domain:freddiedeboer.substack.com
WhiningCoil
21hr ago
Now, the biggest hurdle holding back the poor family in the story I've linked to is a simple one: the Overton Window. If, for some unfortunate reason, the number of women crazy enough to act that way rose significantly, society would probably develop memetic antibodies or legal solutions. This might, sometimes, become strong enough to overcome the "women are wonderful" effect, if such women are obviously being the opposite.
Ah ahahahahahah.
Hah.
Oh man, that's a good one. That's a really good one. You really aren't from around here. Our society's worship of women is downright pathological at this point. They can do almost anything and it's excused. I mean even in your own home away from home, there are plans to just get rid of Women's prison. Women are too good to spend time in jail for their crimes you see? In fact, their reasoning is that since more women are being sent to jail, something must be wrong with the legal system, since women are wonderful obviously. So we'd better start shutting down the women's jails so they can't be sent there.
Clementine
1d ago
"actually the survivors aren't credible and what happened is that they worked people to death for free labor but with no mass shootings, no mass gassings, no locking people into buildings and setting those buildings on fire, just very polite Germans extracting human labor until it dropped dead" is still holocaust denial actually.
Since the claim about the Holocaust is that Jews were targeted for extermination, not just abused as slaves and "incidentally" dying.
He also mixes in the claim that many fewer Jews died than is accepted by mainstream historians and that these numbers are inflated to suit the Zionist agenda, which is also holocaust denial.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
3d ago
Hmm, what can “we” learn by summing your entire outgroup up as one monolithic movement, then gaming out an elaborate social strategy?
Probably not much. Definitely nothing “optimal.” I think you’re overfitting a model, and in a way that just happens to bait agreement from a certain sort of ambiguously-autistic Internet commenter.
I suppose I also think you’re assuming the conclusion. Perhaps, for bait, that goes without saying?
Point is, your model kind of sucks.
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.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
5d ago
but I didn't need a klaxon to tell me that
It's a Blue Tribe Is Right About Global Warming alarm; the fact it's a klaxon in the first place tells you it really isn't well-meaning.
Astranagant
2d ago
The only thing beards correlate with nowadays is being ugly. Sorry, there is almost nobody who looks better with facial hair than without.
But yes, time was they were the domain of hipsters, and I'd wager that most of the people who are really into beardcare and styling are still pretty far left. Just having one isn't party coded but having it as a hobby probably still is.
quiet_NaN
4d ago
Even if your claims of anti-white racism were true (the FAA hiring scandal is clearly an instance, and affirmative action can reasonably be described as both anti-Asian and anti-White, but that does not clear the "all levels of society" bar for me), I do not see how segregation would be the natural consequence.
The Black's response to facing racial discrimination was the civil rights movement, which was way more effective than any attempt to build a black-only community in the US or elsewhere would have been.
Even if you could convince the PMC that they were getting a Bad Deal wrt race in the coastal cities and that they should build their own White-only coastal cities in the middle of Arkansas with blackjack and hookers, I am not holding my breath for these cities to decide national elections. I would rather embark on a campaign of meritocracy and how racial discrimination is not cool even if it targets Whites or Asians.
At the moment, most people openly advocating for racial segregation are Neo-Nazis. I think I speak for the vast majority of Whites, HBD-pilled or otherwise, when I say I would much rather have a randomly selected Black person as a neighbor than a Neo-Nazi for purely selfish Bayesian reasons.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
5d ago
I can agree that the continued fireworks past midnight does get mildly annoying, but it is absolutely nothing compared to the year-round barking these dog owners inflict.
This is a crazy take. Fireworks (the mortar kind, which is what people around here do despite them being illegal) are an order of magnitude louder than dogs. Even if your neighbor's dog is barking a lot, barking utterly pales in comparison to fireworks in terms of how disruptive it is due to the massive difference in volume. It's made even worse by the fact that people choose to set off fireworks. At least a dog is an independent creature you can't control, but the fireworks people are deliberately choosing to be assholes disrupting their neighbors. Here people were setting off fireworks until 2 am! Fucking 2 am! Not only that, but people here start setting off fireworks 3-4 weeks before July 4, and continue for 3-4 weeks after, so it's not like it is just one night of this nonsense.
