SecureSignals
No bio...
User ID: 853
The initial post-war assessment that Germany shared 100% of the war blame for WWI was supplanted by historical revisionism relatively quickly (as well as propaganda-claims that the Germans operated Corpse Factories where they made soap and fertilizer out of corpses, a claim which also becomes prominent in the WWII Holocaust). It makes sense- tensions cool and you are able to have a more sober-minded view of hindsight. WWII is long overdue for the same treatment, and Cooper and Tucker are indeed telltale signs that we are going to see it happen.
As a Holocaust Denier, I actually agree with the assessment that Cooper was engaging implicitly in Holocaust denial by relating the large death toll in the camps to logistical failures, mostly in the final days of the war as Germany was being destroyed on all sides. This is what Revisionists say, and I don't think Cooper mentioned the story of homicidal gas chambers disguised as shower rooms at all in the discussion. Talking about WWII without paying alms to the Holocaust mythos is indeed a soft form of Denial, which people are correct to pick up on.
Cooper can appeal to plausible deniability- his point is that the Holocaust is a post-hoc justification for the war, but you can't just talk about war guilt for WWII and not make the gas chambers central to a moral outrage towards the Nazis.
The fact is, WWII revisionism hasn't yet happened, and people are now so scandalized by its emergence, precisely because of the gas chamber mythos. Like any other religious mythos, it has a deep psychological impact on intended audiences. The Gas Chamber story is the only thing that has held the post-hoc rationalization for WWII and its outcomes together. Without it, the entire Nuremberg-established moral order collapses. And Cooper does directly criticize Nuremberg in the discussion, which is another argument Revisionists make.
Cooper criticizes Nuremberg and doesn't fall over himself denouncing the Nazi's alleged gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. It is implicit denial, because the denial argument is correct.
You don’t think any white people have been persuaded to the anti-semitic cause (and as an ethnonationalist who believes supporting diversity in western countries is anti-white I presume you accept wholly that anti-Zionism is antisemitism) by sympathy for Muslim Palestinian activism and its relationship with the left?
The story of left-wing antisemitism has nothing to do with transmission of Muslim cultural values to progressives. It's the classic story of the golem turning against its master. All of the "values" being appealed to by progressives to oppose Israel were foremost pushed by Jewish intellectuals and cultural influencers in order to oppose latent fascist tendencies embedded in white ethnocentrism- i.e. "The Authoritarian Personality". The fact this cultural Kritik is now being turned against the state of Israel has nothing to do with the transmission of Muslim cultural values, and has everything to do with Jews being increasingly unable to get away with the most vomit-inducing hypocrisy known to mankind, in which they incessantly give moral lectures to white gentiles about racism while creating the most violent ethno-supremacist cult in the Western world.
SecureSignals
1yr ago
I thought it was the memetic capacity of the dissident right driving people towards it, which is why you’re so keen on protecting access to big public platforms like Twitter?
Where's the contradiction? Critically-minded white people who are confronted with the obvious hostility towards them by prevailing systems of power, the systems which have brought all the cultural trends you have mentioned, have a tendency to find the dissident right critique of that Culture to be persuasive. Nobody is more conscientious of the memetic capacity of that Critique than Jews themselves, which is why they are desperate to make sure it isn't platformed anywhere. What's the source of the memetic power? Mass psychosis, or force of truth?
Having more Muslims as members of a formerly entirely or near-entirely white community is naturally going to drive more white people towards antisemitism for the same reason that it will likely transmit to them other cultural values from that population too.
That's laughable, as if Europeans needed to cohabitate with Muslims to rediscover thousands-year-old criticisms of Jewish behavior by European intellectual tradition. The uncomfortable fact is that the influence goes in the reverse. There's no white DR person who was influenced to become anti-Semitic by transmission of Muslim cultural values. But the reverse is happening. You have black and brown figures with large audiences- Myron Gaines, Candace Owens, Sneako, the Tate family, who are all being influenced by traditional European antisemitism transmitted by DR figures like Nick Fuentes.
SecureSignals
1yr ago
When you have multiple cultures, some with very strong group-consciousness, free speech easily becomes abusable as a tool to direct aggression towards other communities in a zero-state competition for state benefits and favours.
Oh, really? So having minority cultures with very strong group-consciousness causes directed aggression towards other groups in a competition for resources and power? Very interesting. It sounds like you would call me a "weirdo ranting about Jews" while you acknowledge a dynamic recognized by the DR which is denied by everyone else.
