SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
No bio...
User ID: 853
I think a lot of Revisionists, sure, are highly invested in "the Germans were the good guys". But I do see the issue from a different perspective. Good and evil doesn't concern me as much as properly interpreting a very important yet very vulnerable system of control.
At the same time, the accusation that millions were tricked into gas chambers on the pretext of taking a shower does seem outright sensational and stands out among all of human history. It's a total outlier in all respects. I don't doubt the human capacity for murder, but Revisionists seek to invert the symbolic meaning of the gas chamber story- a mythos that forms the bedrock of slave morality becomes perhaps the greatest validation in history of antisemitic critique of Jewish behavior- their capacity for deception and exercising the levers of cultural power to manipulate collective consciousness for their own gain and at the huge expense of their outgroup. That's not slave morality, that's resisting a slave morality.
I have a lot of criticism of Revisionists. A lot of them genuinely do believe they are just "truth seekers" and aren't motivated by antisemitism. But challenging the Holocaust narrative is deeply and intrinsically antisemitic. The thing is those Revisionist critiques are true.
I think you understand why it seems like slave morality to me - so, why isnt it?
I don't understand at all why it would seem like slave morality to you, the Holocaust mythos is the bedrock of Western slave morality. Holocaust Revisionism is fundamentally a criticism of hegemonic Western slave morality, which is why it is treated so seriously by the powers that be. Foremost it's true- the Holocaust narrative itself is untenable in the long run. Millions of people were tricked into gas chambers on the pretext of taking a shower, then they were all gassed with an insecticide, cremated, and the ashes scattered so there are no actual remains left to corroborate those claims? And all of this escaped any concrete reference in the enormous body of documentary evidence? It's a ridiculous story that lacks even a remotely reasonable level of physical or documentary evidence to support it. Even Grok takes the Revisionist side of some central issues.
Holocaust Revisionism is necessary foremost because it's true, and because it's true it genuinely undermines the Western Slave morality that is predicated on it. Your notion that disbelieving the ridiculous story of millions murdered inside gas chambers disguised as shower rooms and then magically disappeared is supposed to be "slave morality" couldn't be further from the truth. The Holocaust is a mythos that elevates Jewish concentration camp inmates as the war's greatest victims and history's greatest heroes who demand eternal holy reverence and worship as representing resistance to European empire. The notion that disbelieving that narrative is slave morality is just ridiculous.
This is obviously-to-everyone not serious and edgy for its own sake, which he has done in many directions.
But it's not edgy at all. "I believe Raul Hilberg" is perfectly mainstream. He's trying to take a perfectly mainstream position and repackage it to pose as edgy when it's not edgy at all. So you have the mainstream position - Raul Hilberg, and what is presented as the edgy by the "moderate Holocaust denier." It's the same picture.
It wouldn't surprise me if Yarvin one day actually does take a "moderate Holocaust Denier" position something like "there was clearly a Genocide, but gas chambers disguised as shower rooms? Come on folks." But Yarvin and BAPs highly selective gullibility on the gas chamber story speaks volumes.
Disagree. The lead-up to WW2 turns into the "warning signs".
It's true that "this is like the lead-up to WWII" is often invoked, but that is always invoked as a nod to the Holocaust and genocide as a terminal impact of not following whatever foreign policy is advocated for by the person invoking this. The "warning sides" leading up to WWII invoked to justify things like the Iraq wars, war with Iran, etc. is always an invocation of the Holocaust mythos to justify aggression against somebody else.
Why? Whats the point of someone who believes the holocaust but rejects its moral lesson? It seems to me rather that if its really important to you to deny it, you kind of believe the lesson.
There are incredibly important lessons in the Holocaust mythos. The lessons surround extremely important topics like means and motives for pscyhological warfare, deception, the art of the Big Lie, the way that a religio-cultural narrative can shape not only the moral narrative of a society but radically change the genetic fabric of a civilization within a single generation. It's a hard lesson about a mode of racial aggression and conflict that is imperceptible to an average person who goes to watch Schindler's List in a theater and becomes profoundly moved.
It's not about rejecting the moral lessons of the Holocaust, which can be rejected independently, it's about the lessons learned from a critical analysis of how this modern-day Exodus myth became the bedrock of Western mythology and its moral compass snowballing into Civil Rights, Zionism, tolerance, racial diversity, mass immigration and genetic replacement, wokeism... Yarvin and BAP, with their highly selective gullibility, are gatekeeping those lessons from their audience.
The "4d chess" interpretation of the Trump administration's policy is that they are leveraging a forcing function for greater European integration and remilitarization which are both good things. The thing is the "4d chess" hypothesis for explaining Trump's behavior has been wrong every time. This is also revealed by the Signal leaks which reveal Vance's genuine distaste for defending European interests.
More options
Context Copy link