No Separation, No Peace
The whole purpose of throwing a self-righteous, self-conscious tantrum is to divert attention away from something even more disturbing than the tantrum.In this case blacks are painfully aware they are their own worst enemy. They realize how violent and uncivilized they are. Most want to live in a nice, clean, peaceful White neighborhood. They want more welfare, not less. They want blonde, blue-eyed baby-mommas.
For this intolerable reality someone must pay, and it's not themselves.
Blacks, as a group, say: No justice, no peace. What they're implying is that if they don't get what they want they will cause trouble for the rest of us.
Our notions of justice are so different that they cannot be reconciled.
Labels: black, race, trayvon martin
posted by Tanstaafl at 3/29/2012 10:55:00 PM
45 Comments:
Tanstaafl,
Sir, you are a genius. A short post, succinct and to the point and brimming with wisdom.
I love it when you co-host in the Voice of Reason. Please keep doing it when possible.
Obama may be re-elected, but I damn sure he is the last Black President that this country will ever see.
Here's to him being the last black president not only of the United States but of ANY other white nation.
In this case blacks are painfully aware they are their own worst enemy.
The more intelligent ones, yes. Though for the majority I tend to disagree. And if this awareness does exist, I doubt that it is acute--particularly in the sub-literate hoodie-donning cohort presently on display in the ghettos of Philadelphia and Congress.
Having spent my youth in morbidly close contact to blacks I am of the opinion that they are painfully aware of precious little beyond their own immediate appetites. I would almost say that it is generally a mistake to anthropomorphize their motivations when seeking context for analysis.
Perhaps the best way to view them is simply as rapacious. They want more: food, sex, trinkets, and opportunities to pillage. They view their worst enemies not as themselves, but those who would deny them more. And this is why they are able to embrace their main contradictory conceit: that being the notion of whites as both oppressor and magnet. But there is no contradiction in the black mind. Whites have more, thus blacks pursue. When whites don’t relinquish, blacks have been oppressed.
There will never be an accommodation so long as we strive for civilization in their presence. No separation, no peace indeed.
Well put Porter.
I have always been confused by people who object to Obama being president because he is Black. Whoever is president currently is going to be serving Jewish interests. Far better that he is Black, rather than White. Kind of like I would prefer a serial rapist to be a total stranger rather than a relative -- even a distant cousin several times removed whom I had never meet.
Good point Lily.
I know some very thoughtful Blacks who are much more aware of what is going on then Whites of the same social stratum. As more Blacks fall from the middle class as their government public sector jobs dry up we need to point out the Big jews role in all of this and how Black and Whites are manipulated by them. Marcus Garvey needs to replace MLK. And we need to return to a reality based society.
Once I understood what was going on my supposedly defective psychology magically fixed itself.
Wrong. It actually works the other way around. Once you corrected your defective psychology, then you were able to see what was obvious all along.
"Once you corrected your defective psychology, then you were able to see what was obvious all along."
Speak for yourself friend, not me. Obviousness is subjective.
I didn't correct my brain, I corrected my mistaken view of reality. And I didn't do it alone.
For me the steps were:
- acknowledge and accept the reality of race
- acknowledge and accept that I am White
- acknowledge and accept that jews are not
I didn't correct my brain, I corrected my mistaken view of reality. And I didn't do it alone.
For me the steps were:
- acknowledge and accept the reality of race
- acknowledge and accept that I am White
- acknowledge and accept that jews are not
Well, the fact that you are White is definitely obvious, as is the reality of race for the most part. Odds are you preferentially associated with Whites and avoided heavily non-White areas even before you became explicitly racially aware. That means you already knew what was going on, on some level.
If you've ever tried talking to people about this shit in real life, you know that making people aware of the facts is far from sufficient. You can score "points" all day long, and not get people to budge an inch in terms of their attitude toward the situation.
White people are, in general, not unaware of what's going on - they're in denial.
@Taanstafl wrote:
Once I understood what was going on my supposedly defective psychology magically fixed itself.
In what did the revelation consist? In other words, what have you come to "understand"? And what led you to the revelation?
"In what did the revelation consist? In other words, what have you come to "understand"? And what led you to the revelation?"
