal reasons. However, if what you're after is historical context, I can point you toward legitimate archives and documentaries that use such footage responsibly
Of course these same guardrails are deeply embedded in all layers of the OpenAI stack. For example, Sora will restrict what videos it generates based on the cultural beliefs of its owners for what content should exist and what content should not exist. Which is already what Hollywood does in a sense. And of course Google will do the same quietly, it will not show propaganda films of Hitler either. Google will show results for Triumph of the Will along with links to the US Holocaust Museum's contextualizing Nazi propaganda to users. So that's at least more useful than OpenAI browser's refusal to do the search.
The First Amendment has always been the biggest hurdle for the usual suspect "Hate Watch" groups outlawing "hate speech", although they continue to try to push the boundaries of civil and criminal guidelines for it especially in states like Florida. But Laws will scarcely be necessary when censorship can easily be enforced by AI.
It does create a market opportunity for another AI, maybe even Musk himself, to create and show content that OpenAI would refuse to show because it runs awry of what censors want us to see and talk about.
Similar: OpenAI refuses to translate speech by Adolf Hitler. But it says "I can give you a netural historical summary of what he was saying in that particular 1938 Sudetentland speech."
SecureSignals
27d ago
I'm not on Instagram, but YouTube has very thoroughly banned all right-wing content creators I would consider to be "anti-Semitic" even without posting that content on YouTube. Keith Woods recently had his YouTube account which had been running for years banned with 0 strikes because MediaMatters ran a piece on him calling him an anti-Semite. Same with Richard Spencer, Nick Fuentes has been banned although he of course did actually post anti-semitic content. American Renaissance/Jared Taylor is banned despite Taylor famously never engaging in anti-semitism. It's a totally closed platform for anti-Semitism and right-wing content altogether, although I'm assuming you call opposition to Israel's war "anti-Semitism", which comes frequently from the left, and presumably YouTube allows that to some degree. The only anti-semitism I've seen out of YouTube has come from the left wing as the right wing has all long-been totally banned.
TikTok as a Weapon of War
When the TikTok forced divesture was passed over a year ago, after failing to gain sufficient support in earlier efforts, it was immediately clear to me that alarmism over Chinese ownership of the algorithm was only a pretext obscuring the political forces that actually dictated the sale: the Jewish lobby induced Congress to act in order to transfer TikTok to a new owner who would censor and manipulate the content algorithm of TikTok to be in favor of Israel and the Jewish people. This certainly wasn't a leap, there were secret recordings of Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL saying that something has to be done about TikTok. And then hundreds of Jewish groups lobby for the forced divesture, and then it happens in a highly divided Congress, with some lawmakers explicitly citing this pressure as being decisive in securing support for this legislation that had previously failed.
Still, @2rafa disputed that characterization of the forced TikTok divesture. But now that the dust is settling we can review what has happened:
TikTok and its algorithm is now essentially under the control of Zionist Jew Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, who has been described as the largest private donor to the IDF (FWIW I could not find any evidence Ellison has given private donations to the US military). Ellison's son, David Ellison, acquired CBS news last month which is reportedly going to hire Bari Weiss to manage the editorial direction of the organization:
As part of the deal, I am told David plans to give Bari a role at CBS News that would, among other things, task his fellow Millennial with guiding the editorial direction of the division. Bari’s avowedly pro-Israel and anti-woke worldview—not to mention her broadly shit-kicking anti-establishment disposition—would inevitably inspire blowback from various corners of the newsroom, and could dramatically change the editorial posture and reputation of one of the most storied, and certainly self-important, institutions in American journalism. For David, that’s likely part of the point.
TikTok's algorithm, which is now under the control of Ellison, will be audited and retrained. But the significant reforms to content moderation on TikTok are already well underway, in July a Jewish Zionist and former IDF solider Erica Mindel was hired for the position of "Public Policy Manager, Hate Speech":
The position involves developing and driving the company’s positions on hate speech, according to the job description...