I would've had some sympathy for your argument if you just claimed that the two were equivalently disruptive. But claiming that fireworks are "absolutely nothing" in comparison to dogs barking is not the remotest bit reasonable. And it's not like most people have dogs that bark all the time anyways - I have had one neighbor, in my 40 years on this earth, that had such a dog. And yeah it's annoying. Perhaps one might even say those people are irresponsible and shouldn't own a dog. But they are the minority. Are you really trying to argue that fireworks are just desserts when they punish not only the irresponsible, but also the responsible owners and those who don't even have dogs? Because that would be completely disproportionate.
And if the Earth gets warmer this isn't a crisis
Come on. It would suck for far more than "penguins and polar bears". It'll suck for the current balance of worldwide agriculture, it'll suck for coastal population centers, it'll suck for vast swathes of land that are already near the threshold of unlivable, and, oh yes, it'll suck for all the currently temperate areas which will inherit the latter's status as the arid "well, you can eke out a living there, I guess" hell-holes. This is true even if you're correct about global warming opening as much hitherto-frozen land for settlement up north as it will ruin further south. We'd be looking at a major reshuffle in what countries control what kind of territory and resources, which may not favor the West much. (Indeed, odds are it wouldn't: we'd been dealt a good hand already, to the point that some view sheer luck of the draw on Europe's local climate as, if not the secret to Europeans' worldwide success, then at least a crucial prerequisite. We can really only go downhill.)
Even if it turns out net positive in the end, it needs to be anticipated and planned for in order to mitigate the damaging side-effects of the disruption itself. Which is exactly what I had in mind when I spoke of "global implications" and why we need climate scientists. I agree that the Earth getting warmer isn't x-risk. But there's far more to whether a crisis is worth averting or mitigating than whether it'll literally wipe out humanity. (Particularly if we're talking about a specific country's incentives rather than Homo Sapiens's as a whole.)
Yeah.
Even if you assume there's a large contingent of white people who actively would prefer to live away from most minorities... the ones who are in a position to openly state and act on that preference are probably not the high-quality human capital that most would want to live around, either.
Or they've made their white identity the entire basis of their personality and those folks tend to be tedious.
WandererintheWilderness
6d ago
This only holds for climate scientists trying to come up with new global models. Useful climate science looks like trying to make specific predictions about specific areas on a specific time scale in the context of an extant model, so that human infrastructure can anticipate and adapt to disruptions to established patterns.
(It's the difference between "AI risk researchers" who come up with yet more convoluted thought experiments on how to do timeless bargaining with omniscient gods, and "AI risk researchers" who are actually creating code to interpret and control what's going on inside neural networks. I can see why someone would be fed up with the former, but the latter is actual expert work that needs doing, and - so long as they sub-optimally remain a package deal - justifies the existence of the overall field.)
WandererintheWilderness
6d ago
Many kinds of scientists are irrationally prone to thinking their particular specialty is the most important thing evah, but AI risk is still a real thing, space exploration is still a real thing, deadly viruses are still a real thing, etc. I think the same is obviously true of the climate. Global warming isn't going to literally set us all on fire by 2035 but climate change is still an ongoing phenomenon with massive global implications and it needs to be studied. So long as you don't follow them on X, I think most scientists still produce more light than heat, if you'll forgive the expression.
Barfknuckle
6d ago
Roman soldiers often became loyal to the generals that distributed them land and victories over the roman state itself. It's really hard to not see this dynamic replicated.
Ludicrous comparison. TDS.
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.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1d ago
I think you're hiding the ball a little there. Hardly anyone disputes that Jews have an outsized commercial and cultural impact on the world. Just look at their presence compared to their numbers! What the Jew haters contend is that this impact is bad, and even malicious. If you ask me "Assume they are right about that" you're asking me to assume someone's most hostile description of their outgroup is correct. Uh, golly that would be pretty bad if this group you hate really is out to get me and destroy my civilization. Excuse me if I require more substance before I seriously indulge such hypotheticals.
Clementine
2d ago
Yeah so I kind of was hoping that doing a post about being Jewish wouldn't immediately mean the replies would also include a bunch of "but Jews do rule the world" and "but the Holocaust probably is mostly fake"
I hope other mottizens can take the time to answer you.