The US is not an exception to this by any means. It's just that Jews were the minority group with the very strong group-consciousness that has used free speech to direct strong cultural aggression towards White culture and identity while simultaneously demanding fealty to their own group identity.
The "weirdos ranting about Jews" are just saying what you are accusing Muslims of doing, but Muslims don't even have such prominent control over academia, Hollywood, and other institutions of cultural influence. If they did, and used their influence to elevate their own group identity and criticize the identity of their outgroup so prominently, you would certainly accuse Muslims of doing what anti-Semites accuse Jews of doing.
SecureSignals
1yr ago
We probably agree on the existence of this relationship, but disagree on the cause.
Why does an ever more brown and black, third-world ist, leftist/'de-colonial' and otherwise 'anti white' Culture drive large audiences of white people towards anti-semitism? Is it a psychopathology, or is there a rational reason that these things are connected?
Obviously browns and blacks have more of a tendency to be a receptive audience, but that's not the cause of the relationship between those things. The cause is white people pattern-matching these cultural phenomena to the systems of power that have consciously brought them about and suppress opposition to them.
Then why so much drama over Telegram?
The entire DR was forced there by Twitter censorship, but absolutely nobody considered it desirable. Obviously, any platform used by the DR would be a target. TikTok, X, Rumble, Telegram are all facing enormous pressure. With TikTok being another example to disprove the naive notion that this is about illegal content. The bipartisan consensus to ban TikTok was brought about by the Jewish lobby demanding censorship of anti-Zionist speech. It wasn't about illegal content.
SecureSignals
1yr ago
The writing was on the wall for a pretty long time now, and technologically nothing stands in the way of making an uncensorable service, but all these alt-tech CEOs keep making the same single-point-of-failure architectures
An "uncensorable service" where the only users there are like-minded people is not what the DR wants, certainly not what it needs. It needs to be present in the public square. That's why Musk's turnabout of Twitter censorship is so monumentally important. You have DR perspectives getting huge engagement with mainstream audiences. You have anti-Semitic posters publicly ratio'ing the ADL's annual memorial-post to the murdering pedophile Leo Frank. That is the stuff which is actually dangerous. All the DR being herded into some uncensorable service which gets no engagement or audience from the mainstream is worthless.
In reality, everything that the EU wants Durov to remove from Telegram is stuff Musk’s X already does remove and is happy to remove if a takedown notice is filed.
That's only if you take the EU and US at face value, that they are just really passionate about fighting pedophilia and terrorism, and don't assume that they are also trying to disrupt dissident political communication and organization. Which they obviously are. Musk made headlines just last month by claiming:
The European Commission offered 𝕏 an illegal secret deal: if we quietly censored speech without telling anyone, they would not fine us.
The other platforms accepted that deal.
𝕏 did not.
So the EU is obviously pressuring Musk to remove content which is not already removed, at least according to his perspective.
There has also been a lot in the news about the EU and US pressuring Musk:
Elon Musk is under renewed pressure from the US and EU over his ownership of Twitter, as regulators clamp down on the billionaire’s push to transform the social network into a freewheeling haven of free speech.
The European Commission on Wednesday threatened Musk with a ban unless Twitter abides by strict content moderation rules, as US Treasury secretary Janet Yellen indicated that Washington was reviewing his purchase of the social network.
The warning from Brussels came in a video call between Musk and Thierry Breton, the EU’s commissioner in charge of implementing the bloc’s digital rules, according to people with knowledge of the conversation.
Breton told Musk that Twitter must adhere to a checklist of rules, including ditching an “arbitrary” approach to reinstating banned users, pursuing disinformation “aggressively” and agreeing to an “extensive independent audit” of the platform by next year.
Musk is also a much, much harder target than Durov. They can't arrest him, but they probably can get away within giving X huge fines or banning it, and they have threatened to do both on many occasions since his acquisition of the platform.
The CEO of Rumble has fled Europe. Reminder that this is the "liberal free world."
So you have TikTok- forced divesture clearly going to be banned. Telegram, founder arrested. Rumble CEO has fled Europe. Musk is battling the NGOs and EU as well. This is not just about illegal content, it's about buckling down internet discourse for good.