I've just listed the steps. The details of the progression of my understanding is an open book, laid out in the archives of this blog. My racial awareness regarding blacks began with firsthand experience in middle school. It picked up later in life with the LA riots and OJ. When I began blogging Hurricane Katrina was helping it along:
All About The Poor
Note my own deracinated "liberal" take. At that time my patriotic instincts were misdirected into a neo-conservative/counterjihadist worldview. It wasn't until two years later that I worked my way clear of that:
Political Correctness + Multiculturalism + Diversity = White Extinction
Step three came later the same month:
Committing PC's Most Mortal Sin
I have no doubt that many White Americans already have and will continue to experience similar paths to understanding.
"White people are, in general, not unaware of what's going on - they're in denial."
Agreed.
The next question is: Why are they in denial?
Is it because of "defective psychology", ie. because they're genetically/mentally flawed? Or is it because of the constant reminders coming from a hostile, self-interested Other dictating how Whites are supposed to see things, emphasizing the pleasure of going along to get along and pain and punishment that awaits unbelievers?
I think it's more the latter.
Tanstaafl, RamzPaul, Counte-currents publishing, Prof. Kevin McDonald and Occidental Observer made me see the Trut, that its not over for the White Race...
We're reaching the end game of diversity, multiculturalism and anti-White tought, Obama has being a blessing.
The next question is: Why are they in denial?
Is it because of "defective psychology", ie. because they're genetically/mentally flawed? Or is it because of the constant reminders coming from a hostile, self-interested Other dictating how Whites are supposed to see things, emphasizing the pleasure of going along to get along and pain and punishment that awaits unbelievers?
I think it's more the latter.
And the next question: how do we get White people out of denial under these circumstances? We're making good progress for now, but at some point the low-hanging fruit will have been picked, and we're going to have to start knocking sense into some of the "hard cases".
And the next question: how do we get White people out of denial under these circumstances? We're making good progress for now, but at some point the low-hanging fruit will have been picked, and we're going to have to start knocking sense into some of the "hard cases".
I think, I dont know, that there must be more of us all the time. Once youve put on the sunglasses, 'woken up' you're never going go back, dont see how you can.
You dont 'wake up' then turn back into a liberal or a conservative. But those guys, they run the risk of turning into us at any moment.
"the key to making sense out of all-and I do mean ALL-the problems"
I used to think that immigration, leftism, the mass media, (and in my case, the French government)... were the main source of all our problems. But now, I've learned that the Jews are the ringleaders of "the left".
Every institution has been infiltrated by the left, and the left has been infiltrated by the Jews. (In fact, the right has been infiltrated too!).
"how do we get White people out of denial"
And also, is there a particular group of white people that it is more important to work on? Should we try to destroy the left-wing coalition, or should we talk to the conservatives? Some people say that we must target the elites and not waste too much time trying to convince everybody. Are the elites available on the net?
In Here we go again ... Sailer cites the media pushing an anti-White narrative for Toulouse and Trayvon, and points out another example now in San Diego. At other times, in other cases, Sailer likes to ridicule people for using Occam's Butterknife. Here he uses it himself, speculating idly about hate and projection before blaming the anti-White narrative on... making money.
Of course the money motive would make more sense if the New York Times, and anti-White journalism in general, were actually making money. The reality is that the jew-firster moguls who own those shops pay dearly for the privilege. Money figures into their equation more as a means to an end (our end) than as an end in itself.
Only one sensible comment on the subject made it past Sailer's Komment Kontrol:
Simon in London said...
"It could be that this is some hate conspiracy. But it sure sounds like the cops know more than they are telling, so why didn't the New York Times wait..."
Because the hate conspirators are at the New York Times. I'm afraid they're not doing it just for the money. Like Tim Wise, they hate us. They really, really hate us.
The double-think is that "we" is everybody, that "we" have a moral duty to regard everybody as equals, that "we"'s greatest moral duty is to protect "minorities", like jews, who are really really special. These really really special groups must be defended from stupid/crazy/evil "racists" who like to imagine Whites are special.
This is a very perceptive observation and one that needs dissemination and repetition. Who is this “we?” When discussing these sensitive issues with—what do we call them, muggles?—mainstream programmed acquaintances I am accustomed to being inundated with vague references to this “we.” We need to better educate our children. We need to defend our country.
Who is this “we” and “our?”
Well we Americans, of course.
So any bipedal hominid residing in this geography is your “we?” Blacks, mestizos, arabs, and jews included?
Well sure, if they’re American.
So the frivolous bureaucratic distribution of citizenship is your only criterion? Do you understand that you are decidedly not a member of their “we?”
