SecureSignals
No bio...
User ID: 853
SecureSignals
8mo ago
I have explained in depth why it's not possible. On the face of it the fuel requirements to cremate that many people on open-air pyres defies all evidence and logical possibility. Even Grok and ChatGPT admit the Revisionist arguments are true. The claimed operation is not even remotely possible.
Historically it has only been extremely marginalized Holocaust Deniers that point out this glaring problem with the Holocaust story. But now AI takes their side on this massive problem with the mainstream theory.
Here's volume V, you can do a search yourself and there is no reference at all to approximately 3 millions Jews being murdered inside shower rooms.
Eh this is why the conversation with you reminds me of other generic conspiracy theorists. It all feels very wishy washy.
The mainstream theory is that there are no bodies at the extermination camps like Treblinka because they were all unburied over the course of 120 days and cremated on open-air pyres, despite no documentary or physical evidence for that claim, and despite no contemporary reports of a such an operation.
Why don't you ask Grok if it is possible that 800,000 corpses were exhumed at Treblinka and cremated on open-air pyres over the course of ~120 days? This is what the mainstream claims- this is "The Holocaust." It's completely impossible. Even OpenAI's model now admits this story is not feasible. But this is the Holocaust narrative.
Imagine an alternate world where no one claimed gas chambers and said 2-3 million Jews were rounded up and effectively murdered through horrible conditions and starvation.
What you don't understand is that those 2-3 million did not die in concentration camps, if that many died at all which is highly doubtful. The death toll in the concentration camps is a small fraction of that number. And most who died in the concentration camps did so in final months of the war due to Germany being destroyed on all sides and infrastructure totally collapsing. Many died under the custody of Stalin during and after the war, and never came under German occupation in the first place. The death toll in the concentration camps was a small fraction of that number.
After the war, 12 to 14 million Germans were expelled and estimates for the number of Germans who died vary but exceed 2 million on the higher end. Nobody knows that fact at all. You are completely wrong that if 2 million Jews had died throughout the war due to general wartime conditions, which would put their attrition similar to the people around them where they lived (Poles, Ukranians, etc.), that the Holocaust mythos would stand as prominently as it does today.
What shocks the conscious is the gas chamber story. That is what makes Jewish suffering more important than the suffering of everyone else in the eyes of the culture.
And yeah I will still say I don't really care if they lied about the method of death and doubled the numbers. But I mostly don't care because everyone that would have perpetrated the lie is dead and out of power.
It says more about you that a radical change of facts on a historical event like this wouldn't register at all with you- you maintain the same opinion even when the historical premise radically changes. You also couldn't possibly be more wrong- the people responsible for perpetuating the lie are very much alive and in power, and they are using their power desperately to keep the lie alive using all means available. Civil and criminal measures enforcing Belief in the ridiculous gas chamber story are far stronger and more widespread than ever before. And banning Holocaust Denial has always been a primary impetus of increased censorship across social media.
I have a recency bias, and WWII is not recent.
I have a recency bias too, and I have eyes and ears and can clearly see the delineation between culture war issues which are fundamental to issues discussed by those like OP and the Holocaust mythos. It's a living mythos, the Hitler anti-Christ narrative is so fundamental to modern culture war issues, saying "WWII is not recent so it doesn't matter much" is incredibly myopic and wrong.
SecureSignals
8mo ago
It's pretty dishonest to pretend that nobody would react to the revelation that the entire extermination camp and gas chamber story was a lie, and nobody was killed in that fashion. You are saying you wouldn't care if that turned out to be false (I don't believe you by the way) but it would be shocking to many people. Certainly that story is the epicenter of the placement of Hitler as the anti-Christ of Western Methology. Things get very awkward if you admit the entire gas chamber and extermination camp story was all just a huge lie meant to manipulate the public, a lie you will get arrested in Europe for challenging.
The Germans were capable of a 1% death rate in prison camps (the death rate of American POWs).
The Typhus epidemic killed 2-3 million people during WWI, mostly civilians. The Germans did not have a vaccine for Typhus during WWII.