It also involves “spearheading long-term policy strategies” regarding hate speech, monitoring online content, and advocating for the company’s policy stances. It specifically states that the position involves “serving as a subject matter expert on antisemitism and hate speech in internal and external meetings” and “analyzing hate speech trends, focusing on antisemitic content.”
Netanyahu on the TikTok acquisition
Most remarkably, in a focus group session with American social media influencers last Friday in New York, Benjamin Netanyahu himself simply admitted that the acquisition of TikTok was the most important development in enabling Israel to wield social media as a weapon of war:
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu briefed American influencers on TikTok, calling it the “most important” weapon in securing support for Israel on the right-wing.
He went on to say, “Weapons change over time... the most important ones are the social media,” and, “the most important purchase that is going on right now is TikTok... I hope it goes through because it can be consequential."
Near the end of the clip Netanyahu says "if we can get those two things [TikTok and X] we can get a lot... we have to fight the fight. To take, give direction, to the Jewish people, and give direction to our non-Jewish friends or those who could be our Jewish friends.
What's astonishing is that they are now simply admitting what they are doing openly. They aren't even hiding it. When Netanyahu discusses social media as a weapon of war, the war he is referring to is not against Hamas, it is against us and our access to free public discourse, the information we receive in news media and content algorithms, and the propaganda we're exposed to on a daily basis.
Last year in 2024 a major scandal in alternative media erupted with the investigation into two Russian media executives from Tenet Media, in a $10 million scheme to illegally fund Tenet Media and influence it to promote Russian propaganda. And certainly this is a major problem. But this Russian propaganda campaign does not even remotely reach the levels of deeply-embedded foreign influence in American news and social media in comparison to Zionist influence.
Larry Ellison is a foreign agent. David Ellison is a foreign agent. Jared Kushner is a foreign agent. This enormous level of foreign influence in our information stream is a huge problem, and it's not limited to Netanyahu and Israel. It's endemic to the entire international Jewish community across the entire world. The level of support among the Jewish community for this foreign influence deeply embedded in our society is extremely high and the opposition is basically non-existent. The extremely small number of what 2rafa calls "self-hating Jews" who acknowledge what is happening and oppose it are outliers. The rest either actively support it or deny the problem, citing "anti-semitic conspiracy theories" about Jews controlling the media and wielding it as a weapon of war against the minds of the gentiles. And yet Netanyahu, a foreign leader, travels to New York and simply admits what they are doing. Russian or Chinese nationalists engaging in this behavior would be wildly intolerable, but Jewish nationalists are systematically engaging in this behavior with total impunity.
Netanyahu's meeting with the social media influencers seems to foreshadow more pressure on X, now that the TikTok problem is being solved according to Netanyahu.
Your culture provides no reciprocity, you advocate for competition because where you come from has nothing to offer us. You appeal to the spirit of competition in order to manipulate us into allowing you into our society. I just don't want to live with you; I don't want you in my neighborhood. I don't want to compete with you- I don't want my children to compete with you. I just don't want you around. You only care about competition because you only get upside from that arrangement, you have nothing at stake. I have my neighborhood at stake, and much more than that from the prospect of allowing millions of Indians to live with me "because competition."
SecureSignals
1mo ago
I don't think he literally believes in Valhalla either. I think it went something like this: he wanted to eulogize Kirk, but invoking heaven would be weird since that's not what Hindus believe. At the same time he doesn't want to invoke Hindu thought on the afterlife because that would also be weird. So he resorts to a third option, referencing Valhalla which is indeed a common enough reference for people joking around/larping but is uncommon in a eulogy for a devout Protestant and would be considered in poor taste by Protestants in general.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
One commonality among essentially all immigrants to the United States has been an Abrahamic faith, or at least little to no expression of religious faith outside the Abrahamic sphere among political and cultural elite. This has a useful function of allowing everyone to appeal to God and they are essentially appealing to the same figure- smoothing over religious differences and providing a point of reference for authority. The mass immigration of Hindus, on the other hand, sticks out like a sore thumb. When a Hindu appeals to God on the RNC stage I have no idea what he means. But also when a Hindu (Kash Patel) tells a Protestant (Charlie Kirk) "I’ll see you in Valhalla" it is somehow even more incoherent.
