SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
No bio...
User ID: 853
The WMD hoax was engineered by Zionists in the American government under the newly-formulated Office of Special Plans, specifically as a workaround to slush fabricated intelligence from Israel to the Pentagon, working around the CIA. The goal was to formulate a propaganda narrative to instigate the United States into fighting a regional rival of Israel, Saddam Hussein.
In an interview with the Scottish Sunday Herald, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer Larry C. Johnson said the OSP was "dangerous for US national security and a threat to world peace. [The OSP] lied and manipulated intelligence to further its agenda of removing Saddam. It's a group of ideologues with pre-determined notions of truth and reality. They take bits of intelligence to support their agenda and ignore anything contrary. They should be eliminated....
Lawrence Franklin, an analyst and Iran expert in the Feith office, has been charged with espionage, as part of a larger FBI investigation (see Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal). The scandal involves passing information regarding United States policy towards Iran to Israel via the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Feith's role is also being investigated.[15]
According to The Guardian, Feith's office had an unconventional relationship with Israel's intelligence services:
The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.
"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.
The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship with Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.[16]
Allegations have also been made that Pentagon employees in the Feith office have been involved in plans for overthrowing the governments of Iran and Syria.[17]
Douglas Feith Himself, along with Richard Perle, another architect of the Iraq war, authored the Clean Break Memo.
Feith is an ardent supporter of Israel. Along with Richard Perle and David Wurmser, he was a member of the study group which authored a controversial report entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,[33] a set of policy recommendations for the newly elected Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The report was published by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies without an individual author being named. According to the report, Feith was one of the people who participated in roundtable discussions that produced ideas that the report reflects.
The Clean Break memo was a policy document created by Feith, Perle, and Netenyahu:
Former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle was the "Study Group Leader,"...
From the memo:
We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions...
Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.
So the authors of this memo, in collaboration with Netenyahu, use their influence in the highest positions of American government to fabricate intelligence for WMDs (and also intelligence that Iraq was responsible for the post-9/11 Anthtrax attack which seems to be a memory-holed event in the context of 9/11. Israeli intelligence distributed the claim that Anthrax was given to a hijacker by an Iraqi spy in Prague, which was discounted by American intelligence agencies including the CIA but still became part of the WMD narrative leading up to the war.).
So to answer your question:
The WMD hoax was fabricated by Zionists, who formed special working groups and offices to slush false intelligence around the CIA. The CIA is not chiefly responsible for the WMD hoax or the Iraq/Al-Qaeda in Praque anthrax hoax, and was critical of the OSP and the intelligence provided by the OSP. The CIA did not have an incentive to fabricate evidence for a deception campaign that was not of their own making.
The OSP was not in a position to fabricate the evidence for WMDs on the ground, nor was that ever its goal. Its goal was to get America involved in a war against Iraq to overthrow Saddam on behalf of the sate of Israel, and it succeeded. Fabricating physical evidence for WMDs was not necessary for their goals, or even for their coverup. The leading theories for why America was manipulated into the Iraq War surround Bush's neuroses and Big Oil conspiracies. So fabricating physical evidence was not necessary for them to accomplish their goals or even to get away with their crimes.
There were some attempts to forge a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. A big question is, who forged the Habbush Letter? I don't think it was the CIA.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
4mo ago
Israel is engaging in an ethnic cleansing, the "legality" doesn't matter as that is simply a function of the support of the United States. The legality of settlements or blockades doesn't matter either. It's an Apartheid state... It's everything the managerial elite claim to oppose. But the real problem is a fucking slogan saying Palestinians will be free? Give me a break, seriously. It's a testament to their penchant for narrative control that they make a fucking slogan the big Controversy of the Day, and even people here take the bait by claiming that this shows how Jews are just so put upon by Academia. It's completely absurd.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
11mo ago
Rudolf was deported in 2005 for allegedly being in the US illegally.
He was married to an American wife. How many people with an American wife would be arrested and deported when they show up to apply for a Green Card? His treatment was obviously due to his Holocaust denial. And now he has children with his American wife who were born in America. To pretend that him facing deportation has nothing to do with his Holocaust denial, and the average person in his situation would face the same treatment, is completely delusional.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
11mo ago
· Edited 11mo ago
I don't think you fully understand, the "5 million plus non-Jews killed in the Holocaust" was a propaganda hoax created by Jewish Holocaust influencers in order to manipulate gentile feelings towards the Holocaust.
Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar who chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, said he warned his friend Wiesenthal, who died in 2005, about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims – 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews.
“I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’” Bauer recalled in an interview Tuesday. “He said, ‘Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential.’”
Bauer and other historians who knew Wiesenthal said the Nazi hunter told them that he chose the 5 million number carefully: He wanted a number large enough to attract the attention of non-Jews who might not otherwise care about Jewish suffering, but not larger than the actual number of Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust, 6 million.
It caught on: President Jimmy Carter, issuing the executive order that would establish the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, referred to the “11 million victims of the Holocaust.”
People don't understand how easy it is for whole-cloth lies to be embraced as truth by masses of people, or as the world's most famous anti-Semite put it in Mein Kampf:
All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true within itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1mo ago
The number of Jewish-American soldiers who died in combat is completely irrelevant. Over 99% of the alleged death toll is said to have happened in Eastern Europe.
Very large numbers of Jews were evacuated from Poland and Eastern Europe deep into the Soviet Interior ahead of the German advance. Their fate is not well understood. Any of them, and there were certainly very many although we cannot know how many, were either outright killed by Stalin or died of exposure in gulags in Siberia or in subsequent war/post-war famines, historians count them all as German victims.
Or Ukrainian nationalists in a village who associated Jews with Bolshevism and took revenge against them, that's also counted as victims of Germany.
You can make the argument that historians ought to count things this way, but the point is the mythos obscures the underlying complexity to these issues. "Germans gassed 3 million Jews inside gas chambers disguised as shower rooms and then made the bodies disappear" is the mythological handwaving over the complexities of what actually transpired and why it did.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
3mo ago
It is "well-trod territory" because even the mainstream has backed away from the original stature given to the Wannsee Conference as supposedly being the decision point for the extermination policy. It was a 90 minute meeting of mid-level officials. Wannsee was only important because they have literally nothing else to go on, so they have to take a 90 minute meeting about Jewish resettlement and pretend that "resettlement" is a codeword for gas chamber extermination. They also say the Germans specifically wrote the minutes of the meeting to camouflage the actual purpose of the meeting. That's not a misrepresentation, either, that's actually what they claim.
The Revisionist interpretation of Wannsee, i.e. what the minutes of the meeting say it was, is actually comparable to AfD meeting in secret to plan proposals for mass resettlement of migrants. It is not comparable to the Steven Spielberg version of history.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
3mo ago
If the Western Allies had refused to ally with the Soviet Union, there would have been no war between Germany and Western Europe. Instead, Europe was destroyed and Great Britain lost its empire. Liberalism's greatest victory entailed the destruction of Europe, the collapse of the British Empire, and the Communist conquest of half of Europe. All to "save Poland" by the way.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
5mo ago
Sam Harris really is a demonstration of everything wrong with New Atheism, and he's finally mask off as a partisan for his preferred Yahweh cults. He wants to read the rhetoric of the Jihadi group, how about he reads the rhetoric of the intellectual Zionist figureheads and the leaders of "liberal western civilized order."
I remember when it was a scandal that George Bush reportedly told a Palestinian delegation that God told him to go to Iraq. I remember "New Atheists" being rightfully apoplectic. Reading that article about the Bush scandal again, there is one detail I never knew, which is that Bush's statement that God told him to invade Iraq was proceeded by another statement:
And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it.
Maybe Sam Harris wants to read the apocalyptic and messianic prophesy that formulates the foundational core of Zionism. This conflict is eschatological, the Zionist claims are fundamentally and intrinsically based on bible stories of Yahweh giving them the land. Where is Sam Harris when Bibi is invoking the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy to moralize Israel's war against Hamas? Where are the New Atheists now that our brand new House Speaker is saying "God will bless the nation that blesses Israel." Or Mike Pompeo saying:
Christians have an obligation to ensure that Israel continues to be the rightful homeland of the Jewish people
Where are the New Atheists now? Converting to "Judeo-Christianity"?
This conflict isn't about oil or about Islam, it's about the Bible. That's why we are here in this endless conflict over a small piece of desert land. We need a New New Atheist movement that takes all of Yahwehism to task because all strains of it are anti-civilizational. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, none of them are innocent in these inter-Abrahamic wars and it's time to move past worship of Yahweh if we actually care about Western civilization.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
6mo ago
How would they have been pushed out if they had a sovereign state?
