"This is the kind of stupidity that comes from seeing antisemitism as a ‘virus’ rather than an ideology. You could get a virus at any moment; you might get Covid tomorrow and be bedridden for literally minutes. Ideologies aren’t like that though. How likely is it that Libertarians will take over America three years from now? Not very, but they have had a party getting 2 or 3% in elections for decades and a whole nonprofit ecosystem promoting their beliefs. Do antisemites have that? So what are you even talking about?"
It's a common cope between antisemite rightoids believing the "great awakening" is just a matter of time and if it not happened yet is because Hollywood propaganda movies about Holocaust and da jooz controlling porn industry are forcing people to masturbate in front of a screen instead of going to assault jewish storages like old good times.
Let's presume tomorrow Hollywood stop producing Holocaust movies, that would suddenly incentivize people to hunting jews like Hans Landa in Inglorious Bastards? If my memory helps there was a time Hollywood used to produce a lot of Western movies featuring Indian Americans as victims of evil yankees. Now you don't see a lot of films like that anymore, and yet there are still zero white americans larping as General Custer moving to assault last Indian tribes...
“Real antisemitism has been tried and there’s no good reason its proponents should be listened to at all. Genuinely, at this point, the greatest contribution they could make to the White race would be putting a bullet in their head.”
Saying antisemites have nothing of worth to contribute to the JQ is akin to saying that a group formed in response to an issue has no business of having discussions about it (veganism, feminism, white nationalism). The JQ will continue to be a pressing issue for as long as Jews continue to remain a powerful force in society while maintaining a distinct collective identity as they demand everyone else to be universalist.
Your post is filled with personal insults, strawmanning and idiotic claims such as craving up of Poland is a result of antisemitism. When it comes to identifying particular Jewish behaviour fueling antisemetism you’re dismissing it as a joke. And promotion of “Filth-leftism” is not even the main problem people have with Jews. A bigger issue is those promoting it, supporting the Jewish state of Israel even as they unleash the Gazan genocide. This is called double standards. One rule for the noble Jews and another for goyim.
The fact that you can’t entertain the possibility that people throughout time and space are upset with Jews over something that Jews still continue to do is yet another example of a Jewish coping strategy.
"Saying antisemites have nothing of worth to contribute to the JQ is akin to saying that a group formed in response to an issue has no business of having discussions about it (veganism, feminism, white nationalism)."
Communism was formed in response to capitalism. Like antisemitism, it was put into practice at a state level, with empirical evidence readily available as to its results. Thus, in 2024, serious thinkers do not look to unreconstructed Stalinists for deep economic insights. We've already seen what the antisemitic answer to "the Jewish Question" looks like. It didn't turn out so well for anyone involved, including the nations that tried to implement it.
Lol at "Your post is filled with strawmanning" combined with "Jews continue to remain a powerful force in society while maintaining a distinct collective identity as they demand everyone else to be universalist." Thank you to the poster for introducing me to the term "kosher sandwich" to explain how antisemites cope with the cognitive dissonance of merging Jews with diametrically opposed positions into one amorphous octopoid blob (though octopuses are trayf, of course).
How many Gazans have been killed? How many Syrians were actually gassed and carpet bombed with inaccurate bombs by Assad? Please post YouTube videos to all those college protests yelling about the actual genocide in Syria of Sunnis.
Serious question, why do you think Sunni states have been more willing to work with the Zionists than Shi’i regimes? Alawites are pretty much universally hated in the Arab world, it would seem they could have been a natural ally of convenience like the Druze. Do you think they are just trying to curry favor?
Assad's great-great grandfather in fact welcomed Zionism for precisely the reason that he saw it as providing an additional ally against the intolerant Sunni majority. But subsequent generations of Alawites thought it was better to use anti-Zionism as a way of psy-oping the Sunni majority to accept their rule under the banner of Arab nationalism. It worked pretty well until it didn't.
In its current state, it would scarcely matter one way or the other. One of the most grimly hilarious things about this war is that when Israel assassinated a bunch of Iranian Revolutionary Guards this was interpreted as a cassus belli by Iran, but the fact that it happened literally in Syria was ignored. If I'm not mistaken, I have not seen one response of the Syrian 'government' to hundreds of infringements of Syrian sovereignty by Israel from day one of this war reported in the media. No-one cares.
Way to delete your comment about my name having Alexander in it and calling it Greek. Your earlier posts about living with the Satmars and getting married are full of shit. I listened to your fagcast with Walt. You made it a year and a half there and got shit for instagramming with a girl. You didn’t get married. You’re a fake. And you clearly didn’t learn basic stories like Shimon haTzaddik and Alexander the Great. You didn’t know that an entire year all the Jews named their newborn sons Alexander?
