@Amadan's banner p

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

10 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 297

Amadan

Letting the hate flow through me

10 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:23:21 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 297

Verified Email

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

Because Holocaust deniers (most of them, with the possible exception of the really low information ones) don't actually think it didn't happen.

Maybe you do really believe there were never gas chambers, and that the numbers are inflated, and there are discrepancies in the accounts of what happened in this camp or that camp. There are always question marks and inaccuracies in the historical record and "Holocaust deniers" excel at cataloging these to argue that the whole thing is a hoax. Like 9/11 truthers, like every other conspiracy theorist, it's not that there aren't questions, and things the public believes because they've become widespread knowledge that aren't actually true, or were taken from one particular account (soap made of Jews, for example, or human skin lampshades). So there are always things you can JAQ about.

But "the Holocaust" - a concerted effort to exterminate Jews - happened, and the strategy of the Holocaust denier is to try to convince people that actually the whole thing was fake because record books at Dachau don't match what someone said in an interview, or what have you. The reality of course is that they know the effort was made to exterminate Jews and they think it was a good thing, but they also know that the public is extremely unsympathetic to this and that Jews benefit from the widespread guilt generated by the Holocaust. So it's a political strategy to try to erode belief that the Holocaust happened, not a historical investigation.

This is why every time we talk about the Holocaust, you immediately jump to the specific things you have canned spiels about, like showerheads in Auschwitz and whether Hitler ever signed an order saying "Kill all the Jews." And try as hard as you can to avoid the obvious glaring holes in the narrative, like where did all those Jews go and how are thousands of people, from Nazis to Jews to German civilians to Allied soldiers, lying about what they saw?

If you were actually interested in historical truth it would be pretty interesting to hear you out, but I can't take any of your arguments seriously because to the degree you might have some interesting research about specifics, I know it's always in service of a very specific agenda and that you selectively omit or fabricate details according to whether the narrative serves that agenda.

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

No, you've just gone in circles.

"People hate Jews because of their behavior." "What behavior?" "Jewish behavior." "What is Jewish behavior?" "The ADL, AIPAC, Israel, etc." "Okay, but that's like hating white people because of some white guys you don't like." "See, I can't even identify and criticize Jews without you saying I hate Jews."

This post is the closest you've gotten to specifically identifying "Jewish behavior" and you're still talking about NGOs and leftist college professors. Even if I agree that this "behavior" is more common among Jews, it's definitely not just a Jewish thing, and does not address my question of why you should apply this animosity to Joel Finkelstein the grocer.

I'll accept Patrick Buchanan, though I don't know what he really thinks of Jews personally, and my understanding is he mostly thinks they're going to go to hell for not being Christian. I don't know of any prominent "antisemite but doesn't actually hate Jewish people" public figures, partly because they are usually like you: they'll deny hating anyone but talk very vaguely about why Jews deserve to be hated. I made my best attempt at describing a hypothetical antisemite who doesn't "hate" Jews, and if you don't think the George Wallace comparison fits, I don't know what example you are looking for.

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. As I understand it, you think Jews are antiwhite parasites or something. Does this stem from their religion? Their culture? Their biology?

You complain that antisemitism is just a slur to destroy people who know "the truth" but you won't explain what this great truth is. "Jews bad" is the best I can get, and yet I am not supposed to conclude 'Okay, so you hate Jews."

I suppose it's possible to be an antisemite in the sense that you think Jewish culture is adversarial, or Judaism is false (and/or going to send you to hell) while simultaneously believing individual Jews can be good people even if they practice Jewishness. So in that sense, "Jew-hater" is a subset of "antisemite" (though a very large subset, almost but not quite isomorphic). I don't know where you are in the Venn diagram since you pointedly refuse to clarify your views, but antisemite, definitely, and hates Jews, well, sure seems like it.

I mean, the George Wallace comparison was already made. Lots of people who think blacks are inferior human beings or want segregation don't think of themselves as hating blacks or being racist.

