SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
No bio...
User ID: 853
That's funny, it's the inverse of a common Revisionist joke about why people are so upset over the good news that ~3 million Jews weren't gassed inside shower rooms. "Rabbi, good news..."
I mean, the US has never invested ground forces in taking out any military group directly opposing Israel.
The Iraq war was fought on behalf of Israel at the behest of Zionist Jews in the American foreign policy apparatus who fabricated intelligence on WMDs for the purpose of manipulating the US into war against Israel's regional rivals. The Iraq War was fought for Israel, not for WMDs and certainly not for Oil or Democracy.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
4d ago
Obviously the very small % of interracial marriage in Kiryas Joel is totally irrelevant in comparison to that example of an intentional ethnic enclave, in which they organize along racial lines, flex very considerable political power to the detriment of others in the community outside their racial group, and engage in systematic and widespread Welfare fraud while receiving many more government handouts unjustly.
Aarvoll's community won't even be 1% as disruptive to their outgroup as Kiryas Joel has been to non-Jews living in the area. With that said, I don't really support Aarvoll's project. I don't want to live in an intentional ethnic enclave in Arkansas, I want to live in Manhattan. There's no logical avenue to political and cultural power with this project. At best, it goes nowhere, at worst it gains the smallest amount of traction and gets absolutely crushed, ruining the lives of good people and blackpilling many more.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
3d ago
With the benefit of hindsight, they probably should have taken out Iran instead of Iraq first.
But Israel pressured Bush to bomb Iran although he refused. Iraq + Afghanistan being occupied makes Iran completely surrounded by the US military apparatus. What happened was the collapse of the nation-building narrative due to the failures of the Iraq war that made war with Iran politically impossible.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2d ago
X CEO Linda Yaccarino has resigned, I doubt the timing is a coincidence.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2d ago
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2d ago
In the source material Superman is esoterically Jewish-coded and Lex Luthor is Aryan-coded. Zach Snyder reversed this in his interpretation of Superman, but it looks like James Gunn's interpretation will be closer to the dynamic in the source material.
The names of mythological heroes are quite important in understanding their esoteric meaning. Kal-El doesn't just sound Hebrew, El is one of the names used to describe the Jewish God in the Hebrew Bible. Jerry Siegel gives his superhero the "Kryptonian" name Kal-El meaning "Voice of God" in Hebrew. In contrast, Lex Luthor has a German surname.
The mythological impetus for Superman was to help guide a new 20th century morality for America. Superman was a moral leader, explained well by Rolling Stone magazine:
To our ears, fighting for “truth, justice, and the American Way” may sound like old-fashioned patriotism. But in the 1940s, it was controversial.
In fact, looking back on those early days, Superman was very woke. He was known as the “Champion of the Oppressed.” At a time when Republicans opposed President Roosevelt’s liberal programs and opposed entering World War II, Superman supported — in comic books and on a wildly successful radio program — the New Deal, open immigration, and entering the war against Hitler. Some episodes of the radio show lampooned the KKK.
Indeed, in 1940, Nazi propaganda accused Superman of being a Jewish conspiracy to poison the minds of American youth.
Of course, after Pearl Harbor, American sentiment changed, and Superman became a national hero, not only fighting Nazis in the comic books but with his image emblazoned on tanks and planes. At first, however, he was a progressive — even a radical.
And of course, Superman was also an immigrant. As Schwartz puts it in his book, “he is the ethnic guy with the Hebraic name Kal-El who came to America, changed his mannerisms and appearance. He tucks his tallit [Jewish prayer shawl, but Schwartz means Superman’s costume] down into his suit, and he goes around the world like a gentile. So it’s sort of like the ultimate assimilation/assertion fantasy, the ability to decide which part of you should interact with society at any given moment. What is more American than being an ethnic immigrant, and bringing the gifts and uniqueness of your cultural heritage to the greater benefit of the American society?”
The principal writer of the Superman comic book series from 1971 through 1986, Elliot Maggin, affirms that interpretation as well:
The unwarranted assumption in the explanations above is that Kryptonians are not Jews. I dissent from that notion. While they are not direct descendents of the Judeans of the Middle East from whom the term "Jewish" comes, I always ascribed effectively Jewish doctrine and ritual to the Kryptonian tradition. In fact, the Kryptonian tradition is congruent with and certainly predates the Judean, so they have at least as much claim to the tradition as any of us.