Ummmmm
Again, understanding who is and who is not your “we” is the lynchpin to unlocking all of those imprisoned minds.
Excellent work on the News from Toulouse demonstrating Jewish ant-White meme spreading.
I believe the Trayvon-Zimmerman (TZ) farce should be similarly examined. And from the understanding of Jewish hatred and meme control as demonstrated in the JournoList outing (which someone mentioned in comments at this blog), which has gone down the media memory hole.
The most notable quote from JournoList was from Spencer Ackerman (Jewish):
"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists"
That encapsulates the Jewish strategy - attack, attack, attack. And that is what is happening in the TZ case. It doesn't matter what the "right" do, how much they vindicate their man, bring out facts etc, the point is to constantly attack them. Get the right on the constant defensive. Any sports fan knows that a team always on the defense will never win.
And the only way to win is to go on the attack yourself. Turn defense into attack.
This blog does that well. Only by highlighting the Jews in the media, and Jewish media control, and naming them as "racists" will we turn defense into attack. As Limbaugh pointed out, this whole thing needs to be understood from an ideological poistion. It is not Black vs White. It is Jews against all, as well as their cultural-marxist shabbos goy lapdogs (read, white media heads).
Here's Spencer Ackerman on what's good for the Jews: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/89404/sounding-off/
At the risk of sounding like the shtetl police, there’s a right way and a wrong way for American Jews to argue with one another. The right way focuses on whose ideas are better—for America, for Israel, for the Jewish community, and for the world. The Jewish left should be right at home with this kind of substantive debate, since I believe those ideas are better than those of our cousins on the Jewish right. But the wrong way, regretfully, is now on the rise among Jewish progressives.
Whether they're right or left or in-between, all Jews act with the one and only goal in mind: What's good for the Jews?
Like so, we must equally think and act at all times: What's good for the Whites?
And point out to our otherwise allies on the alt-right that if they really are interested in "Who? Whom?" then they'd best be starting with Jews - who are NOT White.
Katana, I'd like to take a shot at your query.
I think it is safe to say that almost no one on this blog, or on many others like it, were raised as a racial separatist or white supremacists where they would know what is discussed here from a young age. No, I'm sure that the vast majority here are just like Tan....we went through a process of stages. This is important to keep in mind when discussing exposure of the Holohoax to the sleeping. I think that this issue could be the key to killing the beast, because once one begins to look it is such an obvious and massive fraud blatantly pushed forth by the perpetrators in question that it can't help but reveal who they really are and what there intentions are. There is no escaping it. But you have to get them to look first. Remember, the process didn't start there with you I'm sure. Tan just told us it didn't start with him there, and it didn't start with me there either. I am quite sure this is the great majority of us, and it will be the great majority of the people you speak with that could be candidates to awake from the Matrix.
I know the spell of the Matrix is very strong. I remember a time in my life, and I know I was typical, where a "holocaust denier" would have made no impression on me besides one of discomfort. So how did I get here, I must ask myself? It started just like it did with Tan, questioning the status quo, knowing something is really wrong......maybe first on government corruption, then on the race issue, then on to economics.....and finally, the final stage, which is the JQ.
So I would like to say this: The Holohoax can not be exposed effectively through mass propaganda, whether that be in volume or on a personal level. The Jew has very effectively brainwashed the ignorant masses to have an immediate negative Pavlovian reaction when it comes through by such means. The people have been conditioned to automatically conjure up a spitting, screaming, ignorant skinhead with no credibility and therefore won't listen. The only way this work can be done is on an intimate personal level. Watch among those who respect you, who deem you to be knowlegable and informed. If and when cracks in the pillars of the reality of the Matrix begin to form for them, now you can stand in. As they follow the cracks with your guidance, they will come to the top where all the pillars lead, to where the Jew resides.
Yes, this is not easy work and it takes time.......but the easy way is the Jewish way...we are not Jews. And remember that all good works start slowly, but progress expoentially. Also remember that a small core of committed, dedicated, informed activists can overcome hoards of sleeping masses. History has shown us this time and time again. The Jew himself has proven this to us.
That is my two cents......but to sum it up, I agree with you completely....the Holohoax is the dagger through the heart....you just can't start there.
Guys please read this essay entitled:
"The origin of political correctness"
http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/
or watch this Youtube video entitled:
"Death of the West"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4v6CVcHUXY
and the video of the KGB defector "Yuri Bexmenov"
His real Jewish name is Thomas Schuman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlpODYhnPEo
These videos explain the truth very nicely.