So, I gave you a detailed and sincere answer. Now answer my question: what is "Jewish behavior"? I don't mean the head of the ADL or Benjamin Netanyahu. I mean some average Jewish person of no importance or influence. What about their "Jewish behavior" makes them worthy of being hated?

I spoke of people who hate Jews as the reason they complain about Israel. You were the first in this thread to use "Jew-hater" (technically "Joo hater" is what you came in with). Is there a meaningful difference? Seems like you'll complain whichever label I use.

No, it's an inquisition.

No, it's not. You aren't being tried, you aren't being punished.

You want me to qualify my criticisms in a way that gives deference to Jews, touts Jewish friends

I want and expect no such thing.

I am being direct and calling a spade a spade, and you're registering indignation because you want to hate Jews but not be accused of being a Jew-hater. If you really didn't care and found the label both "retarded" and a pointless game, you'd shrug it off and not care, rather than arguing at length about how unfair it is to say you hate Jews. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to do the Nazi cosplay (SS) while feigning indignation when people notice and name the signal you are flashing. You want to talk about how Jews are behind every bad thing in the world but not be accused of something so base, so declasse, as hating Jews. You want to deny the Holocaust happened while also explaining why the Holocaust was completely justified.

I keep pointing this out because you like weaseling around in plausible deniability and rhetorical evasion and ambiguity, because that is your game. It's a game you play because sanding off the sharp edges of your ideology for public consumption gives it a more palatable feel for your audience, and you don't like it when a sharp light is shined on it.

Also, completing editing a post after someone has responded to you to make it look like they didn't respond to what you wrote is a very sleazy tactic.

Do you think Greenblatt hates whites? If you had a conversation with him, you'd probably find it annoying if he denied believing things you think he obviously believes because it would be unpalatable for public goyim consumption.

Do I think you literally want to kill every Jew you meet? No, I assume you are probably not a psychopath.

I'm not demanding anything. I don't expect you to be honest and direct because the ducking, evading, and ghosting is part of your game.

What I'm saying is "Jew-hater" is a fair accusation, whether or not you own it, and so it rings hollow when you complain about it.

It has nothing to do with the "substance" of your criticisms. I am perfectly capable of engaging in criticism of the ADL or AIPAC or US foreign policy or Israel's conduct. I am not surprised you feel vindicated by "the state of the world," because your believe in ZOG is such a totalizing ideology that there is practically nothing that can happen in the world that you won't ascribe to it.

I have said before I think Israel should be pressured to rein in the West Bank settlers and stop victimizing Palestinians there. However, even if Israel pulled out of the West Bank right now and ceded all of it to the Palestinians, I do not think this would lead to a viable Palestinian state. A viable Palestinian state requires a Palestinian population that wants a viable state more than they want to destroy Israel.

No, both the "you are an X hater" are only slurs

No, it's not. A slur is an insulting label that can't be assigned a truth value but is simply a boo-light.

You either hate Jews or you don't. If you don't hate Jews, if you are capable of being friends with Jews, you do not wish harm on individual Jews, you just think Jewish culture is hostile to you or Judaism is a wicked religion or whatever, you could say that. You won't say that because you do hate Jews. You hate Jews for being Jewish, which you have constructed as some nebulous pattern of behaviors that applies to 99% of them, or even if it doesn't, accrues guilt to the rest for not denouncing their fellow Jews and refusing to be Jewish.

This "I refuse to play your game" speech is just evasion. You won't honestly and forthrightly state "Yes, I hate Jews" (which you are allowed to do, it's not like you'd be banned for it) because you know that hating an entire ethnicity for being that ethnicity is something even people generally disposed to agree with you about "Jewish influence" would balk at.

You accuse me of uncharitably projecting motives onto you, but the thing is, you make it as obvious as you possibly can (right down to your SS username) what you really think of Jews and what you'd like to do to Jews, while playing a game of denial. "Yes, Jews are my enemies and Jewish behavior is why everyone should hate Jews but how dare you accuse me of hating Jews!"

When someone calls you out on it or tries to get you to actually be honest instead of playing your constant game of ducking and weaving, evading, ghosting, and describing the Holocaust in a Schroedinger state (it both didn't happen and the Jews totally had it coming) you fan yourself in indignation that you would be accused of a "slur" like Jew-hater.

