@SecureSignals's banner p

SecureSignals

Ere the Sun rises

19 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 06 13:34:27 UTC

				

User ID: 853

SecureSignals

Ere the Sun rises

19 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 06 13:34:27 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 853

What does "account for all the missing Jews" even mean? If you claim 800,000 people were murdered at a precisely known location, but there's no documentary or physical evidence for the claim, it falls apart.

There isn't even a list of names or anything of those alleged 800,000 victims, they are anonymous, which is another dubious aspect of the claim.

Anonymous victims, no documentary evidence for the event, no physical evidence for the event, no bodies or mass graves, no contemporary witness account of the event. Impossible claims of 5,000 people being cremated every single day on primitive outdoor cremations with not a single observation of that operation, the smoke of which would have been clearly visible from Warsaw and even Lublin. No reports from the Polish underground of such an operation who were spying in the area.

Edit: On top of that Revisionists have already proven the Extermination camp narrative and gas chamber narrative was a lie at Majdanek. So there is already precedent for Soviet-Polish investigators lying or being wrong about such an operation at other camps in Poland.

And likewise homicidal gas chambers disguised as shower rooms were initially claimed at the Western camps but disproven after investigation. So what are the chances that all of these claims were proven false at the Western camps and Majdanek, but then they actually happened at Treblinka?

The claim was made in both the West and East camps. The West camps were investigated and the claim was disproven. The East camps were "investigated" by the Soviets and they did not allow Western observers to participate in the investigation. They modified structures post-war and claimed they were original like the gas chamber shown on tour in Auschwitz.

It's covered in his own work which he stands by. There's no physical evidence for ~2 million people being killed in those locations, there's never been an excavation of a single mass grave in any of those camps. There's no documentary evidence or physical evidence or contemporary witness accounts justifying those claims. It all comes from after-the-fact and highly contradictory testimony.

You can't just leave something like Revisionism as a high-profile figure, if you want to quit you have to denounce your previous views even if it's insincere to make a clean break and that was his attempt to do so, he said as much.

You just jumped from "was there an organised attempt to kill all the Jews?" to "was there a specific individual document that said to kill all the Jews?"

There was neither an organized attempt to kill all the Jews nor any orders or written plans to do so. That is made-up propaganda. The lack of any documents is very strong evidence that nothing of the sort was ever organized, and the lack of documents, plans, or written orders for some alleged initiative to kill all the Jews is very well-known.

But in most places, definitely including here on the Motte, you can map with nearly 100% consistency someone who is "critical of Israel" or "anti-Zionist" to "really hates Jews." ...

Almost nobody is actually criticizing Israel because they think the Israelis should negotiate differently or if they just did this or that they could have peace. There are no circumstances in which Israel will ever be "okay" with them. They just hate Jews. Simple as.

So in your world there is basically nobody who is critical of Israel or Jews because of the things Israel or Jews do- they just hate Jews. Simple as.

The problem I have with Jared Kushner is not ipso facto that he is loyal to his own ethnostate, the problem I have is he undermines my country for the benefit of that foreign country while he ostensibly represents us in extremely important matters with enormous consequences.

The problem I have with Israel is not ipso facto that it is laser-focused on the well-being and thriving of Jews, the problem I have is how that operatively conflicts with my own political interests and weakens my country from within.

There's no contradiction in complaining about people working against my interests while also recognizing the elements that make it so effective and seeking to adopt them.

I think it is highly necessary for White people to start behaving more like Jews, in important respects.

Don't really know what I am evading. Going back to the very first comment, all I was doing was disputing Amadan's claim that nearly all criticism of Zionism is derived from a pre-existing hatred of Jews for no reason. Aamadan's comment implied no space for people's perception of Jews to be influenced by the things Jews do. It's a clear argument attributing responsibility to Jews for the way people perceive them, including the negative perceptions that are basically all true.

The Jewish Lobby, the ADL, the ultra-warmongering Zionists in our media and our government like Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro, AIPAC, Israel, would you acknowledge that is all Jewish behavior? Maybe the problem people have with Jews is caused by the things they do?

Eric Hunt left Revisionism for a bunch of reasons, internal politics of the movements and such. It's a pretty tough job being a high-profile Revisionist, enormous pressure with little or no pay.

But in the past couple years Hunt has disavowed that article and he is a Revisionist again and he stands by his content, including that video I posted.

Keep in mind he was doing this when nobody else was talking about it, and YouTube basically increased their censorship solely because of Eric Hunt, his content was the very first victim of a high-censorship YouTube. Now that a lot of people on X and such talk about it he's found more satisfaction in the impact of his work. Nick Fuentes cited that video I linked by Hunt as being influential on Nick.