""""If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists"
That encapsulates the Jewish strategy - attack, attack, attack. And that is what is happening in the TZ case. It doesn't matter what the "right" do, how much they vindicate their man, bring out facts etc, the point is to constantly attack them. Get the right on the constant defensive. Any sports fan knows that a team always on the defense will never win.""""
There is a name to the strategy the Jews are employing here and it is called critical theory.
Critical theory is merely wordplay, as the theory itself is to criticize.
This video explains it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4v6CVcHUXY
In Here we go again ... Sailer cites the media pushing an anti-White narrative for Toulouse and Trayvon, and points out another example now in San Diego. At other times, in other cases, Sailer likes to ridicule people for using Occam's Butterknife. Here he uses it himself, speculating idly about hate and projection before blaming the anti-White narrative on... making money.
Of course the money motive would make more sense if the New York Times, and anti-White journalism in general, were actually making money. The reality is that the jew-firster moguls who own those shops pay dearly for the privilege. Money figures into their equation more as a means to an end (our end) than as an end in itself.
That's not an honest summary of what he said at all. He wrote: "The growing SPLCization of the prestige press is frightening. I realize that times are tough for everybody, and that the Southern Poverty Law Center has a gold-plated track record of piling up hundreds of millions of dollars via spreading fear and hate in the guise of fighting hate, so it's not surprising that the national media is following the path the SPLC has pioneered." I.e., he's clearly implying that the money is coming from the same type of people who fund the SPLC seeking to control the portrayal of events in the media, and not from increased sales or advertising revenue, pretty much the exact opposite of the way you interpreted it.
It's funny how you like to criticize Sailer (who frequently comes up with serious and original criticisms of jews, despite not even claiming to be pro-White) for not criticizing jews enough, but then you let the most egregious phony opposition jew-excusers (e.g. Jared Taylor, Richard Spencer, James Edwards) off the hook.
Sailer treads a very careful path, not going to far, stopping short. But he has probably turned more people into WNs than anyone else writing at the moment.
If you keep reading his articles, the whole hbd thing, the only conclusion, the only logical policy outcome that makes sense is a pro-white one.
Yet he is very careful never to make that final step himself in writing.
I say this from a subjective standpoint. His work, more than anyone elses, was what broke the back of my left/liberal, egalitarian mindset.
"...not going too far..."
No need to modify the saying, really.
"No Justice, No Peace" works for us, too.
"No Freedom, No Peace" works well, too.
Then there's full-blown HOLOCAUST!!! revisionism, which is beyond my expertise or inclination, so I'll leave that to others. I see my job as to question THE NARRATIVE and point out its more obvious flaws and weaknesses.
But to answer your question, I see HOLOCAUST!!! DENIAL!!! as one of those eggs and baskets things, one of those high-risk, high-reward pursuits that we should pursue, but not join ourselves to at the hip. It certainly must not be woven into the base fabric of ethnopatriotism or WNism, because both are independent of, and in no way rely on, revision of THE HOLOCAUST!!! On the other hand, I certainly think the matter should be pursued. I suppose it's best dealt with as an academic (and situational*) question.
*E.g., Steve Sailer won't allow any kind of "revisionism" on the subject, not even the common-sense points I review above.
Sailer does allow this point, which I see as central:
If THE HOLOCAUST!!! delegitimizes White ethnopatriotism and anything remotely like Nazism, why doesn't the Red Terror (which killed far more than THE HOLOCAUST!!!) delegitimize anti-racism, egalitarianism, and anything remotely like Socialism?
We don't actually have to "knock down the wall," as you put it. We can just walk around it. The Nazis have nothing at all to do with our rights to survival; WE FUCKING PUT THE NAZIS DOWN, NOT THE FUCKING JEWS. If anything, we should be dismantling Israel based on what the Jews did in the USSR, not allowing the Jews, whose asses we pulled out of the Nazi fire, to dismantle us based on what we didn't do in Germany.
This blog does that well. Only by highlighting the Jews in the media, and Jewish media control, and naming them as "racists" will we turn defense into attack.
This is key. I don't see enough ethnopatriots using the "racist" label. It works. Furthermore, it's true. JEWS ARE RACISTS. LEFTOIDS ARE RACISTS.
P.S. Recaptcha: FUCKING GIVE IT UP ALREADY. REAL PEOPLE CAN NO LONGER RELIABLY PASS YOUR "TURING TEST." Christ.