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, all of them? Most of them? A third of them? With black behavior, I know what you speak of, though it's a clear minority of blacks who do those things. What about Jews? Exactly what percentage of Jews do you think are guilty of subverting Western civilization and trying to destroy white people?

it is not "for no reason" like you claimed in your post.

One more time: I know you have reasons. They just aren't rational reasons and you generalize from "Some Jewish groups do things I think are bad for me" to "Jews are inherently my enemies."

You keep posting the same thing over and over. To echo the folks who reported you: it's getting tiresome.

You know the problem with "make women property again" is that they were never property, at least not in the sense Dread Jim posts about. The model you (Jim) describe is a hentai fetish fantasy. Even the most patriarchal societies in history were not able to reduce women to livestock-you-fuck. Some ancient civilizations allowed men to murder unfaithful wives, but that hasn't been true in the West for centuries, so I guess marriage hasn't "worked" for centuries.

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?

Criticisms of black behavior that generalize to "Therefore I hate blacks because all blacks are guilty by association with the worst examples" is rightfully criticized as racial hatred, yes.

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.

Wrong. That's not my argument. You know this.

You can call me a Jew-hater all you want, even though it's against the rules of the forum you moderate.

Is it inaccurate to say that you hate Jews? Am I wrong, incorrect, misrepresenting you?

I know that "Jew-hater" means "criticizes Jews in any way"

That is wrong, incorrect, and a misrepresentation.

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

In this very thread I have criticized several of those people. I have in the past criticized the ADL and AIPAC. As I said, I know you have reasons for hating Jews. I just think those reasons are irrational and not worthy of respect.

What we agree to do is to apply the principle of charity and to assume good faith. If someone says "I don't hate Jews" and then proceeds to explain why Israel shouldn't exist, I should charitably take their argument at face value… at least at first. And indeed, if someone says "I don't think Israel should exist," I (formerly anyway) would at least hear them out and not assume they were motivated by a desire to fuck the Jews.

Some people will make arguments to the effect of "Israel's original creation was a great crime against humanity, sucks for all the millions of Israelis who live there now, but really the only moral thing to do is for them to leave and go resettle somewhere else." I think the vast majority of these people are in fact antisemites and there is nowhere the Israelis could hypothetically resettle that would actually make them happy. If all the Israelis relocated to Alaska and built a state there, I think most of the "Israel should be decolonized" advocates would suddenly become deeply concerned with the environmental impact of all those Jews in the pristine Alaskan wilderness and the Zionists' lack of concern for any Inuit who might have been displaced (even if the displacement happened before the Jews got there). But, I will concede there are some people who genuinely just think Israel shouldn't exist for moral reasons because it was imperialist powers unjustly moving people around. Their conclusions are ahistorical and their solutions are impractical, to say the least, and the kindest thing I can say about them is that they are useful fools, but sure, there is a niche for the sincere anti-Zionist who is not an antisemite.

It's a small niche.

This principle does not require me to refrain from inferences or conclusions, however. We are not required to assume that no one ever has unstated motives, or that everything everyone says should always be taken at face value even if the evidence suggests otherwise. That is not being charitable, it's being a quokka.

Note that the people I'm talking about will rarely even say something as direct (if unconvincing) as "I don't hate Jews." Instead, they will angrily protest against the label of antisemite and complain indignantly about their motives being interrogated, and then list all the reasons why it's perfectly rational to hate Jews (without ever using the words "I hate Jews").

What you would ask of me, then, is to pretend that they don't hate Jews because they didn't type the words "I hate Jews," and what you are accusing me of is, when I observe someone who always applies unprincipled arguments that only ever apply to Jews, not conclude "Hmm, seems like this guy really hates Jews."

We are, in fact, allowed to infer motives behind arguments. Obviously accusing someone of having unstated motives requires sufficient evidence to justify the accusation. You can't just say "I don't believe your argument is your reason for believing that, I think you just secretly hate Jews."