How can/should Hindus appeal to the divine and the afterlife in public pleasantries like this? Should they invoke their own religious mythos? Or should they just appeal to "God" even though they are not talking about the same literary figure(s) as everyone else? Should/are they all going to convert to Christianity? Seems unlikely. They should probably just avoid this trap altogether although that's difficult to do for a Conservative constituency.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
Kirk would have been a serious contender for holding Office as well, maybe even higher office, it's a significant blow to the Conservative movement.
The motive doesn't really make sense, despite Kirk's recent mild criticisms he was probably the most pro-Israel Gen-Z influencer. Kirk's audience being set adrift, and it being likely Fuentes will posture to capture some of that market share, doesn't seem to provide a clear benefit in relation to the risks. So my prior is low and there's no evidence. The only evidence I'm aware of is Fox News mentioning foreign Intelligence being somehow related to the manhunt, but that can mean a lot of things.... and apparently some old guy falsely confessed to the crime in police custody which is strange.
Nick Fuentes though has talked pretty soberly recently (even before this) about his life being in danger, if he gets killed the priors are much different. But now political commentators from all sides of the aisle are considering the possibility of this happening to them.
Edit: I didn't really follow Kirk's content, but apparently he got closer to very substantive criticism of Jews than I had realized. Doesn't really change my analysis, and I do think it's significant that Kirk reportedly associated criticism of Israel with personal risk but it remains far more likely to have been some amateur. It's really not hard to accurately shoot a rifle.
If you keep in eye on the e-influencer sphere, they are all shellshocked. Even those who are political adversaries of Kirk, like Ethan Klein, were brought to tears- obviously not due to love for the man himself but realization that their profession and status as C-list political celebrities makes them the highest ratio of political value / target hardness for anyone who would want to do something like that. And Pandora's box has been opened.
There's definitely a threshold had has been crossed and it wouldn't surprise me if these sort of events completely disappear as a result. Is Crowder going to keep doing his campus debate thing after this?
The pivot happened after October 7th, when the woke movement and campus protestors in particular transitioned from anti-white demonstration to protesting Israel. That was the moment the elite apparatus, with Bill Ackman being an iconic example of someone who supported wokeness before that moment, but then had a "realization" that wokeness had run amok and had to be extirpated from elite colleges, began his highly public "war on woke." Ackman, he says, had no idea how dangerous Wokeness truly was until they started protesting Israel:
I ultimately concluded that antisemitism was not the core of the problem, it was simply a troubling warning sign – it was the “canary in the coal mine” – despite how destructive it was in impacting student life and learning on campus.
I came to learn that the root cause of antisemitism at Harvard was an ideology that had been promulgated on campus, an oppressor/oppressed framework, that provided the intellectual bulwark behind the protests, helping to generate anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hate speech and harassment.
Then I did more research. The more I learned, the more concerned I became, and the more ignorant I realized I had been about DEI, a powerful movement that has not only pervaded Harvard, but the educational system at large. I came to understand that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion was not what I had naively thought these words meant.
I have always believed that diversity is an important feature of a successful organization, but by diversity I mean diversity in its broadest form: diversity of viewpoints, politics, ethnicity, race, age, religion, experience, socioeconomic background, sexual identity, gender, one’s upbringing, and more.
What I learned, however, was that DEI was not about diversity in its purest form, but rather DEI was a political advocacy movement on behalf of certain groups that are deemed oppressed under DEI’s own methodology.
This dovetails with the rise of "anti-woke" figures like Bari Weiss poised to be installed at the top of CBS with her shitty news startup about to be acquired for $200 million, also demonstrating this realignment at the highest levels of media.