Sovereignty was never on the table, the Israeli "offer" has always been contingent on demands of demilitarization along with various Israeli control of borders and airspace.
I don’t see Israel, or the Jewish people, as the long-term enemy of my people.
You should consider that the reverse is true, especially among the more religious hardliners which are growing in influence in Israel. They spit on Christian pilgrims in the streets, they could murder them for that matter, and those Christians will never accept them as a long-term enemy. But that's ultimately because Christian religion has completely blinded them and they are totally incapable of rationally interpreting the relationship between themselves and the Jews.
I don't blame you for wanting this to be true, but my question is what exactly do you perceive as entailing "reconciliation" between Aryan and Jew, a sibling rivalry that is biblical and mythically embodied in the brothers Jacob and Esau. The Jews view themselves as sons of Jacob and you as the son of Esau. Does your idea of reconciliation rely on this changing fundamentally? I don't think you appreciate how deeply this is baked into the cake of the Jewish religion.
Because they will say that they want nothing more than reconciliation between Jew and Aryan. And their conception of "reconciliation" is the suppression and erasure of Aryan racial consciousness and advocacy coincided with bloodthirsty support for the Jewish ethno-state. I assume that you mean something different by "reconciliation", something akin to reciprocity. Imagine if Jews vocally and materially supported the interests of White people to the extent White people support Jewish nationalism. If that's your idea of reconciliation, I would be interested to see how, when, and why you think these attitudes changing are plausible.
I think you also underestimate the capacity for self-deception and cognitive dissonance. Let's say Israel determines the Final Solution to the Palestinian Question is forced deportation. That is not going to open the minds of Europeans in any degree, they are just going to accept simultaneously that this is necessary for Israel but even proposing a similar measure for African migrants is an evil, jail-worthy suggestion.
you are claiming that they "worship the God of Israel and believe in the Jewish covenant."
I am actually stunned, you think it's some controversy to say that they worship the God of Israel and affirm the claims of the covenant described in the Hebrew bible? From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, "the first to hear the Word of God." The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ", "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."
They absolutely do worship the same god, how is this even a controversy? They acknowledge the Torah as being true!
I have the most exposure to Catholic doctrine and Southern Evangelical culture, and the latter is more rabidly pro-Jew than Catholics, and Catholics according to doctrine absolutely believe they worship the same god.
Why can't you just bite the bullet and admit that this is true? That's what I don't understand. How is it even controversial to claim Christians worship the God of Israel? Their Holy text lays this out verbatim, they affirm the Hebrew bible as being true...
For all your indignation that I pull off your lampshade by talking about ZOG and the Elders of Zion and neo-Nazis, you never deny that this is where you are coming from
I don't deny it because it's just ad hominem and I don't like to let people try to derail the conversation by trying to manipulate denunciations from their interlocutors. I didn't talk about ZOG, or the Elders of Zion, or neo-Nazis, I talked about Jesus and Paul and the Old Testament. You started talking about those things to try to discredit me and derail the conversation, me ignoring your attempt to do this does not constitute a non-denial, it's called being ignored for bringing nothing to the conversation.
I talk about how Christians worship the Jewish god and then you go on about Neo-Nazis. You're the one who's ideologically motivated, I'm calling a spade a spade.
I can't tell if you are being disingenuous or are just genuinely unaware that this is old (very, very old) news and ten different Christian denominations will have ten or twelve different things to say about "Are you a Jewish religion?"
They are a Jewish religion, it doesn't matter whether it's old news or new news, it matters that this fact is true and important. It also doesn't matter if they have ten or twelve answers, the only coherent answer is "yes." They do worship a Jewish god, their own holy texts that they hold as being true lays this out verbatim. They worship the King of the Jews. Obviously it's controversial if people like you are keen to deny it flat in the face of all the evidence.
As the Critical Theorists love reminding us, we are colonizers and conquerors. We have for thousands of years engaged in a pattern of behavior of conquering continents, subjugating the previous inhabitants, imposing civilization and order and law. Guilty as charged. This is a pattern of behavior that emerged in the Bronze Age, in which Neolithic European populations were only the first to be subsumed, but it's a force of being that reached all continents of the world. Rome is only one example of a civilizational modus operandi that has been endemic to "whiteness" since the Bronze Age. It is who we are.