So he's a Revisionist and he stands by that work and he takes credit for the proliferation of Revisionism which he should, he did great work.

But "the Holocaust" - a concerted effort to exterminate Jews - happened

No it did not. There has famously never been any written document or order found demonstrating a concerted effort to exterminate all the Jews. Such an order never existed and that was not the German policy.

Some Jews were killed definitely in reprisals etc. But there was no "extermination plan" as claimed, that is a lie as much as the gas chamber story.

If you want an example of someone who is "critical of Jews but not a Jew hater" then tell me why they are "critical of Jews." That's what I'm asking you for.

They are critical of Jews because those criticisms of Jews are true, important, and necessary.

I've lived my entire life surrounded by criticism of White culture, identity, and religion, only I never called those people "White-Haters" I called them Professor and I watched their movies and read their books. Jews engage in constant, sharp criticism of White culture, religion, and identity. Some of it is true, a lot of it is false. Maybe it's because I grew up surrounded by it that I'm not inclined to prosecute someone as a "White-hater" for engaging in a criticism of White people, I'm happy to engage the argument rather than litigate emotionally-loaded labels.

But growing up has also made me aware of the state of affairs in which Jews, through all political and cultural institutions they exercise influence, incessantly engage in cultural criticism of White culture and identity while screaming "Jew hater!" to any White person who reciprocates criticism of Jewish culture and identity.

I think I've demonstrated the point, you were unable to identify anyone who engages in criticism of Jewish culture and identity to the extent that thousands of renowned Jews have engaged in criticism of White culture and identity throughout all our cultural institutions- without the baggage of being accused of Jew Hater by the Jewish NGOs that make this sort of determination. Your label does reduce to- anyone who engages in criticism of Jews, but you reserve no label for Jews who engage in criticism of white identity, history, and culture.

But wait, George Wallace is not even an example of what I am asking for. I asked you for anyone who is critical of Jews but not a "Jew Hater" in your mind or in the minds of the Jewish NGOs that determine this sort of thing. This is an important question, because if you deny my claim that "Jew Hater" or "Antisemite" is a slur for people who are critical of Jews, you ought to be able to identify people who are critical of Jews but with the faith of being spared that accusation. So, where are they?

The fact is, it is a slur meant to destroy the reputation of anybody who gets too close to the truth on those questions. That's what it's for, that's what you're using it for. It's a consensus-enforcement mechanism. Actual "hatred" does not play into it, it's a slur.

Is there a meaningful difference?

I don't know, is there a meaningful difference between an antisemite and someone who "hates Jews" in your mind? Is it possible to be antisemitic and not hates Jews?

Who are people who are critical of Jews but are not "people who hate Jews" in your mind, who are not fully or partially Jewish themselves? Like Pat Buchanan probably fits in that zone, even though he has been called antisemitic plenty despite watering down his critique to desperately avoid that accusation.

The whole thing really is just a slur for people who criticize Jewish behavior, even if it's rational and necessary.

Edit: Damn, ADL says Buchanan is a Jew-hater so I guess he doesn't count. Anyone else? Bueller? Or is "Jew Hater" really just a slur for people who engage in criticism of Jews after all?

the Holocaust was a good thing, to the extent he admits it happened

It didn't happen though. How could I think it was a good thing and it didn't happen?

I don't think it's a good thing that millions of Jews were tricked into walking inside gas chambers that were disguised as shower rooms, it is something that simply never happened.

My only question is why don't you just use "Antisemite", did that lose its luster so "Jew Hater" is the new word for it? It's more emotionally loaded I suppose which is the only reason you invoke it.

What I'm saying is "Jew-hater" is a fair accusation

No, it's an inquisition. You want me to qualify my criticisms in a way that gives deference to Jews, touts Jewish friends, denounces "hatred" whatever the fuck that means, and ultimately empowers the accusation even in the act of denial. This is proven by the fact that most of the replies to your initial comment assured you that they are not Jew-Haters despite their opinion on current events. I am not responding to your inquisition, I reject it.

Have I ever called Greenblatt a "White-Hater"? Do I think Greenblatt just hates every single white person he knows, has no White friends, and every time he meets a White person Greenblatt secretly wishes he could kill him? Obviously I think there's much more nuance to his identity and political perspective, emotional disposition towards Gentiles, in spite of the fact it is clearly oppositional to me, but you will never accept that my disposition is more similar to Greenblatt but on the other side of the conflict than it is to the cartoon villain you have in your head.

I couldn't imagine having a discussion with him and demanding that he either affirms or denies he's a White-Hater, and not only because such an accusation lacks any currency unlike the accusation of being a Jew-Hater. It's bullshit, but you have to resort to those tactics because there is so much actual substance and implications to the criticisms being made you feel the need to play these stupid games I reject.