I give all my characters religions, so I've thought this through - really. The kents are Methodist (as is Clark), Lois is Catholic, Perry is Baptist, Jimmy is Lutheran (no surprise there) and Bruce Wayne and Batman are both Episcopalian (even less of a surprise there). And Superman (like the Siegels, the Shusters, the Weisingers, the Schwartzes, the Maggins and the Luthors) is Jewish.
This is so self-evident that it may as well be canon.
Superman as a Jewish-coded hero leading humanity against Aryan-coded villains expresses as some of the earliest, viral anti-racism in American popular culture.
In contrast to Superman, Lex Luthor is a villain with a German surname "whose hatred of Superman is more due to a xenophobic dislike of an alien being held in higher regard than himself." As Eisenberg said "Luthor is a classic bigot: He feels [Superman] is not like us, he doesn’t belong here.”
It's much more than simply a name, Superman is a figment of a Jewish self-conception of Jewish dual identity and role as moral leaders in Gentile society. That is the esoteric motivation for these mythological heroes.
Zach Snyder sort of inverted things with Henry Cavill as Superman and Eisenberg as Luthor, with Snyder's Luthor expressing widely noted Jewish traits. We like to complain about fictional characters being race-swapped as being "woke", and that's true, but at the same time it's always been a feature of mythology portrayed over time. Of the original meaning of the characters though there's little doubt.
Rolling Stone also recognizes James Gunn casting a Jewish actor to play Superman as significant for those reasons:
David Corenswet may be the first Jewish actor to play Superman, but the Man of Steel himself is as Jewish as matzo ball soup.
As you may or may not know, Superman debuted in 1938, the creation of two American Jewish teenagers, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. But that authorship is just the beginning. In fact, the entire Superman myth is an American-Jewish fantasy, lifted from numerous Jewish legends and fulfilling the dream of revenge against Hitler.
Come and learn, people.
First there’s the name. The -El surnames of Superman’s Kryptonian family is a Hebrew appellation for God...
More deeply, though, as Roy Schwartz detailed in his rather awfully-titled book Is Superman Circumcised? The Complete Jewish History of the World’s Greatest Hero, Superman’s origin story is a lot like that of the Biblical Moses: sent away by his parents in a desperate attempt to escape certain death, he is raised among humans, but learns that he is not one of them at all, but has a greater destiny in store. His mini-spaceship is even like the little ark that carried Moses down the River Nile...
But not only cool. As is well known, Nietzsche’s theories of the superman were co-opted by the Nazis, who depicted themselves as inherently superior, the “master race.” Siegel and Schuster’s reclaiming of the term “superman” is itself an act of revenge — as is, of course, Superman’s primary occupation in those early years: namely, kicking the crap out of Nazis. Which is all he did, all the time. He mocked them, beat them, blew them up. He was a Jewish revenge fantasy writ large, and colored in red, yellow, and blue...
As the decades went on, Superman’s Jewishness was a kind of on-again, off-again affair. In the 1970s, lead writer Elliot Maggin incorporated elements of the Bible, Jewish history, and even Kabbalah into Superman’s own story and described his Jewishness as “canon.” There’s a Passover Seder in Superman #400 (1984), Superman defends the Warsaw Ghetto in a time-travel plot from a 1998 issue, and there are references to Jewish angels and magical lore. And in the film Superman II (1980), an old lady exclaims, after Supe rescues a boy from Niagara Falls, “What a nice man! Of course he’s Jewish!” ...
So, sure, it’s exciting to have an actual MOT (“Member of the Tribe”) in the Superman role, not to mention with Lois Lane played by Rachel Brosnahan, who is not Jewish by birth or religion but who is an honorary Jew for her years on The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel. While one day, it would be great to have a non-white actor in the role, it’s nice to have a Jewish actor play a role that owes so much to the American Jewish experience. I can only hope that his new Superman brings back the courageous, progressive decency of the original one. We need that now more than ever.
I've wasted a lot of time here arguing with Holocaust deniers
The comment you linked is a good example for how much of the evidence cited of the Holocaust is not really responsive to the claims made by Revisionists. So according to Hannah Lewis, she and her family was deported to labor camps, her father escaped and joined the Partisans. Hannah almost died of Typhus but received treatment and survived the war- somehow; remember the claim is that the Germans were trying to kill all Jews so a Jewish girl getting sick of Typhus in a German camp and surviving is in itself incongruent with that claimed policy.