The Jewish story since the Bronze Age has always defined its identity relative to some struggle with its host hegemon, whether it's Egypt, Rome, Europe, or the United States. What is Jewish Nationalism absent such symbiosis? It's Israel.
BAP wants the Aryan Bronze Age spirit to be transplanted to the Jewish spirit. It's a fine aspiration, but it's a contradiction with the Jewish spirit.
The other possibility is that Hanania is used as a sort of sanctioned dissident to divert the libertarian to dissident right pipeline back to "individualist libertarianism" but with more racism.
HBD denial among libertarians is probably the leading cause for that pipeline, Hanania could be useful for the establishment by integrating it with libertarianism. I think it's his Occidental Observer associations that are a bridge too far, though.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
10mo ago
· Edited 10mo ago
Surely Superman is best-known as an avatar of 'Truth, Justice, and the American Way' - he is a patriotic avatar of American values in a way that is explicitly presented as inclusive of all races and cultures. This does not seem like a radical critique of Gentile identity - on the contrary, it is clearly an affirmation of a particular understanding of American identity that is extraordinarily inclusive of people of different racial or religious origins.
E-X-A-C-T-L-Y. This is exactly what I am talking about. It is a radical critique of Gentile identity because it subverts the identity of America as a white country. I presume you have some sympathies with Israel, what if a bunch of Palestinians somehow had the wherewithal to take control over Israeli cultural institutions, and they made massively-popular superheroes giving moral lessons to Children about how Israel is not a country for Jews?
How did we get to this point where white people are just totally submitted to their own demographic replacement? Slowly, and with propaganda like this. This propaganda was intelligently crafted with a political motivation, it planted the seeds of our current culture.
You can look at many examples- take Captain America. Who could have a problem with him right? He's a macho Aryan who is a role model for children. He was also created by a Jewish storyteller, Joe Simon, and Wikipedia relates:
In 1940, Timely Comics publisher Martin Goodman responded to the growing popularity of superhero comics – particularly Superman at rival publisher National Comics Publications, the corporate predecessor to DC Comics – by hiring freelancer Joe Simon to create a new superhero for the company. Simon began to develop the character by determining who their nemesis could be, noting that the most successful superheroes were defined by their relationship with a compelling villain, and eventually settled on Adolf Hitler. He rationalized that Hitler was the "best villain of them all" as he was "hated by everyone in the free world", and that it would be a unique approach for a superhero to face a real-life adversary rather than a fictional one.
This approach was also consciously political: Simon was stridently opposed to the actions of Nazi Germany and supported U.S. intervention in World War II, and intended the hero to be a response to the American non-interventionism movement. Simon initially considered "Super American" for the hero's name, but felt there were already multiple comic book characters with "super" in their names. He worked out the details of the character, who was eventually named "Captain America", after he completed sketches in consultation with Goodman. The hero's civilian name "Steve Rogers" was derived from the telegraphy term "roger", meaning "message received".
Goodman elected to launch Captain America with his own self-titled comic book, making him the first Timely character to debut with his own ongoing series without having first appeared in an anthology. Simon sought to have Jack Kirby [my note: also Jewish] be the primary artist on the series: the two developed a working relationship and friendship in the late 1930s after working together at Fox Feature Syndicate, and had previously developed characters for Timely together. Kirby also shared Simon's pro-intervention views, and was particularly drawn to the character in this regard.
It is extremely mythologically significant that "Captain America* was engineered by Jewish storytellers in 1940 to fight the Germans. That is not innocuous, it is not a cultural exchange, it is mythmaking and culture-creation for the ethnically-motivated intention of influencing a mass audience. Here's the cover of the first issue from December 1940 when there was essentially a consensus of public opinion against intervention in WWII. Today, Captain America's identity as a "Nazi puncher" is fully internalized by the mass audience.
Last week I posted that secret report from the Polish ambassador in 1939:
The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German National Socialism is further kindled by the brutal attitude against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré problem. In this action Jewish intellectuals participated; for instance, Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau, and others who are personal friends of Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who in the future will punish trouble-mongers. These groups, people who want to pose as representatives of “Americanism” and “defenders of democracy” in the last analysis, are connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to put the President of the United States at this “ideal” post of champion of human rights, was a clever move. In this manner they created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a mysterious manner. Roosevelt has been forcing the foundation for vitalizing American foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving consciously. With regard to domestic policy, it is extremely convenient to divert public attention from anti-Semitism which is ever growing in the United States, by talking about the necessity of defending faith and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.