SecureSignals
1yr ago
An appeal to the dissident right from the Russian opposition about the arrest of Pavel Durov
Just like what’s happening in France today. In 2017, Putin accused Telegram of helping terrorists and pedophiles and tried to pressure Pavel Durov to provide the FSB with keys to decrypt private messages.
But after months of struggle and rallying, we managed to defend Telegram. It still operates in Russia today, virtually free of censorship. Although it’s in an increasingly precarious position.
Since then, Putin opened a criminal investigation against me, and my entire team was forced into political exile. We won the battle but lost the war.
Because back in 2017, we were naive and thought it was a uniquely Russian problem. We actually thought Putin was a backwater dictator preventing Russia from joining the family of free nations. Unfortunately, we couldn’t have been more wrong.
As it turned out, Putin was the trailblazer. He set the example for the rest of the Western political class with his censorship, destruction of privacy, and surveillance. It turned out, the West was simply trailing behind.
I’m now in exile in Latin America, witnessing the same silencing of people unfolding under Lula’s rule in Brazil. Reading about people getting arrested for tweets in the UK, and watching Pavel Durov get arrested in France. Something even Putin didn’t dare to do at the time.
These are not isolated issues. The political class is waging a global war against the people. It’s not just Pavel who came under attack in France last night; it’s our privacy and freedom of speech.
... I implore the global right to apply their resources to support Pavel Durov. We have what it takes to save Telegram and finally start winning.
The founder of Telegram was arrested in France and faces 20 years in prison. The charges ostensibly surround the use of Telegram for criminal activity, but the Guardian notes:
The app was also used widely by far-right agitators plotting anti-immigration rallies in England and Northern Ireland in the wake of the stabbing of three children at a Southport dance class last month.
The anti-racism campaign group Hope Not Hate concluded that Telegram had become the “app of choice” for racists and violent extremists and “a cesspit of antisemitic content” with minimal moderation or effort from the app to curb extremist content.
At the height of Twitter censorship, probably 95% of the Dissident Right was banned from Twitter and all went to Telegram. The only contingent of the DR left on Twitter were the Bronze Age Pervert-types who extoled "The West" and race realism but otherwise promoted a philosemitic undercurrent among the right-wing. This all changed with Musk's acquisition of Twitter/X and now nearly all of the banned are back on that platform.
Yesterday Elon Musk also gave exposure to the Telegram founder's claim that the FBI tried to recruit one of his engineers to introduce vulnerabilities into the application through open-source dependencies.
It's hard to overstate the fragility of "freedom of speech", although admittedly I mostly care about expression and information-sharing related to the topics that I consider true and important. And those are the political topics which are only actually threatened at this point. The political persecution of Durov not only threatens Telegram, basically what became the last "internet Ghetto" of the Dissident Right, but it puts pressure on all platforms to conform to EU censorship standards, which are becoming more stringent year after year. TikTok is likewise being banned for not sufficiently curtailing speech according to the interests of the Jewish lobby.
You have the EU censorship regime, the international NGO apparatus like ADL and Hope not Hate which put enormous political and financial pressure on platforms and governments to censor this speech. The current state of Internet discourse is also proof positive of Elite Theory. Only someone like Elon Musk could do what he did with X and (for now) get away with it. Musk himself has related growing scrutiny and lawsuits by the federal bureaucracy against his businesses as retaliation for his "free speech" policy in governing X, and I think he's almost certainly correct.
It really is, at this point, one man standing against the impending total-internet censorship of the Dissident Right. People were making fun of Musk for overpaying for X, but it's an important lesson, a lesson already known by many, that you can't put a price on memetic control over the collective consciousness.
I had to go back because I don't remember that particular controversy. It turns out your memory is faulty, as the controversy surrounded giving thousands of additional work visas each year to Irish immigrant workers in a bilateral agreement- not "essentially unlimited immigration from Ireland":
The Senate is slated to vote on a bill supported by the Wisconsin Republican that cleared the House in November, which provides Irish applicants thousands of unused E-3 visas typically allocated to Australian citizens working in “speciality occupations” in the US.
But what you are even more wrong about is that Paul Ryan received no criticism for his own ethnic identity in supporting this policy. In fact, he was criticized for it in every single article I read about this controversy, with wording like:
House Speaker Paul Ryan is pushing a proposal that would greatly expand access to work visas for Irish nationals — a nod to his ancestral heritage — and drawing backlash from both sides of the political aisle.
...