In terms of the Shia, who cares, my point was to that guy who was bitching about duh Israeli genocide of 40K gazans (with more than half being actual Hamas/PIJ members which makes for the best ratio of combatants to civilians ever in modern war). Shia are the true kofrim of islam. Just look at ISIS’s gameplan order of who to fight. First they said they would purge the Sunni world, then fight all the Shia, then Christian’s, and only last the Jews. The Israelis are friendly with Druzim who have their own little bubble and don’t bother anyone, Shia have a crazy fantasy about bringing the end of the world.
I didn’t delete anything Pavel. I would never call you Greek either. I think you are getting your wires crossed. I would call you something like Russian peasant or a refugee LARPing to escape the second world. I was trying to ask the question in good faith but as you clearly dont know what you’re talking about I’ll ask the real Jews going forward.
You’re like the boy who cried wolf. I have to know know when you’re being friendly and asking things in “good faith” after you said Jews should choke on Zyklon?
Yes. Unpublished parts of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, split up Poland into German and Soviet spheres, and this agreement was adhered to until Hitler declared war on the USSR. Stalin was smart, though, and didn't invade until Germany had already completely defeated the Polish army, and thus didn't have to declare war - meaning Britain and France weren't obligated to declare war on the USSR.
>Antisemitism is a really bad ideology. It had as fair a crack as anyone could reasonably ask and it led to the death of tens of millions of Europeans, the Communist capture of half of Europe, and the near extinguishment of the European civilization antisemites purported to defend. No-one forced the Nazis to team up with Stalin to dismember conservative Catholic Poland.
1. It, by virtually every standard, did not have "as fair a crack as anyone". Nazi Germany did not collapse because of internal strife or inability to compete with other countries on a basic economic level like the Soviet Union did, it collapsed because the Western powers were hellbent on its destruction.
2. The Nazis offered alliance against the Soviets with "Conservative Catholic Poland" in exchange for control over the territories the Germans owned in 1914, the same Germans who gave the Poles independence. The Poles rejected. The reason the Nazis and Soviets agreed to split up Poland was because it was understood that, if the Soviets invaded Poland prior to the Germans, the Soviets would be a few dozen miles from Berlin, and the Germans (understandably) did not trust the Poles to defeat a second Soviet invasion. The Soviets had similar concerns -- they didn't want the Germans getting all of Poland, a territory which they had mostly controlled before World War I. It was very obviously the Western Allies who triggered World War II by forming an alliance with the Poles for pretty much no reason other than to have an excuse to declare war on Germany once the Germans came to take back what was theirs.
None of this is to say that the Germans weren't interested in "lebensraum" but Poland was not their target. It was the wheat and oil fields and mineral deposits of Western Russia that they needed to stave off influence from the rising powers of the world, and cripple the Soviet Union.
3. Antisemitism and the geopolitical policies of Nazi Germany are not the same thing. Pretty much every Western state had policies of state antisemitism before the 19th century, and they produced a lot of great things.
4. Antisemitism is perfectly rational if you do not want a liberal (or worse) fifth column among your nation's economic elite. Jews were a necessary cause of the civil rights movement. Jews vote Liberal basically everywhere except maybe France (I don't consider the Tories in the UK to be sufficiently conservative to give Jews credit for voting Tory) and obviously Israel
>A lot of people say that Jews should combat antisemitism by desisting from subverting western countries through the promotion of filth leftism. I’m not promoting filth leftism, though, and if other Jews are then WTF am I supposed to do about it? Jews, stop promoting filth leftism. There, I did my best, what now?
It's nothing personal, you know. If it makes you feel any better, I don't hate you for being Jewish. But I can recognize that Jews, collectively, are a fifth column and are responsible for many of the problems in the west today. Hell, this is something even the founders of Zionism were well aware of.
Thankyou for your response. It must be quite stressful trying to promote an ideology when an overwhelming majority of your co-ideologists are semi-literate numbskulls and/or severely disturbed. The fact that you do it with good humour shows true grit, and I respect that. As to your points.
1) You are dinduing. There were factions in British and American politics very hostile to Nazi Germany, but they had almost no influence until 1938, and not really until 1939. The reason the pro-peace party lost control of policy is because Hitler kept ostentatiously cucking them out. If you do a lot of predatory militarism and you have an ideology that praises predatory militarism as a special good, you will turn a lot of countries against you. Ideologies are judged by their ability to navigate reality as it actually is, not in a Tucker Carlson retard world where Hitler could just conquer as many countries as he wanted without anyone opposing him.
2) More dinduing. Nazi Germany had to team up with the USSR to invade Poland to stop the USSR invading Poland. Boring.
3) Antisemitism emerged from German revanchist thought, and it is there that its truest and most pure form can be found. All non-German antisemites are to some extent LARPing. In any case, the fact is that the Nazis themselves declared that antisemitism was their ideology, and that no other aspect of their agenda could be separated from antisemitism. What exactly would a more purely antisemitic regime look like in the real world?