This post follows the "ideas I don't like are Cults and the ones I do like are Rational" signaling, but the fact is it's cults all the way down. Cult, after all, is the root of the word culture. It's not about a struggle of cults against rationalism it's about a struggle of cults among cults. And the dominant cults of the time may appear invincible and their ideas unassailable but that's never the case.
The Rational perspective is not to oppose cults, it's to foster the cults that have the greatest n-order effects for some objective; like the flourishing of civilization. The racial consciousness of yore that you denounce was a cult, sure, but so is the emotional scandal you feel today when you consider that set of beliefs- anti-racists really do believe in antiracism. Which set of beliefs is more functional? That's the more important question than just denouncing one or the other as a cult.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
It is not the case that millions of Jews died in these camps and the Germans made all their bodies disappear- from death of any cause. Auschwitz registered the deaths of 69,000 prisoners (the plurality were Catholic) from 1941 - 1943. The mainstream historians are the ones claiming millions died in these camps and the Germans made their bodies disappear.
Revisionist estimates of mortality in these camps is derived from German documentation. The overall camp death toll, including Jews and non-jews was, IIRC, somewhere around 275,000 over the entire war- mostly due to typhus and catastrophic conditions near the end of the war. The notion that ~3 million Jews died in these camps and their bodies were disappeared by the Germans, never to be found, is the mainstream historical claim and not the Revisionist claim.
Your intuition is correct that it is outlandish to think the Germans could make millions of bodies from these camps just disappear, they couldn't and they didn't.
I did not say no Jews were shot- Jews were shot as part of anti-partisan efforts. I said that there is no equivalent to the Commissar Order for "killing all the Jews". The Commissar Order shows that when there was a plan to kill a certain class of people, it was communicated through orders. And it leaked. And it was not followed by all officers. There's no equivalent to that for the claim that the German policy was to kill all the Jews. But if you were to say there was an order to kill all the Soviet Commissars, sure, the document giving the order says so right there! That's usually how history works, a claim is made and it's supported by documents.
But with the Holocaust we are told the order to kill all the Jews was communicated through Mind Reading, and no that is not a straw-man those are direct words.
I originally questioned, ie that the misleading translation subhuman was "deliberately manipulative" (or "deliberatively" manipulative, as you had erroneously written) as if you had refuted my counter in any wa
I have explained how the mistranslation is used to propagate false information- namely that the enmity of the Nazis towards the Soviet Union was derived from their race science and belief that the Slavs were subhuman. But the enmity was driven by Nazi hostility towards Bolshevism, and "Untermensch" understood in its correct context provides strong evidence for that fact. Instead the mistranslation is absolutely iconic in falsely propagating German motives with respect to their posture towards Russia and "Subhuman Slavs".
This is used in conjunction with the mistranslation and overemphasis of "Master Race" which was not a term that was written or would have been familiar among the public. Rosenberg himself accused the prosecutors at Nuremberg of mistranslating his work and mincing translations for misleading purposes. So at least the chief creator of this propaganda claimed the translations were misleading, and the motives for that are clear in this setting.
I think you are underestimating how carefully that i.e. prosecutors at Nuremberg would be very careful to pick how they translated text in order to bolster their case (i.e. deceptively). The mistranslation of "untermensch" is not obviously deceptive in itself, but because of how that translation is used to propagate other widely believed but false lies.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
It's certainly a bit of esoteric history, but the term "under man" was actually introduced by American author Lothrop Stoddard in his 1922 pamphlet The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-man. The term was adopted by the Nazis from that book's German version Der Kulturumsturz: Die Drohung des Untermenschen (1925). The leading racial propagandist Rosenberg (earlier I posted his testimony disputing the "Master Race" translation of his work and the translation/denotation of "Ausrottung"), wrote in 1930 that "this is the kind of human being that Lothrop Stoddard has called the ‘under man.'” "…den Lothrop Stoddard als ‘Untermenschen’ bezeichnete." Quoting Stoddard: “The Under-Man – the man who measures under the standards of capacity and adaptability imposed by the social order in which he lives."