The conditions in the concentration camps were also tolerable throughout most of the war, save for outbreaks of disease. It was in the final months of the war when German infrastructure was being destroyed from all sides that the catastrophic conditions became ubiquitous, a fact that this Revisionist film covers very well.
So we're talking about one of the biggest events of WWII, and certainly the most unusual event, with millions of men, women and children allegedly being tricked into gas chambers on the pretext of taking a shower and murdered. It's the event that forms the foundation of the contemporary anti-Christ mythos around Hitler.
And you couldn't find a single concrete reference to that in Winston Churchill's six-volume The Second World War, as I said, so you instead point to a single vague reference in a dialogue during a dream-sequence in a short story, which doesn't mention gas chambers or even Jews. Certainly my point still stands very, very tall. The fact you have to reach so hard to find a single reference of this world-changing event (which doesn't directly mention it in any case, it's just a literary allusion) from someone like Churchill proves the point very well.
It is worth noting in understanding the WWII mythos that is the subject of the discussion. Why was it not mentioned at all in thousands of pages of memoirs across the most important leaders? There are two theories: the mainstream theory is that this is just a testament to how much Allied leaders were ambivalent towards Jews, therefore also providing evidence they wouldn't wage a psychological warfare campaign to sacralize a Jewish victimization narrative which is the ultimate bedrock to this entire discussion- including the reason a song like this is censored so heavily. The Revisionist theory is that they knew the nonsense story about millions being tricked into gas chambers disguised as shower rooms would eventually be debunked like the very similar WWI propaganda about the Kaiser's death factories.
But @johnfabian is wrong that Churchill's writing represents the Holocaust being viewed as uniquely terrible early on, it isn't mentioned at all in many volumes of writing across thousands of pages written by the most important belligerents who otherwise have a strong incentive to feature that story to justify their own frame of the war.
It's worth noting that Churchill does not, in this passage nor anywhere else in writing- including Churchill's six volumes of Second World War, reference Nazi gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. The Holocaust is not referenced at all in any concrete terms either in Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe, nor in Charles de Gaulle's memoirs.
SecureSignals
8mo ago
It's banned on YouTube and every single streaming or music hosting service (Spotify etc.). X is the only place that allows hosting it.
It cannot be denied that it's a truly transgressive song, and a genuine act of rebellion, given it warrants this response. Can anyone else think of a single song that has received this treatment despite the ubiquitousness of explicit material in that genre?
SecureSignals
8mo ago
The "4d chess" interpretation of the Trump administration's policy is that they are leveraging a forcing function for greater European integration and remilitarization which are both good things. The thing is the "4d chess" hypothesis for explaining Trump's behavior has been wrong every time. This is also revealed by the Signal leaks which reveal Vance's genuine distaste for defending European interests.
I think a lot of Revisionists, sure, are highly invested in "the Germans were the good guys". But I do see the issue from a different perspective. Good and evil doesn't concern me as much as properly interpreting a very important yet very vulnerable system of control.
At the same time, the accusation that millions were tricked into gas chambers on the pretext of taking a shower does seem outright sensational and stands out among all of human history. It's a total outlier in all respects. I don't doubt the human capacity for murder, but Revisionists seek to invert the symbolic meaning of the gas chamber story- a mythos that forms the bedrock of slave morality becomes perhaps the greatest validation in history of antisemitic critique of Jewish behavior- their capacity for deception and exercising the levers of cultural power to manipulate collective consciousness for their own gain and at the huge expense of their outgroup. That's not slave morality, that's resisting a slave morality.
I have a lot of criticism of Revisionists. A lot of them genuinely do believe they are just "truth seekers" and aren't motivated by antisemitism. But challenging the Holocaust narrative is deeply and intrinsically antisemitic. The thing is those Revisionist critiques are true.
I think you understand why it seems like slave morality to me - so, why isnt it?
I don't understand at all why it would seem like slave morality to you, the Holocaust mythos is the bedrock of Western slave morality. Holocaust Revisionism is fundamentally a criticism of hegemonic Western slave morality, which is why it is treated so seriously by the powers that be. Foremost it's true- the Holocaust narrative itself is untenable in the long run. Millions of people were tricked into gas chambers on the pretext of taking a shower, then they were all gassed with an insecticide, cremated, and the ashes scattered so there are no actual remains left to corroborate those claims? And all of this escaped any concrete reference in the enormous body of documentary evidence? It's a ridiculous story that lacks even a remotely reasonable level of physical or documentary evidence to support it. Even Grok takes the Revisionist side of some central issues.