Immediately after a Partisan action, Hannah's mother is allegedly executed in a reprisal. The thing is that Revisionists/Holocaust Deniers do not dey any of this stuff happened: Jews being deported into labor camps, becoming sick with Typhus, reprisals. Yes, reprisals are ugly and tragic but they were legal at the time according to international law. The Germans were not even charged with crimes pertaining to these (real) reprisals for that reason, and it was remarked by some German defendants themselves that shooting a civilian in a reprisal is not exactly worse than firebombing civilians in a city.
This is kind of similar to Anne Frank, where everyone acknowledges Anne Frank as being one of the most iconic witnesses of the Holocaust. But her story is that she was deported to an alleged "pure extermination camp" Auschwitz-Birkenau but then became sick with Typhus and was transferred to a different camp, Belsen, where she died in a hospital. HNone of her family was gassed despite being deported to an "extermination camp." It's another example of how the fact of the matter for a story like this doesn't substantiate the most important claims made by Holocaust Believers and the fact pattern better aligns with the Revisionist interpretation of actual historical events sans atrocity propaganda like millions being gassed in gas chambers disguised as shower rooms.
And then you have other prominent witnesses like Irene Zisblatt who was prominently featured in Steven Spielberg's award-winning Documentary The Last Days who do outright lie for a variety of reasons. Zisblatt claims she repeatedly ate and shat diamonds her mother gave her to hide throughout her internment in Auschwitz. Zisblatt also claimed she escaped a gas chamber and escaped Auschwitz by being thrown over the fence (Revisionist archival research proved this to be a lie, and there are records as to where she was sent and when). She also claimed her Auschwitz tattoo was surgically removed (to provide lore for why she does not have one). She claimed she was experimented on by Doctor Mengele by being injected in the eye in an attempt to turn her eyes Blue as part of the Nazi Aryan-supremacy medical research. She even claimed she was selected to be turned into a lampshade by Ilse Koch, and was deported to Majdanek for that purpose but for reasons unknown to her she was sent back.
This is the territory Revisionists have to navigate, Revisionists indisputably disproved Zisblatt's story with archival research but at the same time her lies were front and center in an Oscar-winning film produced by Steven Spielberg.
Witness testimony is understood as one of the least reliable forms of evidence. The Revisionist argument is that the well of physical and documentary evidence is so incredibly poor that the Holocaust Industry has to rely on propaganda-forms like Zisblatt and Steven Spielberg to make the story real to mass audiences, but the evidence is very unreliable in relation to the extremely unusual and unlikely claims made by Holocaust history.
The most unusual "extermination camp" in Holocaust lore is Treblinka. There was virtually no evidence on that camp for decades beyond a literary pamphlet written by an alleged Jewish eyewitness Yankel Wiernik. They tried to shore up this deficiency with Treblinka Trials held in the 1960s. Camp guards were put on trial, and while they didn't deny the extermination/gas chamber narrative they downplayed their own knowledge and participation. They received extraordinarily lenient charges. One of the camp commandants Franz Stangl died in prison while appealing his conviction.
The mainstream interpretation of this is that the lenient charges in the Treblinka Trials prove the attempt of West Allies to essentially sweep things under the rug and move on to more pressing matters with respect to the Cold War and posturing against the Soviet Union. But there are your confessions- decades later.
The Revisionist interpretation is that the Treblinka Trials were an intent to build a record on top of a pre-existing propaganda narrative, and lenient sentences indicate reward for cooperation. These trials took judicial notice over the gassings and extermination narrative, so denial of that narrative was not even a defense they could have used if they wanted to. But ultimately these politically motivated trials decades after the fact are a poor form of witness testimony because there was strong incentive and legal necessity for them to use the defense they did.
Josef Mengele remained unrepentant in Argentina and engaged in denial according to his son's account of meeting him. Josef Mengele's diary written in exile from 1960-75 was purchased by some Orthodox Jew and has never been published, I personally assume that there is denial in that diary because if there was an admission it obviously would have been published.