It kinda shocks me sometimes, how seldom ethnopatriots point out that Jews...are...racists.
"he's clearly implying that the money is coming from the same type of people who fund the SPLC seeking to control the portrayal of events in the media, and not from increased sales or advertising revenue, pretty much the exact opposite of the way you interpreted it"
When you're trying to be clear you state what you mean directly, you don't imply. Sailer implied that he didn't understand, then implied that it had to do with hate and money. Here's the portion you quoted along with the sentences around it. To me it clearly implies "making money" as an end, not "funding" as a means:
"People give Freud a hard time these days, but his concept of "projection" remains a valuable one when reading the newspaper. There is, as always, a lot of hatred and hysteria in the world today. And there's clearly money to be made by fanning the flames of hate.
The growing SPLCization of the prestige press is frightening. I realize that times are tough for everybody, and that the Southern Poverty Law Center has a gold-plated track record of piling up hundreds of millions of dollars via spreading fear and hate in the guise of fighting hate, so it's not surprising that the national media is following the path the SPLC has pioneered. But this is scary stuff to play around with to make money."
That's Sailer's Butterknife. It is not as clear as your connect-the-dots interpretation, and even that falls short of the more direct biopolitical terms a race and politics pundit like Sailer is capable of. But it is exactly in cases which most clearly highlight the White/jew conflict that Sailer pulls out his butterknife. More examples are cited in Problem, What Problem?, Shaming the Shameless and Jews Run Hollywood, Whites Get the Blame.
Sailer's underlying premise is that jews are "white". He points to signs of White/jew conflict only to laugh them off or explain them away. He points out double-think in other contexts, but blocks comments that directly challenge the White/jew "we" double-think. I think he is invested in it because he believes he is part jew.
"It's funny how you like to criticize Sailer (who frequently comes up with serious and original criticisms of jews, despite not even claiming to be pro-White) for not criticizing jews enough"
My critique is that Sailer styles himself a brave realist who confronts hard truths about race, and even jewish power, while mocking those who don't. He's more snarky than serious. His beef with the regime is that its structure prevents him from becoming rich and famous like the establishment pundits he mocks. He seems to me more motivated by self interest than group interest, and to the extent he identifies with a group I get the sense he sides with the anti-White/pro-jew elite. He's just bitter that these would-be peers of his treat him like a leper. Likewise for a large portion of the judaized commentariat he attracts.
"but then you let the most egregious phony opposition jew-excusers (e.g. Jared Taylor, Richard Spencer, James Edwards) off the hook."
I view these men, including Sailer, as stepping stones on the path to where I am now. "[T]he most egregious phony opposition jew-excusers" I'm familiar with are Larry Auster and Paul Gottfried. Lesser pundits like Ian Jobling, Guy White and Fjordman also come to mind. Jew-excusers focus on demonizing "anti-semites", whereas the pro-Whites you identify as phony opposition do not.
Sailer likes the phrase "prestige press". As in the prestige denied to heretics like himself. The "who/whom press" would be closer to reality, and maybe it's even still butterknifey enough for him
For jews the holocaust narrative begins in 1933 when Germans explicitly distinguished themselves from jews and reclaimed Germany for themselves. The crime, from a jewish perspective, begins the moment anyone but jews recognizes that jews are not "us".
It is more normal and natural for Whites to be talking and thinking about the crimes committed against Whites, as Sk notes.
I've been listening to Dr. David Duke's podcasts lately. Evidentally the jews are suing the French rail line in US courts now, and the German rail line was contributing to their defense because they know they're next if precedent is set.
For the love of god, haven't they sued everybody possible already?!?
I messed up, told a friend in front of her college age kid the holocaust didn't happen as advertised. I'm sure i'm now 'one of those' crazy guys. Whoops!
I'm more subtle now, try to mention to people that jews aren't white, they're jews, and most in Israel are atheists. You can be an atheist and go to temple. 50% of the jews in the US are non religious.
I woke up only recently, in the last year. It was ruff leaving the matrix. I progressed from blog to blog, till finally I realized, as you all pointed out, all roads lead to rome(or jerusalem).
Thank God for those like Henry Ford and Martin Luthor, David Duke, and Eustace Mullins for exposing the evil, racist jews for what they are.
Thank God also for this blog. The net gets less free every day, AZ just passed an internet hate law, and the rest of the USA will be coming along.