Fortunately (or unfortunately) the evidence is pretty abundant and the Joo-posters don't exactly make a secret of their real motives, whatever tiny fig leaf they try to paste on.

I think a one-state solution would in theory be ideal, but I also think it's delusional to think it would work, and I think the Israelis are not wrong to doubt the ingenuousness of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad or Hamas or the Ayatollah's words for public consumption insisting all they want is peaceful coexistence, just dissolve the borders and dismantle your security, everything will be cool bro, honest.

The thing is, the Israelis have a lot of people who speak Arabic, so they can hear and read what Palestinians say in Arabic to each other, not just what they say in English to a Western audience.

Not a fan of Ben Shapiro, and I agree, what he says about folks like Ron Paul is an example of the bad faith "antisemitism" card I complained about above. I've also commented previously about how I stopped subscribing to The Free Press because I got tired of Bari Weiss turning it into a pro-Israel mouthpiece where every single headline is about how Israel is fabulous and crushing Iran is in America's interest and has nothing to do with Israel.

That said, while you find it easy to choose between "bloodthirsty warmongers" and antisemites, the problem is that the antisemites are not actually antiwar. They're only antiwar when Israel is winning. If Iran were kicking the shit out of Israel, you wouldn't see them complaining about what a "disaster" this is. Even if Iran had started the war, even when other countries do start a war against Israel, the antisemites are curiously not antiwar then.

Thanks for raising your hand, bud. Appreciate the support.

What is "Jewish behavior"? What "blowback" do you think the average Jew on the street deserves because of "their" behavior?

You do not distinguish between Israel and Jews except when it's convenient. When it's inconvenient, you are happy to equate Jews=Israel. When it's convenient, you say you are complaining about Israel and that accusing you of antisemitism is a Jewish mind trick.

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

The bottom line, the sum total of your presence and reason d'etre, is that you hate Jews. 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 you hate Jews and that is the driver behind everything you post. You basically have no other identity or purpose (at least on this forum, maybe somewhere you have a life that doesn't revolve around Jews), but you sure get offended when someone names it.

To call Israel an apartheid state requires pretending Gaza is part of Israel, which it isn't.

You can argue it *should" be, but there's the tiny problem that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want that. What the Israelis would like is for the Palestinians to flourish in their own state that won't dedicate itself to destroying Israel. That's not on the table. What the Palestinians want is largely why we are where we are.

At this point, "Israel is an apartheid state" is exactly the tell I was talking about because it requires imposing criteria that aren't used anywhere else in the world. You can look at Arabs who actually are living in Israel and see that they are not apartheided.

I used to think there were principled arguments against Israel and that it made sense to distinguish between anti-Zionists and anti-Semites. I found it annoying when Jews would equate opposition to Israel with anti-Semitism. It felt very manipulative, playing the "antisemitism" card when we're talking about objections to a nation's policies... And of course Israel is a country, countries are made of people and run by politicians, therefore Israel is often going to do things one can reasonably condemn.

I still believe there are a tiny number of people whose opposition to Israel is rooted in genuine principles. I think their arguments are mostly pretty unconvincing, but the New Historians, for example (a school of Israeli historians who are generally pretty critical of Israel and the Israeli narrative about its founding, but obviously don't literally want Israel to cease to exist... Benny Morris is the most notable one) are examples of "anti-Zionists but not anti-Semites."

But mostly, especially since the latest Gaza War, I no longer take criticism of Israel at face value. Sure, a lot of stuff Israel does is fucked up, a lot of stuff the US does is fucked up, and I would like all countries in the world to do fewer fucked up things. Kumbaya.

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." It's just become very obvious that you don't have to scratch an anti-Zionist too deeply to find someone who hates Jews. It's true out in the public amongst the "Free Palestine" demonstrators, it's true here among the posters who suddenly have deep humanitarian concern for Palestinians and Iranians. Do they have similar concerns for, say, Ukrainians and Russians? Or the participants and victims in any other conflict anywhere else in the world? Of course not.