Because he is Irish, Paul Ryan is promoting a bill that could provide Irish nationals with thousands of additional work visas each year. I’d love to see this included in the next op-ed from a white writer lamenting “identity politics,” but I know better.
...
The outgoing speaker, whose ancestors came to America from Ireland to escape famine in the 1850s, has always had a soft spot for the country. He even said he hopes to one day become to U.S. ambassador to Ireland.
In contrast, with Biden's almost-entirely Jewish cabinet which has pushed unprecedented policy initiatives in favor of Jewish NGOs and combatting antisemitism, with sweeping policy coming out of the Jewish-run DHS, Secretary of State Office, and so-on, there is actually no criticism of these Jewish officials using their power for the benefit of Jews in the same way that Ryan received criticism for his Irish heritage regarding his support for that bill.
Your example is just proving my point. The Paul Ryan example is 0.0000000001% the level of Jews supporting Jewish groups domestically and internationally, and the state of Israel, within the United States policy apparatus. And that 0.0000000001% draws criticism and complaint of ethnocentrism by the media whereas the elephant in the room does not.
A Jewish-run Department of State adding Israel to the Visa Wavier Program, despite there being very good reason for Israel to not be included in this program, drew no criticism or suggestion that the move was "a nod to Blinken's ancestry", of course except from the Dissident Right:
Today, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas, in consultation with Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, announced the designation of Israel into the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). By November 30, 2023, the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) will be updated to allow citizens and nationals of Israel to apply to travel to the United States for tourism or business purposes for up to 90 days without first obtaining a U.S. visa
So (Jewish) head of DHS Mayorkas and (Jewish) of Secretary of State Blinken add Israel to the program and not a whisper of a "nod to their heritage".
SecureSignals
1yr ago
Can we pause to appreciate how fucking insane it is that an AMERICAN high school has its students volunteering for a foreign army as a "project?" And that Jews expect NOBODY to breath a word about this or hold them accountable for their OBVIOUS loyalties to a foreign state and their own international community?
SecureSignals
1yr ago
Yeah, it would only get harder and harder to gaslight the world into thinking dual loyalty is just an antisemitic trope rather than a systematic problem at the highest levels of the US government.
Shapiro, born in Missouri, didn't volunteer for the US army but he volunteered for the Israeli army. How much more on the nose can they get while screaming "antisemitism!" when somebody points out the obvious?
SecureSignals
1yr ago
American neutrality in the decision of Jews to create their ethnostate in the middle of the Arab world. They chose it, they can defend it themselves- not at the economic, military, and diplomatic expense of the United States. It's not too late for America to course-correct, but our "Democracy" will never provide a ticket that is skeptical of the alliance. You either get to vote for the ticket which is already agitating for war with Iran, or the ticket poised to tap an IDF Volunteer as VP. "Democracy", right?
SecureSignals
1yr ago
America's alliance with Israel has been catastrophically costly economically, diplomatically, militarily, reputationally... tapping an IDF volunteer as VP of the United States is not a display of competence. It's a display of being captured by foreign influence.
SecureSignals
1yr ago
Josh Shapiro seeks to downplay his time as IDF volunteer
Considered by many to be a front-runner, it turns out that Governor Shapiro volunteered for the IDF. Will this sink his chances in being selected by the Harris campaign? Or will his selection be yet another demonstration of Zionist influence in American politics? To have a volunteer for a foreign army as the Vice President, a heartbeat from the presidency as they say, seems unconscionable to me, particularly a volunteer for an army that is at the center of violence which is currently bringing the region to the brink. Enter your predictions.
I predict Shapiro will be selected and these articles about his op-ed now being dropped, on a Friday before Kamala's selection, are an indication that Shapiro has been selected by the Harris campaign and this is meant to "clear the air" before the announcement.
SecureSignals
1yr ago
Seems like pretty thin evidence, "two degrees of separation" notwithstanding. What it does prove is how the practice itself is a sort of Pandora's Box. Everybody was scandalized by the assassination, no European power took credit for it. It led to a massively destructive war.
So now that Israel has embraced and normalized the practice as S.O.P in engaging in warfare, what are we to make of it? It's dangerous at best. They know they could start a regional war by conducting assassinations in Tehran. That's the point. They want a regional war so they can drag America to their defense.
The 1914 plot is a very good example for how and why the practice has not been used in warfare in the past. Imagine if the US engages in a Proxy war with China, and China starts assassinating US politicians or sending mailbombs to civilian factory workers. All hell would break lose.