Holocaust Revisionism is necessary foremost because it's true, and because it's true it genuinely undermines the Western Slave morality that is predicated on it. Your notion that disbelieving the ridiculous story of millions murdered inside gas chambers disguised as shower rooms and then magically disappeared is supposed to be "slave morality" couldn't be further from the truth. The Holocaust is a mythos that elevates Jewish concentration camp inmates as the war's greatest victims and history's greatest heroes who demand eternal holy reverence and worship as representing resistance to European empire. The notion that disbelieving that narrative is slave morality is just ridiculous.
This is obviously-to-everyone not serious and edgy for its own sake, which he has done in many directions.
But it's not edgy at all. "I believe Raul Hilberg" is perfectly mainstream. He's trying to take a perfectly mainstream position and repackage it to pose as edgy when it's not edgy at all. So you have the mainstream position - Raul Hilberg, and what is presented as the edgy by the "moderate Holocaust denier." It's the same picture.
It wouldn't surprise me if Yarvin one day actually does take a "moderate Holocaust Denier" position something like "there was clearly a Genocide, but gas chambers disguised as shower rooms? Come on folks." But Yarvin and BAPs highly selective gullibility on the gas chamber story speaks volumes.
Disagree. The lead-up to WW2 turns into the "warning signs".
It's true that "this is like the lead-up to WWII" is often invoked, but that is always invoked as a nod to the Holocaust and genocide as a terminal impact of not following whatever foreign policy is advocated for by the person invoking this. The "warning sides" leading up to WWII invoked to justify things like the Iraq wars, war with Iran, etc. is always an invocation of the Holocaust mythos to justify aggression against somebody else.
Why? Whats the point of someone who believes the holocaust but rejects its moral lesson? It seems to me rather that if its really important to you to deny it, you kind of believe the lesson.
There are incredibly important lessons in the Holocaust mythos. The lessons surround extremely important topics like means and motives for pscyhological warfare, deception, the art of the Big Lie, the way that a religio-cultural narrative can shape not only the moral narrative of a society but radically change the genetic fabric of a civilization within a single generation. It's a hard lesson about a mode of racial aggression and conflict that is imperceptible to an average person who goes to watch Schindler's List in a theater and becomes profoundly moved.
It's not about rejecting the moral lessons of the Holocaust, which can be rejected independently, it's about the lessons learned from a critical analysis of how this modern-day Exodus myth became the bedrock of Western mythology and its moral compass snowballing into Civil Rights, Zionism, tolerance, racial diversity, mass immigration and genetic replacement, wokeism... Yarvin and BAP, with their highly selective gullibility, are gatekeeping those lessons from their audience.
BAPists are not taking the serial numbers off your stuff, they are reinterpreting the anti-american versions as being about the blue empire.
Yes, but blue empire is not explained by Winston Churchill it's explained by the Holocaust mythos. This is acknowledged by Douglas Murray, who admits that his chief concern with those like Daryl Cooper is not with Winston Churchill per se but it's with young right-wingers rejecting the moral lessons of the Holocaust.
So you have Douglas Murray saying we can't engage in WWII Revisionism because it would threaten to undermine the moral lessons of the Holocaust. Then you have the BAPists and Yarvin who engage in WWII Revisionism but stripped of criticism of the Holocaust mythos. So you have a false opposition, Douglas Murray and Yarvin may as well agree if they both affirm the foundational myth of Blue Empire.
Actually, funnily enough Yarvin just last week on Twitter called himself a Holocaust Denier because he believes Raul Hilberg's estimate of 5.1 million Jews killed in the Holocaust.
It’s not true that I’m not a Holocaust denier. I don’t believe six million died.
I’m a moderate Holocaust denier. I respect Raul Hilberg’s estimate of 5.1M, in his magisterial Destruction of the European Jews. Maybe 5.5M tops
This is reaching levels of "false opposition" on totally unprecedented levels, with Holocaust Believers trying to frame themselves as Deniers on the public stage. It's subversive.