Not going in your funhouse, sorry- "I have Jewish friends pls don't call me that name!!!" I reject the power of your slur. It's retarded honestly and more retarded than ever given the state of the world and how relevant the criticisms I have made on this forum have proven to be. Calling everybody who criticizes Jews for the consequences of their own behavior "Jew Haters" is losing currency by the hour, you just look ridiculous at this point to be honest.

Poor Jews, so put-upon for no reason, everybody hates them for no reason, and when people criticize them it's almost always because they hate them for no reason. Antisemitism is the fault of everybody in the world except Jews. And if you think otherwise I am going to call you a Jew Hater. Enjoy the last days of that garbage holding any water!

No, both the "you are an X hater" are only slurs, like calling someone a heretic in Old Salem. I don't engage in affirmation or denial, I reject the tired playbook of trying to jacket someone with an -ist or an -ism or an x-hater. My opinions on Jews are contained in the sum of my writings, if you want to call me a Jew Hater go ahead it's not something I'm going to contend with, you may as well call me a Racist or a Sinner or a Heretic, it's all the same thing to me.

I reject your notions so totally that I'm not going in your little funhouse to argue I shouldn't meet your definition of Jew-hater, please sir don't call me a Jew-Hater I swear I am not! Please! Not playing that game and am never going to, I reject it, it's nothing more than a cheap slur for building consensus that Antisemitism is caused by everything under the sun except for the behavior of Jews.

With black behavior, I know what you speak of, though it's a clear minority of blacks who do those things

Well it only takes a very small percentage that do those things to completely enshittify the place they live doesn't it? Places that ought to be the crowned jewel of my community are no longer safe. Things I grew up doing are no longer safe, places I went to closed down because it. None of those impacts are dependent upon the % of the group that engages in that behavior. Obviously if it were small enough to not have those effects then people wouldn't complain about it.

The % of the Jews that are outright spies and traitors (Shapiro, Fine, Levin, Weiss, Kushner, etc.) is small but big and important enough to have disastrous effects on our country, which we are living through right at this moment. The % of Jews that constructively aid the former with political and cultural support is vastly higher even if they aren't directly engaging in the most destructive behavior- that certainly qualifies as subversion. The % of Jews who oppose and criticize it is extremely small but there are a few.

One more time: I know you have reasons.

Yes I do have my reasons, I don't like my country being subverted by foreigners to be led into disastrous consequences for their own benefit.

My opinion of Black people is not derived from the belief they are all guilty of every behavior by association, nor is it with Jews. But that doesn't erase the consequences of the way they tend to behave and its impact on society.

So it's a fine parallel.

The important distinction is that criticism of Blacks is caused by Black behavior. Likewise criticism of Jews is caused by Jewish behavior, it is not "for no reason" like you claimed in your post.

You complain endlessly about being identified as a Joo-poster, a Jew-hater, it's a "thought-terminating slur," but the one thing you cannot deny is that you hate Jews

No, my complaint is that your argument assumes criticism of Jews is motivated by hatred of Jews rather than criticism of actual Jewish behavior.

Are complaints about Black behavior motivated by some unjustified hatred of Blacks? Or are the complaints about Black behavior caused by Black behavior, and the general opinion of Blacks is downstream from that?

Let's apply your argument: The prevailing complaints about Black behavior are almost entirely derived from racism. There's no truth to any of those complaints, maybe <1% have some truth, but the rest of the complaints and stereotypes are just derived from hatred of black people. Of course you think your hatred is rational. Everyone thinks they are being rational. No one says "I just hate people for no reason", but they in fact hate Blacks for no reason and they deceive themselves into thinking there is a rational justification for their sentiment towards Blacks.

My world: the complaints are almost all true, in fact we vastly understate them in an attempt to be tolerant and smooth social cohesion, maybe <1% of the criticisms are false and derived from racism, and negative opinion of Blacks is downstream from that.

So there's not much to say other than you are wrong, my opinion of Jews is downstream from my analysis of these issues, same as Blacks. If you want to call me a "Black-hater" for concurring with prevailing negative opinions and the reasons for them, that's your prerogative but you're just name-calling.

It takes some chutzpah (heh) to complain about being called a Jew-hater as you loudly and vocally insist that hating Jews is rational.

You can call me a Jew-hater all you want, even though it's against the rules of the forum you moderate. I know that "Jew-hater" means "criticizes Jews in any way", I am not here to contend with the semantics of the insults you use to try to dismiss rational and necessary criticism of important issues.