SecureSignals
1yr ago
No, that one single example is so strong that it is simply sufficient, all on its own, to refute your claim
How is it a strong example when:
- Assassination was not the objective of the operation
- The violence which encroached on the borderline of "assassination" was perpetuated by the South Vietnamese themselves
- The operation was disbanded after public outcry owing to the public opposition to the practice of assassination
The long history of the Zionist movement engaging in assassinations with car bombs, mail bombs, terrorist tactics as a matter of official policy for many decades absolutely stands out among European military history. It is not normal, or at least it was not until now.
SecureSignals
1yr ago
Ah, quibbling over definitions is always a fun time.
No, this is you quibbling over definitions in order to deny the obvious fact that assassinations have always been an operating tactic of the Zionist movement, and that the degree to which they have engaged in it is not precedented in world history and especially European history. Because your denial is so weak, you appeal to a single CIA operation which was mostly executed by the South Vietnamese themselves; an operation that became denounced and disbanded precisely because it evoked negative sentiment around the practice of assassination even though the operation was not created with that objective.
On the other hand, if that doesn't count as "assassination" and neither does counter-insurgency or targeted killings, then what are you left with from the Israeli list?
You are just playing dumb. You don't understand the difference between a firefight among insurgents and an occupying force, and car-bombing a Palestinian political writer? Or sending a mail-bomb to factory workers?
The definition of assassination makes clear the difference, you are just trying to fudge the definition to pretend that Israel's conduct in this realm is normal when it is absolutely not.
It's telling that the global hegemon, America, has engaged in a substantial amount of warfare in its history. And among all that, all you can do is point to this Vietnam Operation which actually proves the distaste European society has historically had towards the practice in order to justify the long-standing systematic policy of assassination embraced by the Zionist movement.
SecureSignals
1yr ago
The Phoenix Program was a counter-insurgency program, not created as an assassination program. Nobody considers all the Hamas killed in Gaza in 9 months to have been "assassinated." The assassinations mentioned in that Wikipedia article include things like car-bombing political figures and civilians, or sniping somebody in the back while they are in their garden.
i.e. from a Veteran of the program:
The biggest myth coming out of Vietnam was that perpetrated by non-veterans of the Phoenix Program. I am constantly amazed at the number of postings in various forums describing the "truth" about Phoenix. As a veteran of the program - Go Cong and An Xuyen from Jan 1969 to Jan 1970 - I see several problems.
First and foremost, the "assassination" question. We had definite orders to the contrary. We also had orders to report such activities we had knowledge of. Were people killed? Of course. In my tour, going over notes about my tour I accumulated in preparation for writing a book on the subject, we had tens killed in military operations. For example, in one battle in upper Thoi Binh, the PRUs [Provincial Reconnaissance Unit, or counter-terror team] were suckered into an ambush by the VCI [Viet Cong Infrastructure, or political agents]. However, they wisely deployed differently than normal and sprang a counter attack. Outnumbered, the PRUs asked for reinforcements. The Province responded and over the next two days, about 150 VC were killed. A number were VCI. We got the credit for the kills, but it was an all out pitched military battle and the numbers are counted in the "assassinations" figures spouted by the uninformed.
Even so, especially because much of the violence fell under the gray area of "assassination", the program was denounced and disbanded.
This stands in sharp contrast to the long history of assassinations in Israel where it's a matter of official policy and a longstanding pattern of behavior.
SecureSignals
1yr ago
Looking at the list of American assassinations is jarring in that they are entirely after September 11th, in the context of the Middle East conflict and America's alliance with Israel. Israel's tradition of using assassination for political purposes and warfare goes back decades before. Certainly the evidence you've posted bolsters the case that these types of assassinations are brand new in the history of warfare and were introduced and normalized by Israel's methods in Palestine.
Russia is more comparable example. But take those two lists, the American and Russian, and compare that to the list of Israeli assassinations.
These lists would indeed suggest that Israel's reliance on assassinations in engaging in warfare is not precedented in world history.
SecureSignals
1yr ago
I am certainly not saying Harris' campaign is pro-White, but it's the introduction of White identity politics into mainstream politics. And it's not going to go away, and it's the Democrats who have introduced it first.
SecureSignals
1yr ago
they're explicitly warning you that if you even think of getting too uppity, you'll be thrown in the "pointy hats" bag.