The culpability of Winston Churchill to the outbreak of the conflict is totally irrelevant to the Western Psyche. So engaging in "WWII Revisionism" without critically engaging the Holocaust is a false opposition to the WWII mythos.
I personally know someone who believes a lot of things about WW2 are lies but not the holocaust, and is also antisemitic.
Many such cases, and the function of the "Daryl Cooper vs Douglas Murray" dialectic and the Yarvin "I'm a moderate Holocaust denier because I believe Raul Hilberg" is to keep it that way.
All Jews who do not denounce the Jewish race, Jewish behavior and any Jewish identity or culture with extreme fervour (Unz is, as far as I know, the only one to meet Fuentes’ standard) are the enemy.
Wow isn't it crazy that somebody would just outright demand that you denounce your racial identity if you want to be considered an ally? That must really be terrible. Jews would never do such a thing to Gentiles. /s
But your post is missing the most important bit of context, which is that both MartyrMade and Dave Smith were on Joe Rogan's show. This might on the surface appear shocking and scandalizing because WWII Revisionism and anti-Zionism are ostensibly being platformed on one of the most important shows in the world. But what Nick Fuentes and many others outside his orbit among the "anti-semitic Dissdent Right" are perceiving is heterodox political perspectives previously monopolized by the DR become appropriated and platformed but stripped of actual criticism of Jews.
Dave Smith and Douglas Murray argue over Israel, but the only thing they agree on is that antisemitism is the most evil thing in the world and Jews can never be criticized as such. This is significant because it follows the dialectical approach that antisemites allege is used to manufacture consensus. You don't maintain consensus on a topic like anti-semitism by just making the pro-Israel side win the debate. You do it by making sure that both the anti-Israel and pro-Israel positions are aligned on opposition to the Jewish Question. So these figures like Dave Smith coming to represent the "anti-Israel" side of the debate is, by their interpretation, a manifestation of the approach used to build consensus on something like the JQ. It's in other words a false opposition. A true opposition would be an anti-Israel perspective that is likewise critical of Jewish behavior as such, but that won't be represented in the public debate because it's supposed to be beyond debate.
With MartyrMade also renouncing the "JQ" it contextualizes the fact he was platformed. And likewise Curtis Yarvin, himself Jewish, also gets platformed as ostensibly the most edgy intellectual on the Internet. He has said, nearly exactly, "everything about WWII was a lie except the Holocaust." Oh really, everything was a lie except the abusrd story of millions being tricked into walking inside death showers? As a result, whether you are on the "most extreme" end of WWII Revisionism as represented by someone like Yarvin or MartyrMade, or on the most extreme end in the orthodox narrative, both sides agree on the critical aspects of the Holocaust narrative and the imperative to denounce the JQ.
Of course BAP is himself Jewish, and he was not upfront about that fact. He adopted a hyper "Bronze Age" and Aryan aesthetic and notably, as you mentioned, he is also essentially opposed to the JQ. It's reminiscent of the biblical story of Jacob putting on a disguise of hairy fur to trick his blind father Isaac into believing he was Esau. BAP, Jewish, presents as Aryan to acquire a certain audience but then is sure to steer his followers away from antisemitism.
The point being, the backlash against MartyrMade is not simply because some Twitter dude stepped out of line on the JQ, it's people like Fuentes correctly pointing out that these historical and social critiques of the WWII narrative and Zionism are being appropriated but stripped of any critical analysis pertaining to the JQ- so we are witnessing a new "boundary" in the debate on these topics but they remain a false opposition meant to protect a social consensus around the perception of Jews.
Another interesting shift is the left beginning to adopt the term "ZOG", which has long been a catchy phrase from the Far Right. The Grayzone Podcast, which is hosted by progressive Jews Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate, admitted that although they had always dismissed the term as being a ridiculous conspiracy theory, recent events have proven it to be true and they now use that term directly in their podcast.
The criticism of Israel simultaneously coming from the Left and Right from different angles is absolutely a catastrophe for Israel. Sheer hypocrisy makes no friends in the long run.