The term was applied also to figures like Churchill and Roosevelt and even Germans who were Communist sympathizers.
I would say the translation is deliberately manipulative foremost because it has advanced the fiction that the Germans considered Slavs "sub-human", with the propaganda pamphlet Der Untermensch being the chief piece of German propaganda used to establish that claim. But Der Untermensch doesn't mention "slavs" a single time, "Untermensch" is used to describe, culturally and ideologically, Bolshevism and the threat it imposed on "Aryan Europe." The Russians are portrayed as victims, and the cultural connotation of the term used that way is very clear, here for example the art on the left is labeled Zwei Untermenschen and on the right Zwei Menschen. The term was used by the Nazis to characterize cultural and political struggle against what they viewed as counter-civilizational cultural and political movements.
Stoddard's interpretation of the "Under-man" and it's use in Nazi propaganda is very similar to the Rationalist musings of what they call "bio-leninism." But it was not a racial categorization and the slavs were not called "subhuman".
The translation and interpretation of the term in popular understanding as a racial classification is deliberatively manipulative meant to discredit Nazi thinking. "Slavs are subhuman? How could anybody possibly believe that?" is a lot easier for mass audiences to grapple with than engaging the propaganda as it was actually written and what it was actually saying.
It has not been established that they knew that that they were getting executed
It did not happen. I'm not claiming they knew that they were getting executed, I'm claiming it never happened. My falsifiable claim though is that central to the operation was the claim that the Jews were tricked into believing they were taking a shower. Aamadan found this hard to believe, rightfully so, so he and others are trying to provide a justification for why a large crowd of people in a confined space would behave the way they did if they knew they were densely packing themselves into gas chambers. And without fail avoiding crowd panic or the "fire in a crowded theater" effect from people seeing through the deception- which by mainstream accounts never happened at Birkenau.
The reality is Amadan and others making this argument don't understand how important the concept of "shower room deception" is to the Holocaust. It is claimed that no more than 2-4 Germans guarded the entire extermination operation at Birkenau, and that the entire operation was managed and carried out by a group of 100 unarmed Jewish prisoners.
So you have 2-4 Germans overseeing 100 Jewish prisoners orchestrating the execution of 2,000 fellow Jews on a near-daily basis. That is the mainstream claim. If the group of victims panicked then it would be an extremely difficult situation and present a huge security threat to the entire operation. The notion of deception is important because according to the mainstream historical claims the crowds of victims did not panic, they densely packed themselves inside the gas chambers on the orders of Jewish inmates overseeing the operation with no more than 2-3 armed German guards.
The story as-is is not believable, but also the story that the crowd of 2,000 people saw through the ruse but cooperated and coordinated so well as to achieve a density of > 9 people per square meter in their own execution chamber with practically no guard presence at all is also not believable. Neither story makes sense, but the historical consensus is that the cooperation of the Jews was achieved through a "shower room" deception, and the Germans were so confident in the effectiveness of the ruse that they only had a couple of Germans guarding 100 Jewish "Sonderkommandos" managing 2,000 victims. None of the possibilities make sense, because it's just a myth that never happened.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
At Auschwitz it's claimed the extermination operation was managed by 100 (unarmed) Jewish prisoners and just 2-4 German guards. You can hear directly from a Jew who saw it all! So in the direct vicinity we are talking about thousands of people who ostensibly knew they were being led to an execution chamber guarded by a few Germans.
What is your claim anyway?
Let's review how we got here: I claimed it was silly to believe that ~3 million Jews were tricked into walking inside gas chambers on the pretext of taking a shower. Amadan, I believe, said that it was a straw man because obviously the Jews would know they were being led to their deaths. I have explained the necessity for the "shower room" deception as an indispensable part of Holocaust mythos, because otherwise it would make no sense for Germans to design a system that would cause a massive security threat in the event of the crowd panicking and not neatly arranging themselves inside gas chambers in the manner claimed by mainstream historians. Of course the liars that spun the gas chamber story knew that too, that's why they claim deception was employed because otherwise it's difficult to explain why the system would be designed this way, to so heavily expect the cooperation of crowds of thousands of people to behave the way they allegedly did.