For me, my great-grandfather was tortured to death publicly — we know because the local newspaper wrote about it, and after the war someone thought it would be a kindness to send this to my grandmother so she'd know what happened to him (...whether it was a kindness is a matter of opinion. Until that point the family had been attempting to maintain her belief her family might still be alive, even though everyone at that point knew everyone was dead)
All of the rest of her family simply disappeared, entirely. Aunts, uncles, cousins. Everyone except her (hiding in France) and one set of cousins (ardent Zionists, moved to Israel pre-ear). We had a huge family tree and then there was no one on it anymore. Our story is not unique, that's basically every Holocaust survivor story.
You dismiss the testimonies of both perpetrators and victims. Conveniently, because the crime was so massive, we still have additional testimonies left after that, photographic evidence of piles of bodies, photographic evidence of public humiliations and tortures, testimonies from the soldiers who liberated the camps, etc. But because there's a handful of fake accounts you then take alllll the evidence from perpetrators, victims, and bystander witnesses, the evidence submitted in trials, the research, and say "ok but since the opinion it didn't happen is taboo, maybe that opinion is true, because after all since it's taboo we'll only get cover ups because no respectable person will publish that it didn't happen". Which is the kind of argument you can immediately use for any belief you want to hold contradicted by piles of evidence.
functor
2d ago
China is likely trying to achieve world domination, and Europeans would much prefer the US as a hegemon,
Would we? How many refugee waves have China pushed into Europe? How many sanctions does China impose on the world compared to the US? China is on the other side of Eurasia and has little interest in countries outside of itself except for transactional trade deals. There is no historical animosity toward China as Europeans historically have had limited interactions with China.
Neocon elites pushed by the US to hate China are different from Europeans. Ursula von der Leyen would have been fanatically pro invading Iraq if she was around in 2003 and if the US was invading Fiji she would be ranting and raving about how it needs to be utterly destroyed. Americans start talking trans issues and the EU elite will be fanatically trans. If the washington establishment says grass is blue than grass is blue.
SSCReader
3d ago
Right, but those politicians are white themselves overwhelmingly right? 75% of Congress is white. Its not black people or Asians or whatever making those choices. They don't have the numbers or power. If you want to say elite whites are making different choices than non elite whites want then perhaps you have a point. But its still white people making those choices.
And even there i'll point again to the discrepancy that haunted the Tories, people say they want less immigration, but they also punish any party that oversees an economic downturn.
If you want politicians to really drop immigration you have to show you will vote for them when the economy tanks. And mostly people don't. That was our finding when I worked for the Tories. All our modelling showed that doing what people said they wanted, would lose us votes. Same with Brexit, as soon as the economic winds started to bite, voters turned on the Tories. What lesson does that teach your politicians?
We get the politicians we deserve. People may say they want lower immigration, but they are not prepared to pay the costs that involves. I'll bet dollars to donuts that in 2028, if Trump really has made a dent in numbers of illegal immigrants and the economy has suffered that Republicans lose, even if they did what most people wanted. And politicians learn that lesson.
More people rate the economy as their most important political issue than immigration. Therefore spending billions on immigration enforcement, driving up costs of food, cutting other programs for Americans to pay for it, is a losing proposition. Thats why even Trump was going back and forth on enforcement for illegal farm workers.
Its not that the call is coming from inside the building. Its that there are 300 million calls all saying contradictory things, reduce immigration, make my food cheaper, make American goods, make me able to buy a truck and a TV, and so on and so forth. Trump to his credit, is trying to stick to some of these, but even he admits it will make things worse in the short term.
That means you need to persuade people in 2028 to vote Republican even if, especially if! the economy sucks. If they do, then you are creating a new signal. If they don't then they are telling politicians what their revealed preferences really are.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
4d ago
I'm always in an unenviable position in these discussions, because I'm always trying to bring people to a more refined and complex position than the one they currently inhabit, regardless of where they're starting out from. If I'm talking to stuck-up hipsters who say "well, there's obviously a divide between High Art and 'pop culture', the former being more valuable, more intellectual, etc" then I say, no no, let's stop and examine that assumption. But conversely if people say, "well art's just about having a good time, I know what I like, you don't have to make it complicated with all that fancy shit", then I just as forcefully say, no no, let's stop and examine that assumption. It's never supposed to be a direct denial of the starting position, but rather an invitation for us to walk the endless spiral of the Hegelian dialectic, together, as a team. But it always seems to come off as a direct denial. That's my fault; I need to work on my presentation.