The only other important country that made antisemitism an important part of the state ideology was late Tsarist Russia. This can be defended as a way of redirecting popular unrest while the regime tried to get it's shit together, but it didn't work out. Would have been smarter to pay for Jews to take degrees in Physics and engineering so as to become a global superpower.
4) I have an article planned about Jewish influence on politics in Western countries. Briefly though, it's just meaningless to say the UK doesn't count. If your thesis is that Jews pull countries to the Left, then their political impact has to be Left relative to the country at large. France and Britain are 3rd and 8th respectively in terms of Jewish population per capita (excluding Israel and the occupied territories - 2ns and 7th if you don't count Gibraltar) so this is evidence against the theory. What you are doing is shifting the goalposts, which is what defenders of KMac's model have been doing ceaselessly since around 2005 when empirical reality departed ever farther from the theory.
Finally, I don't think you are actually even an antisemite. Your qualification 'many of the problems' is a tacit rejection of antisemitism. You just feel an urge to keep it up because of inertia and some bullshit about ifunny asabiyyah. You don't have to do this though. You can, to borrow a phrase, just rejoin humanity whenever you want.
FDR was hellbent on destroying nazi germany from the get go. Both hitler and the Japanese government made his job much easier by attacking or declaring war first, but one suspects that FDR would have found some way to intervene absent that.
Chamberlain wanted to manage nazi German as a threat; unlike Churchill he wasn’t so obsessed as to value an alliance with the Soviets.
Asking why the nazis and the Soviets wanted to partition Poland is like asking why the Americans wanted to get rid of communist Cuba. The polish state was and is inescapably weak compared to its neighbors and also annoying when propped up by foreign powers.
I don't really disagree with this, except the last part. In particular, I agree that it would have been better for Chamberlain to have continued in leadership, principally because of Churchill's misjudgement on the Soviet question. One of the tragedies of democratic politics is that the process of learning from bitter experience makes it impossible to be respected as a leader. In general, I think WW2 revisionism is important and interesting. It's just that most people who engage in it are just interested in dinduing for Nazis.
I was reading this article without really having much to say about it one way or the other. Then I saw the ratio and laughed out loud. Nearly four times as many comments as likes. This topic legitimately makes people insane
Ratio on Substack doesn't mean what it means on Twitter. On Twitter, most responses are some version of 'I hate you' so it's a rough proxy for 'dislike', which you can compare to 'like'. On Substack, you are responding to articles, so more comments often just means there is more content in the article to respond to. That said, a lot of the comments on this article do amount to 'I hate you'.
10s of millions of Europeans died in WW2. You would have understood the referent if you weren't unintelligent and mentally unstable. If your concern is the eugenic health of the white race, then there are various avenues through which you can painlessly end your life.
It’s funny that you call people mentally unstable and hold yourself on this high chair of authority, which you then sandwich with “kys” at the end of lol.
This started out as an interesting website but has turned into a cesspool for your old groyper friends to come & splash around while you play with them.
“I’ll emphasise again that there is no such thing as leftwing antisemitism. I don’t say that in order to vindicate leftwingers, I say it, first, because it’s true, but also to condemn leftwingers. ”
🙄
You deny reality with the claim that there is no left wing antisemitism.
You deny what is going on on U.S. college campuses with woke / DEI / intersectionality / critical race theory oppressor-oppressed ideology, and that any means necessary are justified for the BiPoC Palestinian oppressed to overthrow their white Jewish oppressors.
While I’m pretty sure I understand what you mean (“the liberalism that I love that dominated on the left for decades until about 10 years ago did not include and would never abide such anti-Semitism”), you fail to understand that the current left is il-liberal - certainly in the U.S. - and that radicals and the young left are massively anti-Semitic and feel virtuous about it!
The line you are pushing is wrong, and it is dangerous. It is NOT reality. It is burying your head in the sand.
I feel a little badly for you. I feel MUCH more badly for the rest of us that Jews like you deny the reality right in front of your eyes.
Well, based on your quoted statement, the only other explanation is that you claim YOU get to define “anti-semitism” only to mean what YOU claim it means.
But those of us in the real world have to live with a different reality. In the U.S. almost ALL of the very visible anti-semitism is on the left today. That is simply a fact.
I could. I skimmed quickly. But other than you getting to define words to mean only what YOU claim they mean - Alice in Wonderland-style - could it make your claim above that I quoted true.
This is precisely not what I am doing. I am saying the term antisemitism should be applied specifically to the phenomenon described when the term was invented and things similar to it that exist in a traceable historical relationship. I am objecting to the post-WW2 extension of the term to include all manner of unlike things whose only point of commonality is conflict with Jews. My chief argument is that *according to the very people who use this definition* it leads to numerous incomprehensible paradoxes that defy reason.