Since October 7, demonstrators attacking anything remotely connected with Israel, whether it's an Israeli-run bakery or just a synagogue (which can always be accused of being "Zionist" because the number of synagogues that aren't full of Israel supporters is infinitesimal) have pretty much given the game away. When you claim you don't hate Jews, you just hate like 90% of all Jews, well, that kinda looks like you hate Jews to me.

So, your lengthy defense of Israel isn't wrong, but it's beside the point. 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.

Given that the war was "announced" and the Ayatollah was killed at home within ten minutes, I'd say they were pretty similar levels of cold-bloodedly killing a man who was just going about his day because the shooter thought that the man was evil. This feels like a distinction without a difference.

Even if I agreed with you, I am still waiting for examples of anyone on the Motte who was celebrating either Kirk or the Ayatollah's murder. Until you show me an actual example of our supposed bias, you're constructing biases you think we have and imagining how we might mod hypothetical posts based on them.

In either case, it would be more about the tone than the sentiment. Someone is allowed to say "I think the Ayatollah/Charlie Kirk was a bad person who deserved to die." Someone could even make an effort post about how either bombing national leaders or shooting provocative public figures is a good thing. Simply posting "I hate Charlie Kirk and I'm glad someone shot that fucker" probably would get modded. But no one did that to my knowledge.

You're just making up nonexistent apples to compare with nonexistent oranges.

The most obvious would be various GrandBurdensomeCount personas, where his disdain is always treated as pathological or trolling.

He has been modded and banned, for exactly the same sort of rhetoric that got Dase banned.

If you hate white people or men you're a troll and will catch a ban

And I'm going to call you on this, as I have done before, and ask you to show me anything even close to an apples-to-apples comparison.

I actually don't remember anyone posting here on the Motte who clocked as "hating white people or men." There have been some very leftist people with woke ideas about feminism or DEI. Those ideas did not catch them bans.

Yes, posting that Venezuelans are subhumans who deserve to die would get modded. I know we have modded people for getting too inflammatory about Somalians.

As for the Ayatollah, I suppose cheering for his death is vaguely similar to cheering for Charlie Kirk's murder, but only vaguely. There is a difference between cold blooded public murder and targeted killings of leaders during a war and the discourse around the Ayatollah was mostly about whether the war was justified, not whether the Ayatollah was a bad man who deserved to die.

If someone posts about Europeans like Dase posted about Americans, they will at least get a warning, and if they have a record like Dase's they will get a ban, yes.

I'm not asking for names, but if your objection is "I have a list of names of users I think get away with saying things other users cannot, " yes, I am going to dismiss your objections. If your objection is "I think people are allowed to say things about some groups of people that they cannot say about other groups," I am going to dismiss your objections. We've heard it, we've heard it many times, and whenever I make the mistake of asking for specifics, specific is what I get - not any kind of systematic bias, but some thread or poster in particular that grinds the complainer's gears.

You've already made multiple, objectively false claims about past discourse here. When I asked you "Where are all the people who were dehumanizing Charlie Kirk on the Motte?" you tell me that's not the point. The point is you "perceive " something something. Well, okay then. What are we supposed to do about that?

We are obviously capable of entertaining the possibility that we are biased or make bad calls sometimes. But I would require a very high level of evidence to be convinced of the very broad accusation you are making. Otherwise, yes, I dismiss it as "I would like moderation to be fine-tuned to my precise preferences."

What do you propose?

Is this not the fundamental nature of all objections?

To moderation? No, half of it is "People are allowed to say things I don't like" and half of it is "You won't allow me to say anything I like."

I am sure you do feel like your objections are legitimate and completely unlike the objections of everyone else we have to brush off because we won't moderate to their precise specifications (i.e., "allow speech I like and disallow speech I don't like").

Your objection seems to be that people are allowed to say things you don't like.

We give a lot of leeway, but not infinite leeway. People can say they don't like Jews or they think ZOG rules the world. People can be dismissive about someone being killed.

"Lol glad he's dead" would probably have gotten a ban,. but expressing an opinion like "This is not a big deal" would not.

We try to be consistent and principled. We don't claim to be perfect.