It is interesting to compare this political agenda to craft this myth of an Americanism that exists to "punish trouble-mongers" with the character of Captain America who was created only a few months later.
This is an example of how an apparently innocuous cultural symbol was consciously designed in the service of an ethnically-motivated agenda. Now I'm not that interested in arguing with you about the validity of that agenda, it suffices to show mythmaking as ethnically-motivated propaganda consciously designed to influence public opinion. Joe Simon conceived, in 1940, of Hitler as the "greatest villain in the world", and his comic-book villain soon became engrained in our quasi-religious consciousness with that role.
My argument is no stronger than assigning credit to our popular culture for our popular social movements, and you cannot acknowledge that basic fact without considering the underlying motivations of Jews who have heavily influenced this culture with race-conscious aims.
it's because they fear being victims again?
They fear being victims again, so they cannot allow white racial consciousness or advocacy for the ethnic interests of white people. Their sincerity does not at all alleviate the conflict that is staring us in the face, the conflict that they are conscious of and my co-ethnics are not because they "learned their lessons" from Superman and Captain America, if not from St. Paul and Christ.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
10mo ago
· Edited 10mo ago
Is the Warsaw Pact really any different than EU or NATO membership today?
Yes, because the Warsaw Pact became the immediate enemy of Western Europe, and West Germany (composed mostly of former Nazi leadership) became the immediate ally of the West. How is this at all coherent? Why couldn't we just skip to that part where Germany is allied with Western Europe against the Soviet Union (which is what Hitler explicitly wanted) without destroying Europe and gifting the USSR half the continent? If Poland had entered the fold as a satellite for Western Europe as Germany had wanted, and as Poland is today, then that is the more logical outcome unless you buy into the post-war propaganda lies that Germany aspired to conquer Western Europe and the world. Hitler also wanted Great Britain as an ally against the Soviet Union, so why was a Total War with unconditional surrender necessary to align West Germany with the West against the USSR?
The US, Great Britain, and France wanted war with Germany and Germany did not want war with them. Instead, we fought an entire World War and destroyed Europe in order to create a pact for a true enemy to the West. It's completely incoherent and unjustifiable without the post-war mythos.
That was the appraisal of General Patton by the way:
We may have been fighting the wrong enemy (Germany) all along. But while we're here (on the Soviet border), we should go after the bastards now, 'cause we're gonna have to fight 'em eventually.
Patton wanted to arm the just-defeated Germans and attack the Soviet Union, proposing we "may have been fighting the wrong enemy." How do people's hearts not sink for Europe when they realize what could have been avoided if the West hadn't waged total war with unconditional surrender demands on Germany, rebuffing Germany's peace offers every step of the way? Obviously, their mind is on the post-war mythos rather than the reality of the situation at the time which is much harder to defend without relying on those narratives.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
10mo ago
· Edited 10mo ago
Wouldn’t your point be considerably undermined by the near indisputable fact that Nazism was, in actual fact, a severe threat to both fundamental human right to life as well as world peace?
All Great Powers are a severe threat to both the fundamental human right to life and world peace, this isn't saying much. Are you saying Germany had a plan to attack the West? That's a popular conception but one that is also dismissed among the reflection of "insiders." There's an interesting 1945 diary entry from James Forrestal, the first U.S. Secretary of Defense:
Played golf today with Joe Kennedy [Roosevelt’s Ambassador to Great Britain in the years immediately before the war]. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight; Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.
What Kennedy told me in this conversation jibes substantially with the remarks Clarence Dillon had made to me already, to the general effect that Roosevelt had asked him in some manner to communicate privately with the British to the end that Chamberlain should have greater firmness in his dealings with Germany...
Looking backward there is undoubtedly foundation for Kennedy’s belief that Hitler’s attack could have been deflected to Russia…
The idea that the media is so full of this cynical, power-seeking narrative building today, but in the 1930s was when it was actually dedicated to the truth of "keeping a free people educated" is what looks naïve in the context of these insider perspectives.