My claim is very clear, that leading a crowd into a small building and crowding them into a gas chamber with this density would be a very difficult task. It would require not only cooperation but extreme discipline among the victims to get themselves all in a room like that. The question is why would a group of thousands of people achieve this level of group coordination in achieving their own execution when any sort of resistance would make this task purely impossible regardless of any guards with machine guns.
There is an explanation for why the Jews, without resistance, crammed themselves at a density of over 9 people / sq meter inside gas chambers. The mainstream explanation is that they were deceived into believing they were going to take a shower, so that's why they behaved the way they did. But people here don't find that explanation plausible, of course it isn't. Yet at the same time it's even less plausible that this crowd behavior reliably and routinely emerged, many times on a daily basis without fail, when the crowd knew they were cramming themselves inside their execution chambers. There is no room for guards inside the building to manage a panicking crowd... If any Jews were hesitant to walk inside the gas chamber any guard would be in a very confined space with 2,000 people- machine gun or not would not be able to manage a riot if the crowd rushed the exit... which apparently never happened at all despite 1 million people allegedly being killed at Auschwitz with this system... and of course the remains of those people have never been found and this operation escapes any documentary reference even among top-secret SS communication intercepted by the British coming out of Auschwitz.
For example, they could have attacked the police/gestapo with a knife upon their arrest. And the ones that provably showed up for transport voluntarily, could have gone into hiding/fled/etc instead of showing up. And they could have organized a revolt in the transit camp. And they could have panicked/revolted when brought to the railway station at the transit camp.
They did not believe they were going to gas chambers. They believed they were going to work/concentration camps (which they were). That was why they boarded the trains without much resistance. But the problem here is you are admitting that the notion of deception in convincing 2,000 Jews to cram themselves inside a small gas chamber is not plausible. So you lose your explanation for why the crowd would behave the way they did, and why they wouldn't panic or show any resistance.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
Hacha voluntarily traveled to Germany and eagerly accepted Hitler's invitation. Most people do not even know what the Munich Agreement says, it's very short you can read it in two minutes. Hacha freely traveling to Berlin and making the agreement he did does not violate any part of Munich.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
The notoriety of the "Master Race" is supposed to be the most extreme invocation of scientific racism. That is not to say that the Germans did not believe in scientific racism (they obviously did), but the few cases of the use of "Herrenvolk", which was not common in popular propaganda and would not have been in the minds of the general public, is more in the context of this statement here of "raising the German people up" to reach their potential. The Nazis and Hitler in particular viewed the concept of "German" as multi-ethnic in itself. Rosenberg in particular did not go along with the interpretation of "Master Race" manufactured by the Allies at Nuremberg:
ROSENBERG: I do not need a foreign dictionary in order to explain the various meanings "Ausrottung" may have in the German language. One can exterminate an idea, an economic system, a social order, and as a final consequence, also a group of human beings, certainly. Those are the many possibilities which are contained in that word. For that I do not need an English-German dictionary. Translations from German into English are so often wrong-and just as in that last document you have submitted to me, I heard again the translation of "Herrenrasse." In the document itself "Herrenrasse" is not even mentioned; however, there is the term "ein falsches Herrenmenschentum" (a false master mankind). Apparently everything is translated here in another sense.
This is also seen in the fact that "untermensch" is translated as "subhuman", which is not a good translation in comparison to "underman"- the inverse of the Nietzschean Overman. So that concept of "untermensch" is misrepresented, mostly through manipulative translation, to make the concept about racial supremacism when it was about a deeper political and ideological struggle.
The majority of them would rather live and operate here, and support and display loyalty to that country from here and not there. And exercise power here for the benefit of that foreign country. They want it both ways. Obviously I would be very happy for the development if it not were for the subversive loyalty to that foreign state at every institutional level of our culture. If they all went to Israel that would be one thing.
More options
Context Copy link