Now, regarding my own capacity for "suspension of disbelief". I just finished up playing a VN recently. Fun game. I binged it as fast as I could, I was on the edge of my seat waiting for each plot twist, I got weirdly obsessed with one of the girls and wanted to waifu her, I cried when important characters died (yes I am a grown man who cries at video games). So am I incapable of enjoying stories like a "normal person"? Not at all! There's nothing I love more than a good story, it's basically what I live for. But, you know, you eventually want something more, you want to move the conversation forward. So you ask yourself: yes, I had this experience, this particular type of experience, but what of it? Well for starters, we can question the "naturalness" of this type of experience. We can ask ourselves if this type of experience might not be historically and spatially delimited. (Did the Iliad have "fans" in ancient Greece? How was their experience of the Iliad different from how we "experience" "stories" today? On the one hand, I think it may not be as different as some might suppose. But on the other hand, it might be utterly alien.) I had this experience, but what is this experience, really? What does it mean? What is it symptomatic of? Where did it come from, and where is it going?
It's as much about making your self and your own experience an object of critical inquiry as it is about inquiring into the artwork and the artist.
It is prioritising emotional connection over intellectual dissection
Not at all! Not in any way. Not that the two could ever be separated to begin with.
But, you know, this question about the connection between art and what might be called "emotion", it's a highly complex and fraught question. The way forward is not at all clear.
Adorno defined "kitsch" as "art that tells you how to feel". Genuine artworks don't tell you how to feel. Meaning, there's something fundamentally manipulative and coercive about an artwork that sets out with the explicit goal of inducing a certain emotional state. When the sad music plays and the camera zooms in dramatically and all the characters start crying, you know you're supposed to feel sad. The work is telling you to feel sad. We've left the domain of art and we've entered the domain of the "culture industry", the domain of pseudo-art and pseudo-emotion, the domain of mass market objects produced to fit utilitarian specifications. Or so this theory would have it.
Is this the same as saying that art should be "emotionless"? Not at all. Adorno was a great lover of Mozart after all, and Mozart's music could hardly be described as emotionless. But I do think he correctly identified a very real and very serious problem here, namely that an attempt to control the emotional resonance of a work too tightly can collapse into simple didacticism.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
4d ago
Maybe you don’t know about them because they’re not actually reasonable?
Like, the same reasoning applies here as to underwater pyramids. Or moon landing skeptics. Or celebrity gossip. It’s bad epistemics.
Barfknuckle
6d ago
I'll just STFU rather than sit here doing a stupid monkey dance actually explaining how a federal agency is different than a Roman legion, thanks. I forgot the rules forbid not talking like an autistic alien.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
20hr ago
Also, why post a picture of one of the guy's Mexican wife? That guy just tried to murder cops, he could be in a polycule with bearded North Koreans and it would not be relevant. Put the picture of his wife in once she is wanted or charged with anything.
This group being whiter than a white nationalist meeting doesn't fit with the narrative.
self_made_human
C'est la vie
3d ago
Buddy, have you seen humans?
No_one
3d ago
Um, no. People are already working on stripped down 'reasoner' AIs with limited knowledge but great reasoning ability and ways of plugging in extra databases.
That's deemed to be the most promising area of research at least what my superficial following of Ilforte's twitter makes me think. The hope is, within say 10 years you'll be able to run a fairly smart mind on a big graphics card. Researchers believe even a 2-3 billion parameter model with the right architecture could be good at thinking. The models right now, especially the big ones were often giant bags of heuristics, at least before reasoner models entered the scene.
Flagged as consensus building.
What you call "optimal cultural leadership" is really just "how to make my outgroup not get in power". And your use of neutral language to cover this switch up is bad rhetoric.
A very large percentage of Americans still find the "social justice craze" to be a good thing, including many of the academics/religious leaders/politicians you are critiquing for not being anti-social justice craze from early on. It's fine for you to be anti-social justice craze. But you shouldn't be assuming that everyone else is or that it is the norm around here.
FWIW, I would be very interested in reading an ideologically neutral account of the failures of conservative leadership to account for the rise of wokism, and what lessons can be learned in order to better spread/suppress future ideologies.
More options
Context Copy link