So Great Britain took a stand and pressured Poland to not negotiate a settlement over 95% ethnically German Danzig. Then Great Britain declared war on Germany after their invasion of Poland, which the Germans did not expect, then however-many-tens-of-millions dead and the Soviet Union conquered half of Eurasia, including all of Poland... If you don't trust the media narrative-building today it should also make you somewhat suspicious of the narrative-building of the past.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
11mo ago
· Edited 11mo ago
I could tell you were weasel-wording so I provided clarifications at the time. Here is what you initially said:
You're right that it's infeasible to completely cremate several hundred thousand corpses on open air pyres in the space of a few months.
Well here we are with Belzec where the claim is... several hundreds thousand corpses were completely cremated on open air pyres in the space of a few months. Kola's results don't leave room for you to speculate on incomplete state of cremation for any significant portion of the alleged victims like you did for Treblinka.
I could tell you were weasel-wording at the time so I asked for clarification:
That's a vague concession. Can you instead concede specifically that the cremation operation claimed by Yitzhak Arad: Late February/March 1943 - August 1943 cremation of 800,000 people, was not possible as described?
To which you responded with more weasel words you are now using to walk-back your position:
I read Arad's book a while ago, but if he indeed claims that 800,000 people were fully cremated between March 1943 and August 1943 using nothing but dry branches then yes he is wrong, you win.
I could tell you were still weasel-wording with qualifiers that nobody asserted so I provided the exact text from Arad to refresh your memory and give you the opportunity to assess the plausibility of exactly what Arad claimed. At the time, it was not convenient in that argument for you to dwell on Arad's claims of 800,000 corpses cremated between March and August 1943 (such a claim ought to raise the eyebrows of people here to appreciate the sheer implausibility of what the "history" claims), so you distanced yourself from it, but in this conversation you can't distance yourself from it without hurting the mainstream orthodox case for Belzec.
Do you still maintain that:
You're right that it's infeasible to completely cremate several hundred thousand corpses on open air pyres in the space of a few months.
Or are you walking that back, too?
Assuming you maintain this position, we can dismiss the claims of the Zamość prosecutor in the 1946 investigatory report as impossible, and likewise the testimony of key witnesses as impossible. The HC paper cited testimony from Gley to argue for a November 1942 start of cremation, but I noticed that they did not acknowledge Gley's statement form his 1961 interrogation, which said "I say that I am sure no corpses were as yet being cremated when I arrived" and placed the start of cremation operations at January 1943 at the earliest. So Gley's accounts are inconsistent, and his first interrogation can likewise be dismissed as infeasible.
Of course the next question is, if it's infeasible to "completely cremate several hundred thousand corpses on open air pyres in the space of a few months" then why is four months any more plausible? It isn't.
I'm reminded of a criminal interrogation YouTube video I watched last week where a teenage girl confessed to tragically murdering a 9 year-old neighboring girl. The suspect claimed it was an accident, and she panicked and burned the body and scattered the ashes in the river (!). As you can imagine, the investigators didn't buy that for a second, frequently remarking how difficult it is to cremate a body. The girl didn't want the body to be found because the autopsy would contradict her story. They immediately knew she was lying and she couldn't provide plausible details for how she conducted the cremation. This is the problem the Holocaust "witnesses" run into: they have no concept for what would be involved in cremating 800,000 or 430,000 people on open-air pyres so the accounts they give are infeasible and completely void of the details that would be most important to describe the operation if it actually happened. So they say things like, little or no fuel was used, or fatter bodies were used as kindling and burned on their own. It's the marker of people making up a story with no conception of what would actually be involved in what they are claiming.
This photograph shows a heap of ashes on the ground next to a currently burning pyre
I said "a picture of uncremated bodies in Dresden provides nothing in the way of scientific evidence" and you respond with a picture of uncremated bodies. There were ashes everywhere in Dresden, we have no scientific knowledge whatsoever of what those ashes are, their quantity, how they were cremated (or even if they were cremated or just dumped from a pile of rubble for a photo-op), how the pyre was setup and the type and quantity of fuel used... we have no information about any of this. Your picture as a source base for the Dresden pyres is inadequate for a technical analysis. The technical analysis we do have refutes the feasibility of using gasoline for mass cremation.
I actually don't know what the revisionist explanation for intact corpses in the ground at Belzec is.