Pro-Israel Americans need a feasible game plan for dealing with this shift which doesn’t fall victim to the Streisand Effect.
It's too late, "pro-Israel America" made its own bed with its incessant hatred and abuse of its most important base of support in the entire world- White Americans. They had it perfect- they blew it, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory while they were holding all the cards. All they had to do was be benevolent towards their most important base but they couldn't do it.
SecureSignals
9mo ago
Then why do you call me a Nazi? Because I have racial sensibilities that were shared by the vast majority of Americans before 1940? Because I support historical Revisionism? Why would that imply I adhere to one of the ideologies involved in the controversy?
I would expect others to throw that label around carelessly but it's strange coming from you.
SecureSignals
9mo ago
It's a funny joke but really, they're not any more National Socialist than any normal European state was before WWII. They are quite different from historical Nazis.
The Chinese have essentially adopted fascism since the death of Mao. Certainly they are more fascist and National Socialist than any nation in Europe, so lauding the Chinese to spite those European "Nazis" is frankly ridiculous. Even your premise "The basic level of care for the ethnic majority is just what a state is supposed to do" you yourself seem to pattern-match as "Nazism" when Europeans advocate for that same premise.
But a few more iterations of low-IQ, smug WINNING and ROCKING THE BOAT, and who knows, they may have to pick up the crown tossed their way.
Don't know who you are talking about, I did not vote for Trump and I've criticized him, and I criticized his trade policy. I don't like low-IQ Magaism any more than you do and I don't want to see American imperial hegemony weakened.
Your culture is vulgar and plain bad, and you should feel bad about it.
Yes, I have plenty of criticisms of American and European culture. But you remind me of a lot of other people on the Right Wing who will go, "i.e. American culture is so bad, so I support Putin because only Russia can pose a real challenge to the degeneracy America is exporting around the world." They adopt the same tact in lionizing somebody like Assad, and they just project onto him this Resistance to American culture when it is no such thing- with no logical connection for how Putin or Assad or the Axis of Resistance are going to improve what are fundamentally cultural issues endemic to the United States and Europe.
A culture can change, certainly changing American and European culture is the highest priority. But none of my criticisms of American culture would drive me to support the Chinese.
And yet you run into the arms of National Socialism with Chinese Characteristics... No, Nazism is a dead political movement, not something to be treated as a cheap foreign import. I want to see something new, not trying to rehash a dead ideology, and certainly not turning traitor and running for the embrace of the Chinese who hold those same racial sensibilities you mock Europeans for, and which Europeans do not themselves actually hold.
You simultaneously mock Europeans for being "not capable of resisting a tiny tribe of natural wordcels" and for being parochial when they do voice resistance. You just hate Europeans, particularly the West Europeans, you see them as your enemy and you always have. It's unfortunate. Whatever you accuse me of, my hope for the future is fundamentally pro-European, I want the best for Europe and the United States and I do not want to see them under Chinese hegemony. That's not the future I wish for Russia either. You can mock the suicidal Nazis, I will mock the despondent Russian nationalists who have decided to become Chinese nationalists to have some sort of vent for their understandable but misguided hatred of Europe.
He's a spurned Russian nationalist who has run into the arms of the Chinese. A tragic outcome I don't wish of the Russians writ large. Being a serf isn't a problem so much as a traitor. Justifying that, welcoming the Chinese overlords, on the accusation of Europeans of being serfs is... interesting especially given this criticism is in context of the erratic behavior of high-agency people rocking the boat, like you said.
SecureSignals
9mo ago
Of course rules are arbitrary, but when they are set they are predictable and so they can be anticipated and responded to by other actors. So far the US has adopted the "we'll lead by example and promote free trade even if our partners do not" approach. It's understandable why Trump wants to flex more American power, and a rules-based approach is the correct path, but the rule set here is asinine.
SecureSignals
9mo ago
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a rules-based versus discretionary tariff policy. Making tariffs more of an a-personal "no hard feelings but this is what the equation says the tariff should be" is probably better than the politics that drive arbitrary levels of protectionism. Of course that relies on having a good rule, and the formula here makes no sense.