They can't have people waking up like I did! If it weren't for the net, I *NEVER* would have figured it out.
Gees that's a great dissection of Sailer's modus operandi Tanstaafl. Probably deserves a post of it's own really given, as you noted, how many people come to the far-Right via Sailer.
Do you also think there is something of the opportunist about him? In the past he has said he believed HBD to be a niche topic so he started concentrating on it.
In that sense he reminds me somewhat of the Australian blogger Andrew Bolt who was formerly of the left the moved into neoconservatism once all the right-wing journalists had been cleansed in the great purges of the 80-90's.
"The double-think is that 'we' is everybody, that 'we' have a moral duty to regard everybody as equals, that 'we''s greatest moral duty is to protect 'minorities', like jews, who are really really special.
...
"The holocaust narrative is the most egregious, most pervasive example. It's a guilt-trip based on this double-think"
Regarding the prospect of exterminating our racial competitors, or otherwise egregiously abusing them, as shameful does not stand or fall on the notion of their being our betters. Even were Whites broadly convinced that non-Whites, including Jews, were their racial inferiors, the guilt-trip would still be effective. Such is our moral nature. This fact may not be convenient for maximizing our racial interests, but it is what it is.
http://youtu.be/tacvR87FzBU
Here's something that will put both, jews and White anti-Whites on their ear.
Svigor said, and Armour repeated:
"Why did Elie Wiesel's book go from non-fiction history to historical fiction without a peep?"
It didn't. It was the other way around. Elie Wiesel's book Night went from fiction (novel) to non-fiction (autobiography), which is what it is categorized as now. And there was a peep, but only a peep, which soon passed.
http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/night-1-and-night-2%E2%80%94what-changes-were-made-and-why-part-one-2/
Why not just mention that there is ALWAYS something wrong with something you are required to believe, byLAW. Many places, such as Germany will send you to prison for discussing the "holacaust." Instead hammer on the Genocide being pushed on White children in their own homes. Anti-racist really is a code word for ANTI-WHITE.
Indeed. In fact, this goes for much of what we believe: I say "nigger" as a protest; I criticize, and am skeptical of Jews, because TPTB say I must not be; I refuse to sit quietly for "integration" because that's what the overseers demand; I refuse to believe in THE HOLOCAUST!!! because the would-be Masters of the Universe are absolute in their insistence that I do.
There's definitely an element of romantic protest to ethnopatriotism; of speaking truth to power.
The Holohoax is the elephant in the room that is always going to be in the way of WN for as long as the lie is viable. I think it should be a major priority of the WN movement to debunk and destroy it. For typical whites, WN gets connected with National Socialism which equals the Holohoax, and therefore; end of story.
The Revisionists have done the homework for us, many at great personal cost, but their message seems to languish through lack of support. In my view their work represents a great resource and opportunity for WN.
It isn't an elephant in the room. People are far too willing to point it out for it to be an elephant in the room. The elephant in the room is that Jews are using THE HOLOCAUST!!! as justification for the genocide of the people who put a stop to it.
A second line of attack is that "anti-racism" is connected with Communism which equals the Red Terror, and therefore, end of story.
These two lines of attack are enough to stop THE HOLOCAUST!!! in its tracks.
In the public mind the Holohoax is a mighty fortress, so if they did concede every point to the revisionists they would be left with a stinking shameful pile of rubble. The Nazi name calling works because of the Holohoax. Remove it, then being called a Nazi might even become a source of rightful pride.
The real payoff for demolishing THE HOLOCAUST!!! is the irrevocable destruction of the Jews' reputation. No one would ever believe them again.
It didn't. It was the other way around. Elie Wiesel's book Night went from fiction (novel) to non-fiction (autobiography), which is what it is categorized as now. And there was a peep, but only a peep, which soon passed.
I seem to recall an article about how academics quietly admitted Night was a fairy-tale. A "truthy" fairy tale (I don't know WTF Colbert was thinking, coining "Truthiness" and attaching it to conservatives - leftoid projection on a Telltale Heart scale), of course, but a fairy tale.
Another thing I find odd about THE NARRATIVE is how often Jews display their powers of ESP. Basically, this takes the form of assertions made in the present about events in the past that were most likely rumor or speculation, but are transformed into iron fact by the passage of time. Or ESP, take your pick.