IIRC The Belzec camp was in the vicinity of labor camps in the area since 1940 for building fortifications and the like, and Belzec was built on one. They could be from before the camps operation as a transit camp, or during, or after. Without excavations and forensic analysis it's just speculation. I will point out that mass graves of intact skeletons found at Sobibor were widely speculated to have been Holocaust victims, and they were excavated and forensically studied- the only intact corpses to have ever have been at any of these "extermination camps." The December 2021 paper recently published concluded that they were indeed Jewish and most likely victims of... the NKVD! And that they were executed after the Soviets conquered the area of the camp! Historians had widely speculated that these were prisoners from Treblinka who were transferred to Sobibor to dismantle the camp. That hypothesis was rejected by the study. This story shows the importance of excavation and not just speculating based on what appears to be in the ground.
There is no plausible non-sinister reason for the established volume of the graves.
Without any attempt whatsoever to quantify the number of victims in the graves, this statement is moot. If the Belzec graves had the same victim density as the Katyn mass graves in the Soviet report, that would imply ~20,000 deaths.
What we can do is acknowledge the maximum volume of possible burial space, which is 21,310 cubic meters. We can then apply a theoretical maximum burial density of 8 corpses per cubic meter and see there is only space in theory for a maximum of 170,000 corpses, not even volume enough for half of what is claimed to have been buried at that site.
This is an example where Revisionists prove the strength of their argument by taking the most unfavorable assumptions possible and proving the official story does not check out. They will for argument's sake assume 100% capacity of absolute maximum burial density and show that the story is still contradicted by the evidence. Whereas the mainstream story is always desperate to make the most favorable estimates along every dimension to try to bring their claims closer to the realm of possibility...
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
11mo ago
If you include civilians/combatants who died in the war as Holocaust victims you would end up with more than 5 million in any case. The 5 million number was not based on the logic you are proposing, it was just a lie intended to manipulate people. It had no scholarly basis whatsoever.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
11mo ago
However, they would have had no good reason to invent it.
They did have a good reason to invent it, and the reason is described in the article. Wiesenthal wanted to psychologically manipulate gentiles into caring about Jewish suffering. That is the motive which was identified for the creation of the lie, it's not a mystery.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
11mo ago
Ethos is downstream from mythos, nobody is really immune to those forces. It's just part of the human condition. Non-Jewish whites deserve their share of blame absolutely, but you can't really blame them for being so influenced by the news media, academia, Hollywood, and popular culture. Once you lose control over those culture-creating institutions, you've lost the plot.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
11mo ago
· Edited 11mo ago
All racial terms are fuzzy, Israel manages to define an ethnic Jew in a way that works in practice. There should be some category to refer to "non-Jewish European-descended" and Aryan was used to denote that group historically. Italians were regarded as Aryan even by Nazi racial laws FWIW, the term wasn't nearly as exclusive as the post-war lore has made it out to be. White hispanics are more complicated because there are some with entirely European ancestry and some with much less.
There's no historical basis for a lot of foundational myths, whether we're talking about Lamanites or Fir Bolg.
Yeah, that wasn't my point. My point was that Aryan foundational myth larps as the descendants of classical heroes, and Jewish foundational myth larps as a slave caste to a foreign civilization, within which they unleash plagues and get expelled.
I have not heard this claim, and like most of your statements, it's hard to parse since I don't know if you're claiming it's something some Jew once said and you're taking it out of context or what. (I mean, every army had some number of Jewish soldiers, some of whom were obviously killed in battle. So obviously the statement cannot literally be true.)
When historians estimate the death toll of the Holocaust - the famous 6 million number, they explicitly include all deaths even of Jews who never fell under German occupation, or who died in combat, owing to German war guilt for starting the war. Assuming some number of Jews, likely very many, died under Stalin during or after the war, those are all tabulated as Holocaust victims of Germany. Or some Ukrainian villages taking revenge against the Bolshevik apparatus- also German Holocaust victims.
According to Court Historians, 100% of Jewish deaths in WWII are German Holocaust victims, and 0 Jews were victims of Stalin.
So you have a basis of truth, Jewish persecution and hardship during WWII, and then it gets exaggerated and mispresented until you have a mythos that bears little resemblance to reality but is a propaganda narrative created by and for the interests of Jews.