US Consumers enjoy an economy driven by both high consumption and high investment and low relative savings. That is enabled by trade deficits. It's going to be a major economic shift to pin tariffs against the trade deficit.
It seems to me a better rule would be "we reciprocate 2x tariffs that are placed on us, you need us more than we need you." Doing it against the trade deficit makes no sense. There is definitely going to be a pivot.
SecureSignals
9mo ago
It's not possible to have this conversation without information on the full distribution, so we could interrogate the question over what we would expect the distribution of the class should be.
Let's say average IQ of Whites is 100 with SD 15. So about 4.75% of whites have an IQ of at least 125.
Let's say average Jewish IQ is 110 with SD 15. Then about 15.87% of Jews have an IQ of at least 125.
But Whites are 60% of the population and Jews are about 2.4% of the population. So we expect there to be about 7.5 times the number of White applicants with an IQ at or above 125 compared to Jewish applicants. Instead the ratio is probably closer to 2 to 1 at best at Harvard. At Columbia, where there is now an investigation that is going to ultimately seek to boost the admission of Jews, Whites are only about 34% of the undergrad student body. If the Hillel number is even remotely approximate it suggests Jews outnumber non-Jewish white students.
You can dispute some of these numbers, i.e. if you choose 115 IQ despite the fact there's a bigger range in the literature, then about 25% of Jews would have an IQ of at least 125 and the ratio would be about 4.75. None of these numbers are close to the actual distribution at a place like Harvard or Columbia.
This isn't an end-all be-all analysis, but it's what you would have to do if you wanted to make the point you are trying to make. Just talking about average IQ is not sufficient for the point you are trying to make.
Ultimately though the point I am making is proven by the actions Columbia is taking, which are clearly intended to defend or improve the level of admission of Jewish students on political grounds.
SecureSignals
9mo ago
The pressure on Columbia is not insinuation, it is proof of unfairly prioritizing Jews. Not that even I'm clamoring for "fairness", which does not exist. It's a racial spoils system. It's incredibly naive to think it's about IQ and GPA.
So you concede the level of admissions of Latinos is due to race discrimination, as well as blacks, whites, and Asians. But they totally got it right with Jews, their representation is driven by merit unlike every single other group. Except we are now faced with a plain example of the sort of group organization, networking, and advocacy Jews have always done in promoting their own admission into these institutions.
Columbia's investigation it will be carrying out is about the admission of Jews and not the admission of Whites. If that investigation leads to an increase in the admission of Jews and a decline in the admission of White non-Jews would you also say that is just non-Jewish whites being outcompeted? Or would it be an example of exactly what drives the level of admission in every other ethnic group?
Yes, so the Katyn Massacre, i.e. the murder of 20,000 people was discussed because it was an important issue. But no mention whatsoever of 3 million people being tricked into walking inside death showers? Not a single direct reference to the allegation.
The Katyn Forest Massacre is also relevant because the Germans were falsely blamed for the massacre by the Soviets at the Nuremberg Trial. Whereas the massacre was actually carried out by the Soviets themselves. The Germans conducted an internationally-open investigation, even releasing American POWs to oversee the forensic investigation of the mass graves which included exhumations and autopsies in the presence of international observers. But they were still accused of the crime at Nuremberg, and the Soviets even provided witnesses claiming the Germans did it.
You can say it's a "nothingburger" but it's very strange that the Katyn Forest Massacre is discussed but not the so-called gas chambers. Revisionists claim that the Katyn Forest Massacre controversy was one of the main motivational factors for the gas chamber story in the first place. Soviet Crimes had to be upstaged by the Germans, so they leaned into the gas chamber shower room propaganda to overshadow those real crimes.
The point I was responding to was the claim that Churchill and others immediately recognized the gravity of the Holocaust as such. But that isn't true. I pointed to the fact the gas chamber story was never even acknowledged in these works. Same with Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe and Charles de Gaulle's Memoirs. So they talk about the Katyn Forest Massacre but not the alleged gassing of millions of Jews inside shower rooms. It is a very strange omission.
The gas chamber story didn't gain prominence as part of WWII and Hitler mythos until decades later, largely thanks to the alchemy of Hollywood.
More options
Context Copy link