Some of the most key figures engaged in denial or denial of knowledge. Hermann Goering- flat denial at Nuremberg, he testified the "Final Solution" as such was what Revisionists say it was and was not an extermination policy. Hans Frank, the highest leader of the SS and Police in General Government denied knowledge, and his huge personal wartime diary contains no concrete reference to the extermination policy or extermination camps that were allegedly under the operation of his organization.
The most important confession in the Holocaust was the Auschwitz was the SS-commandant Rudolf Höss. His confession contains many details that are known not to be true, and it is now known that his confession was extracted under physical torture. Revisionists point out aspects of that confession which prove it was essentially planted by interrogators. For example, Höss's confession said he decided to organizing the gassing procedure at Auschwitz in the way they did because he personally visited Treblinka in the summer of 1941 and observed the extermination process there. But Treblinka was not open until a year later. So not only did this not happen- it could not have happened, there's no explanation at all for why this claim would appear in his confession other than it being planted by interrogators.
There's evidence for witnesses being threatened with having their families deported to the Soviet Union if they don't confess, torture, etc.
Himmler died in custody so we don't get his post-war account of things. His wartime rhetoric is often cited by Believers as evidence for the Holocaust, but Revisionists point to his meeting with Norbert Masur WJC in 1945, in which Masur reported:
Himmler continued: “Then the war brought us into contact with the Jewish masses of the East, who were mostly part of the proletariat. Because of this, many new problems arose. We could not tolerate such an enemy at our backs. The Jewish masses were infected with many diseases, especially typhoid fever. I lost thousands of my SS troops through these diseases. Also the Jews were helping the partisans.” ...
I tried very carefully to get him away from the unfortunate thought to defend his policies against the Jews in front of a Jew, because such an attempt would force him to add lie upon lie to his argument. But it was impossible to do so. It seemed that he had the need to express his defense to a Jew, as he probably let that the days of his life, or at least the days of his freedom were numbered. And Himmler continued: “In order to stop the epidemic, we were forced to cremate the bodies of the many people that died of the disease. That was the reason we had to build the crematoria, and now, because of this everybody wants to tighten the noose around our neck.” This was the most convulsing try by Himmler to cover up his deeds. I loathed this explanation of the crematoria to such an extent that I could only remain silent.
“The war in the East was unbelievably difficult,” said Himmler. “We did to want any wars with Russia. But suddenly we learned that the Russian had 20,000 tanks and that forced us into action. Either we prevailed or we would perish. The war at the eastern front made the most difficult demands on our soldiers. A terrible climate, never ending distances, an enemy population, and constantly appearing partisans. Only by being harsh could the troops prevail. Because of this, they were forced to destroy whole villages, if there was resistance and shooting from such a village. The Russians are not ordinary enemies, we cannot understand their mentality. In the most hopeless situations, they would refuse to capitulate. If, because of these difficulties in the east, the Jewish people suffered great casualties, one needs to remember that the German people also suffered severely.”
So Revisionists register this also as a Himmler denial, with Himmler's account here again aligning with the Revisionist interpretation of what actually transpired and evolved into a "mass gassing inside shower rooms as part of a top-secret extermination plan" propaganda-narrative.
Well if you can't trust a man like Himmler regarding the necessity of burning Jewish bodies en masse, whom can you trust?
Can you trust the Soviet investigators who "investigated" Auschwitz? The authors of the Soviet investigation of the Katyn massacre, which falsely blamed the Germans for a crime that they had actually committed, submitted their report as evidence in the Nuremberg trial (USSR-54), and they were the same as the authors of the Soviet report on the investigation of Auschwitz (USSR-8), with the addition of that biology quack Trofim Lysenko as a signatory to the Auschwitz investigation.
Can you trust the confession of someone that was extracted through physical torture, under duress with no access to legal representation and no access to documentary evidence? It's not about trust, it's about weighing the quality of the evidence against the nature of the claims being made. Himmler's denial is relevant because Himmler's explanation for the conditions on the Eastern Front aligns with an enormous body of documentary evidence, whereas the documentary evidence for gas chambers disguised as shower rooms performing executions of millions of people is completely nonexistent.
Does Hoss getting one thing wrong mean he got it all wrong? Does being tortured on the outset of his capture thereafter mean nothing he ever said could be taken as factual? Even if corroborated?