I remember Ilforte giving a translated account of an alleged Russian pogrom which was extremely dubious, some Jewish school claiming that Russians had trespassed and trashed the place and threatened to kill them. It was all based off eyewitness testimonies of the Jews, with no leads or suspects and law enforcement basically didn't believe them although they could not write that in their reports. Yes, I'm sure the history of the pogroms in Russia is a mishmash of truth and reality, which is ultimately condensed into a one-sided narrative.
I mean....if Israel uses a nuke, it means they already made the rational calculation your going to destroy their survival. Why not use a nuke if thats the case? ...
From what it sounds like, you seem to think Israel is a weak little state that will fold at the drop of the hat. They arent. They are the Middle East's Prussia. A military with a state.
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth... Israel is this invincible Middle East Prussia, but then at the same time Israel's survival is threated by a Palestinian state. Which is it?
Forcing Israel to accept a two-state solution is not going to destroy Israel. It might destroy some expansionist ambitions fueled by fanatical belief in biblical prophecy. And that's a good thing, that has not been good for the region.
That's why Israel would capitulate. If the entire world is pressuring Israel to accept a two-state solutions, with EU peacekeepers to put down any troublemakers on either side to make it happen, there's no reason to humor the notion of Israel nuking Europe.
Israel was neutral about the invasion of Iraq.
This is a whole other debate. They publicly had one position, but privately they funneled bogus intelligence about WMDs to the White House, including claims like an Iraqi spy supplying a 9/11 hijacker with Anthrax while in Prague. Israel pushed this intelligence in October, just a month after the WTC and anthrax attacks.
For someone who wants less problems for Europe, it seems very counter intuitive to desire a possible military action against Israel and enforce a failed Palestinian state, which would likely set up a regional war when there isnt one anyway.
Because the US/EU has no control over Israel yet we are responsible for and impacted by what happens in the Middle East. When the Yemenis shut down shipping lanes, it's the problem of the United States. You've already explained why a regional war in the Middle East would be a catastrophe for Europe, so why do you keep asking why the US/EU cares what happens there?
If it were up to me, there would be a one-state solution with equal political rights between Israelis and Palestinians, and constitutional protections for any minority groups. But you would regard that as a bigger existential threat than a two-state solution. So the reality is you have no solutions, you are demanding we accept the status quo, or demanding we accept an ethnic cleansing of the region which will destroy our credibility and myths surrounding our own hegemony. The international community is getting tired of it, and yes they brought Israel into this world with a vote. That's the sort of origin story that gives the demands of the international community a lot of weight.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
3mo ago
Israel is a nuclear armed state. You want a special military operation against a nuclear armed state to enforce what is likely an existential crisis for the nuclear armed nation?
A two-state solution enforced by the EU is not an existential crisis for Israel.
I don't think the Israelis are going to nuke their Plan B. A decent portion of dual citizens have already left. If they are willing to nuke Europe for forcing a two-state solution onto them, by force if necessary, then that already says everything we need to know about our Greatest Ally.
But it wouldn't get that far, the Israelis would fold like a cheap suit if the EU plausibly threatened to enforce a two-state solution with the threat of force, with the backing of the majority of the world community. The international community brought Israel into this world, if Israel is going to throw nukes to stop a two-state solution then that is a big problem for the entire world which needs to be solved.
Thats a redline for the Israelis. They might genuinely choose to detonate a thermonuclear bomb over Europe in response. And Europe would deserve it.
History rhymes, that would end poorly for Israel, but it wouldn't come to that.
Israel expelling the Palestinians leads to a regional war.
You realize Israel has already, again, brought the region to the brink of war? The purpose of enforcing a two-state solution onto Israel with international administration of Jerusalem would be to prevent the likelihood of a regional war which Western support of Israel is currently enabling under the status quo.
Why Europe even needs an opinion to care about this conflict, that they need to impose a solution, is whats ridiculous?
You just explained why a regional war is a catastrophe for European and American interests. I've already explained that these military operations in the Middle East are a huge burden of resources and credibility, now we are fighting Yemen in a very expensive engagement that is probably going to last quite a while. It's our problem, it's not just Israel's problem.
Why should Europe do anything only to make a contained situation worse.
I do not know what you are smoking if you call the situation "contained." It is not contained. Israel has failed for decades to contain the situation. They aren't capable of it. It's time for the international community to intervene.
That's great to hear! It seems like ChatGPT consistently recognizes and highlights the architectural and aesthetic qualities of the castle.
More options
Context Copy link