But you can go ahead and think I hate Mark Levin, Randy Fine, Ben Shapiro, Jared Kushner, Jonathan Greenblatt, Bari Weiss, the ADL, AIPAC, etc. simply because they are Jews I hate for no reason, and my analysis of these issues is just me trying to rationalize my pre-existing hatred. It's your prerogative even though it's very stupid and not true.

The whole "Joo hater" thing is just a thought-terminating slur against any reasonable criticism of Jewish behavior. It implies you hate Jews, so you make the criticisms, rather than the genuine problems with Jewish behavior and its consequences forming a rational basis for your complaint. Notably it always acquits Jews of any responsibility from the blowback they receive as a consequence of their own behavior.

Here we are today in a total disaster downstream of all the issues you complain about me raising on this forum, and the "Joo haters" schtick rings more hollow than ever.

That is not at all a clear answer given that Israel has been hostile to relatively secular regimes like Nasser, Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad. Why would the Shah in this counterfactual not be included in that list of Israel's enemies? If it were like Syria, Israel would leverage fundamentalist elements in Iran to destabilize the regime and undermine the Shah like it did in Syria.

I would say it would be disingenuous if one were to ignore (1) Iran's threats to wipe Israel off the map; (2) it's incessant proxy attacks against Israel; and (3) it's decision to enrich Uranium in deep underground bunkers.

Because Israel is a threat to Iran. Israel has spent decades overtly planning for a war with Iran and petitioning the United States to attack Iran. Keep in mind Israel supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war to provide a counterweight to Iraq. Then they take out Iraq by subverting the US foreign policy apparatus and overtly agitate for US to wage war on Iran. They take out Gaddafi (who was actually attempting to cooperate with demands placed on him), Assad, and by all accounts Iran is the crowned jewel of this policy strategy. Do you stop to think maybe that Iranian rhetoric is downstream from Israel's openly admitted foreign policy objectives and actions in pursuing highly destructive regime change throughout the region?

Rallying the country against Israel is fundamentally necessary for the survival of the regime because of Israel's own political strategy.

Syria's new leader was affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS! So why is his ascension over Assad considered such a huge win by Israel and US if this is ultimately about combatting religious extremism in favor of secular leadership? Doesn't that blow the entire "it was the Islamic Revolution's fault" theory out of the water? Israel WANTS an ISIS affiliate to lead Syria instead of Assad. How does this reality correspond to your impression here when it perfectly fits mine?

Edit: It's actually funnier the more you think about. Syria had Israel leveraging radical Islamist groups against the relatively secular Assad regime. Iran had Israel leveraging relatively secular monarchists against the Islamist regime. The only common denominator is Israel's objective to destabilize and destroy its rivals, it's not about fighting Islamism.

Not necessarily a state but an Alliance, Iraqi militias are cooperating with Iran and inflicting huge damage on US assets in Iraq for example.

The point was that secular cooperation among Arabs (with Persians potentially at the helm) is what actually keeps Israeli planners up at night, sectarian fundamentalist slogans are what they point to as a pretext and they actually benefit from it and exploit it. Israel is not pursuing the policy it is because of "Death to Israel" chants, it's doing so for the reasons laid out in the Clean Break Memo, which directly plans on using sectarian fundamentalism to destabilize hostile and relatively secular regimes like Syria to prevent that type of cooperation.

In the counterfactual with the Shah, it would depend on whether he were more of an Assad figure or King of Jordan figure. But it doesn't reduce to the Islamic Revolution.

So the Jews create their colony in the middle of the Muslim world on the basis of superstitious, cult nonsense, and now Muslim religious hostility is cited as the justification for Israel launching these surprise attacks on its neighbors and conquering their territory and displacing the Muslims and destabilizing the region and most likely world economy. The raison d'etre for Israel is far more religious in nature than the Islamic regime in Iran.

The regimes of Assad and Saddam Hussein were not marked by rote Islamic fanaticism towards Israel, yet they were targeted by Israel for the exact same reasons I suggested. In Sryia the new regime is more Islamic than the Assad, accomplished with the support of Israel. A colonial project does not survive given a balance of power with enemies who are surrounding you. It results in colonists leaving. The US colonial project did not thrive on the basis of a balance of power with the Indians, nor the Spanish colonial project.

To answer your question, it would depend on the political objectives of the Shah. The threat of Pan-Arabism is actually what Israel has been trying to nip in the bud for all these years, preventing the political alliance of actually more secular leaders like Assad, Hussein, Nasser, and since the fall of Iraq Iran is the greatest threat of providing a basis for greater political unity and cooperation among Arabs. That is the 100x greater threat to Israel than Islamic fundamentalism- Israel's policy does not reduce to Muslim hostility, it's about making Israel the regional hegemon to secure its colonial project.