Yes, this is what they are doing. With Peak Woke they oscillated between "White identity is the most evil thing in the world" and "there's no such thing as White people". Now they are "ok you can identify as white in a positive regard as long as it is to support our campaign, otherwise you are the KKK." But there's an important difference between those two positions, with the latter position being much weaker than the former position, and more indicative of a future White Identity Politics.
"White dudes for Harris" is a decline in both premises you mention, though:
It is appealing to the white identity of white men rather than just demanding pure intersectionality, in a way that does go beyond simply ranking white men as the worst in the progressive stack:
“Throughout American history, when white men organized, it was often with pointy hats on,” said Rocketto before he added how proud he was of this group of white men, who he said are too rarely heard from.
Actor Jeff Bridges, who played “The Dude” in the cult classic “The Big Lebowski,” was excited when he heard about the gathering of his fellow white dudes.
“I qualify, man! I’m white, I’m a dude, and I’m for Harris,” Bridges said. “A woman president, man, how exciting!”
So we've gone from "white men cannot organize, to identify as a white man is either silly or vehemently immoral" to The Dude and other celebrities saying "I'm white, cool I can participate in this event for white men!" Now it's a political reality acknowledged by the Harris campaign- and not by the Trump campaign or Republican party, I might add.
True, the actual content and movement is not pro-white, but it's an introduction of White Identity politics to polite society and that's a significant change which will most likely continue as white people become "just another" demographic in our democracy. This George Floyd "white people are evil" peak-wokeness is not going to be permanent.
It's another example of "The Liberals" leading the Conservatives by the nose. The Liberals dragged the Conservative movement towards no acknowledgement for the actual interests of White people, and now that Liberals are acknowledging white people we may see the Republican party do the same. In all the Conservative thrashing over Wokeness they never did the actual transgressive thing, which would have been to directly appeal to white people like Harris is doing now. They fundamentally respect that boundary and will respect the new boundaries put in place by "The Liberals."
SecureSignals
1yr ago
It should be remembered that it was the Democrat party that broke the ice on invoking White Identity Politics directly to muster political support. The Republican party has only ever used proxy rhetoric like "they have to come legally" or "tough on crime", but looking at the recent Convention it's clear the Republican strategy is to go for the Big Tent rather than directly appeal to white voters. It's the Harris campaign that makes the direct appeal to white men, and you would not see an event like this hosted within the Republican party.
This is another indication that we're probably over the hill of Peak Woke that a white identity is acknowledged in a non-critical context:
“There is an epidemic amongst men in this country,” Mike Nellis, a Democratic strategist who helped organize the call, told The Hill.
“That loneliness, that anxiety, that disconnection, it gets filled by something. And what Republicans have done an incredible job of, depressingly so, is creating a permission structure that makes it very easy for white men to embrace Donald Trump, to embrace MAGA culture, to embrace this sort of devolution of our politics into something much more crass,” he continued. ...
Nellis, on the other hand, argued that Democrats have been too quick in the past to give up on constituencies that seem out of reach, like rural voters and white male voters.
“We should be fighting for every inch and damn sure know that the Republicans do that. They communicate with every constituency that they can win, lose, or draw,” Nellis said.
“If we could move even a fraction of white men and get them to a place where they feel comfortable with being a part of the multicultural movement that is the Democratic Party, as imperfect as it is a lot of days, that would change our politics dramatically and so much for the better.”
That's a huge shift in messaging from just a few years ago in the midst of the Floyd riots.
If the Chinese acquired the representation across institutions of cultural influence that Jews currently have in media, politics, and academia, and made the Century of Humiliation equivalent to what is now the Holocaust in public consciousness, then wouldn't the "Chinese Question (CQ)" be justified as well?
The JQ doesn't claim that the behavior of Jews, or the Chinese in this counterfactual, is hard to understand. But that it's a hostile foreign influence. That same criticism would apply if the Chinese forced the elevation of their identity so prominently in the cultural consciousness.
And wouldn't it be weird to call someone a "Chinese-hater" for correctly pointing out that influence and identifying it as hostile, in this counterfactual?
Especially if many of those lobbing the accusation of "Chinese-hater" in this counterfactual were Chinese themselves, you would be correct to view that epithet, and its cultural weight, as being yet another validation of the initial critique.
More options
Context Copy link