Hoess did not get "one thing wrong." He also claimed there were gas chambers at Dachau and Mauthausen, which is known not to be true. His confession also claimed 3 million people were killed in Auschwitz, a wildly inflated number that aligned with Soviet propaganda. He identified "Wolzek" as an extermination camp, but there is no "Wolzek" camp at all it doesn't exist. The lack of corroboration for these claims is what stands out. There's no documentary record or physical evidence to corroborate the claims of millions of people gassed in secret extermination facilities.
But more importantly, it's not that Hoess got "one thing wrong" it's that the sequence of events described are impossible.
Far as I can tell, Treblinka I was active in summer 1941 and Treblinka II, the extermination camp, was opened in 1942. The fact you seem totally ignorant of the difference between Treblinkas I and II would seemingly cast doubt on you actually having done your homework here. If you had, you'd presumably head some amateur like me off from pointing that out.
According to mainstream historiography, there were no gassings at all, ever, in Treblinka I, which was a penal/labor camp. Treblinka II, the alleged extermination camp, did not open until July 1942 and nobody was gassed at Treblinka before that date. As you pointed out, gassings in Auschwitz allegedly began in August 1941 and construction of the alleged "extermination camp" began shortly after that. So this confession claiming Hoess visited Treblinka in 1941 and observed gassings and therefore decided to use Zyklon B is not possible. It's not that a date was mixed up, it's that the sequence of events is not possible. The Treblinka Extermination camp did not exist in 1941, there were never any gas chambers at the Treblinka I penal camp.
So the easy explanation here is that when Hoss said "extermination camps" as of 1941, he meant "concentration camps primarily for labor that were also doing exterminations at the time"; not "camps/facilities that had been built explicitly for mass extermination." Those efficiency upgrades came in 1942. There's no contradiction.
There is no claim anywhere by mainstream historians of any gassings in Treblinka I ever. The gassings are unanimously claimed to have started in July 1942. So the claim from Hoess's "confession" that he visited Treblinka in 1941 to observe gassings, and therefore decided to use Zyklon B for gassings at Auschwitz, is not a possible sequence of events.
But Yankel Wiernik's pamphlet on Treblinka had already been published by this point. So Hoess describing a visit to the Treblinka extermination camp, rather than being an independent account of the "Treblinka Extermination camp", was likely derived from Wiernik's work and intended to provide corroboration from a much more reliable witness than an anonymous escapee who wrote the pamphlet.
There is aerial photography showing evidence of the dismantled structures, and the allowed archelogy and ground radar has found evidence.
There have been no excavations of any mass graves on the site. The ground radar has not "found evidence", or any more evidence than the same ground radar evidence at Kamloops Indian Reserve found evidence for the mass graves of children. The ground radar results essentially disprove the narrative as there were no ground disturbances found consistent with the size, shape, or location of the graves allegedly used to bury 800,000 people.... before they were all supposedly unburied and cremated on open-air pyres over 120 days. It's an absurd story.
I in fact did not ignore that, I explained how reprisals, which actually happened, were indeed an ugly reality that can obviously be criticized in their own context but they don't ultimately provide evidence for the most unusual, important, and controversial claims made by the Holocaust narrative. Her father and cousin joining the Partisans is testimonial evidence for the German's own self-stated reasoning for interning the Jews, providing a fundamentally more plausible alternate explanation for this network of camps than "they had a secret conspiracy to murder them all in shower rooms". As we speak, Israel is preparing to deport the entire population of Gaza into a concentration camp built on the ruins of Rafah for similar reasons.
I'm sure she has provided more detail elsewhere, but the story is depressing enough as it is; I have no desire to listen to the poor woman talk at length about how most of her family died.
I actually did look to see if she provided more detail elsewhere, and when she made her debut as a Holocaust Survivor on tour. As far as I can tell, the first reference to her story was in 2014 when she apparently made her debut. I can't find any reference to her story before that. So assuming that this is when she began telling her story publicly in 2014, she would have been 77 years old giving an account from experiences as a 7 year old. How many stories can you reliably tell from when you were 7 years old? There's nothing in her story that is fundamentally implausible, such as survivors like Irene Zisblatt who make absurd claims and outright lie, but it's something to consider when weighing the evidentiary value against extremely unlikely claims like millions of people being tricked into walking inside gas chambers on the pretext of taking a shower.
Yes, but I was answering your question. As a father the question of whether my kids will have kids unnerves me much more than the prospect of natural family planning.
More options
Context Copy link