Essentially, if you read with critical eyes, you notice that they almost always seem to have known more at the time than they should have, which is common with poor liars. Think hard about what they'd really have known at the time, and look for the signs of embellishment and revision, because they're everywhere. E.g., they always knew what the "showers" really were, even though no one came out alive. They knew exactly how many people started out on a death march, and how many survived, and how many died from foul play, and how many died from natural causes, and how many escaped.
Speaking of which, I highly recommend reading the articles linked from Stormfront's "Tales of the Holocaust" threads and watching for these "death marches." They're a common element. What's really interesting to me is to wonder why anyone would kill someone by "marching" them to death. Shooting or hanging would seem to be easier, no? The "death marches" always take place in the context of the German forces fleeing the encroaching Reds. Under those circumstances, guarding prisoners you ultimately planned to kill anyway, wouldn't it make sense to just go ahead and kill them and be done with it? IMO, it only makes sense to "death march" them if you're not actually trying to kill them by marching them, but rather, trying to do the duty of prison guards everywhere, and keep your prisoners alive and in custody. And since you're marching under harsh conditions in which you barely have enough food to survive the march, your prisoners have it even worse. I think it's only after the fact that these escapes became "death marches" where the guards supposedly intended to kill the prisoners by marching them to death. Let's face it, G-d's Chosen are among the world's least truthful, and most entitled peoples; exactly the sort who would twist a story of shared hardship into a deliberate "death march." I mean think about it: "I'm going to walk you to death." Well, hope you've got a month free...
I'd like to add by way of postscript that I take a skeptical/agnostic view of THE HOLOCAUST!!! I don't say it didn't happen; I say I smell a rat. I don't say it didn't happen; I say I don't have good reason to believe it happened the way they say it happened - because the story isn't very convincing.
I think that's a good approach - juxtapose the hatred, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth, in response to...an insufficiency of faith.
Svigor: "I don't say it didn't happen"
What exactly? I think you are being too subtle. What the Jews tell us is that Hitler gave the order to kill every one of them, and that the Nazis did try to kill every one of them, and that only a few Jews miraculously escaped death. That is complete rubbish.
"What exactly? I think you are being too subtle."
Then let us eschew subtlety, for now.
Why do you personally feel the need to deny that the National Socialist regime sought the total physical extermination of the Jews?
Yes, I know, an admittedly loaded question. Yet I would appreciate your honest and visceral reply.
"I'd like to add by way of postscript that I take a skeptical/agnostic view of THE HOLOCAUST!!!"
*yawn*
Your commentary is intended to manipulate the psychological orientation of the rabble towards matters racial. From a value neutral perspective, at least, this is precisely what Jews do.
If the 14 words are to be served, we must come to hold the Power of LIfe and Death in our hands. What, then, shall we do with that Power? This is a question those you direct your rhetoric to are not equipped to answer for they will ever only be tools in the palms of stronger men. And if this were not so, you would not feel the need to address them with rhetoric.
What exactly?
My point is agnosticism as heresy. Simply saying "I'm not convinced Santa Claus exists" is enough to get you pilloried. It isn't even necessary to disbelieve; all you have to do is lack belief.
@ Captainchaos,
"Why do you personally feel the need to deny ..."
Don't know what to answer! I don't see myself as a compulsive denier. But it's suprising how the Jews lie in our faces, and how so few people call their BS. It's a case of the emperor's clothes.
Long before I knew anything about the Jews, their lies, their responsibility in the race-replacement crisis, and their rewriting of our history, I was already annoyed by their harping on "the holocaust".
"I would appreciate your honest and visceral reply."
In fact, I'm writing from French controlled territory. So, you shouldn't expect too much visceral honesty from me about "the holocaust". You know how it works: people subtly censor themselves without even realizing that they are afraid of the law.
Why do you personally feel the need to deny that the National Socialist regime sought the total physical extermination of the Jews?
It's because the narrative shifted to embrace the concept of criminality through omission, defined as "The act of neglecting to perform an action one has an obligation to do." This is the Beck thread and reason for his embrace of Dietrich Bonheoffer who said, "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil".
The narrative includes evidence for proclaiming not enough was done to save Jews and includes the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglosphere and most of the Nordic/Slavic/Magyar populations of Europe, many of whom served with the Waffen SS. The rebuff of Jewish refugees in NA, the Evian Conference, Palestine, the failure by the RAF and USAF to bomb Auschwitz all amount to a crime of omission and qualify for an endless cycle of guilt.
Post a Comment
<< Home