In the real world, antisemitism refers to Jew hatred and hateful actions against Jews.
En masse, at least in the U.S., this is coming predominantly from the left today.
As exhibited by, e.g., the 3 university presidents who refused repeatedly before Congress to acknowledge that calling for the genocide of Jews is “bullying and harassment”, even as at Harvard their mandatory student training asserts that misgendering and fatphobia “constitute violence”. (And let me be VERY clear so you do not misunderstand: whether or not any of the 3 presidents is antisemitic [one is Jewish, IIRC] is irrelevant; they are defending antisemitism on their campuses even as they aggressively police all sorts of other microagressions.)
And at UCLA, where Jewish students were denied - first by pro-Hamas forces, and then by the campus security - passage in certain parts of the campus, unless they explicitly denounced the right of the Jewish state to exist.
So you have fun with words. (As if the definition of words doesn’t and hasn’t changed over time... 🙄)
Even as you do harm to Jews with your claim that antisemitism doesn’t exist on the left.
I reject the superficial comparisons of Israel-Palestine to the apartheid that existed in South Africa. Without suggesting that I like where South Africa is today, I am with those who said that apartheid needed to be dismantled. It is sad that in the process of doing so, they have done such further damage to their own country as they have moved away from free enterprise and towards socialism.
But this discussion has nothing to do with those issues, even as radicals and woke leftists, in America at least, try to frame the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the oppressor-oppressed terms of South Africa - right down to skin color (the Palestinians are People of Color, according to them, while the Israelis are white).
There are many differences between the two situations, for better and for worse, but the basic situation is a country trying to make things work in a difficult region, and Leftists trying to bring it down because of their depraved ideology of eglitarianism.
What’s the source on zionists promoting anti immigration parties in Europe? I hadn’t heard of any connections between them and guys like orban and the afd.
Other stuff is more under the counter, except Wilders. I think they are still wary of the AFD though. The basic deal is that Israel agrees to help them out with giving them cover on accusations of antisemitism in return for them pushing back on pro-Palestinian EU policy.
No, I think that Bibi is right that control of the Philadelphi corridor is a non-negotiable condition of a ceasefire. I also think that willingness to make large concessions to free captives has significantly eroded Israel's position over 3 decades and that, however painful, a line now has to be drawn. I think that any psychologically normal person, however, in Bibi's position would give way to emotion and capitulate to Hamas demands in return for the hostages. This is why it is a good thing that Bibi is not psychologically normal. That is what I wrote, and I meant it.
When you come back I’d be interested in your thoughts on what I always called “South Park Antisemitism”. This is when people, usually kids, in rural or suburban communities who have had no irl experiences with Jews but recognize them as something of an outgroup and think the offensive tropes they heard from adult cartoons are funny and don’t really know any other way to interact with the few (or often single) Jews that they meet than to blurt them out at them. I mean it’s not really a pressing issue or anything because it never holds up when you press people on but it effected the day-to-day life of young Jewish people in these communities when I was growing up.
I used to make Jew jokes all the time when I was younger because I literally thought antisemitism was some long-gona past bigotry that resolved itself after WW2 and it seemed so cartoonish and conspiratorial that I couldn't take it seriously. I didn't really know any Jewish people then to tell me otherwise, that antisemitism was, in fact, still a thing. I don't really make Jew jokes anymore unless I'm in company that understands that it comes from a place of absurdity and irony and that I'm not being sincere. But I'm also curious to hear thoughts from a Jewish person about this sort of "South Park Antisemitism" phenomenon whose participants find it relatively innocuous but whose targets usually do not.
I personally enjoy this humour, because I'm not by nature very ethnocentric, and I just generally prefer humour to have some rudeness in it. I like to tell/listen to jokes about other ethnic groups, so I think it's important to be consistent and see the humorous side in your own group. On the other hand, I respect someone who is not willing to listen to this kind of humour about his own group as long as he shows the same respect to other groups. There's also the familiar funniness-offensiveness ratio which not everyone manages to pass. Common sense stuff really.
A bit part of what I'm trying to do here is distinguish between antisemitism, which is an ideology that has had objectively disastrous consequences, and just generally having a negative conception of Jews to various degrees. If I make a joke about an Irish person, it's not a slippery slope to the extermination of the Irish and even if I just plain don't like Irish people, that's not a slippery slope to genocide either. With that said, no-one is obligated to enjoy the company of people who are hostile to them.
I get that. I like rude humor about a variety of ethnic groups, too, also including my own. I have a draft started about how I miss when jokes about white people were actually funny and good-humored instead of the more sincerely malicious ones we hear more often now, because it's harder to laugh at myself with a person who genuinely seems to hate me and anyone who looks like me.
Jewish guy i know (now around 65, this probably happened in the 80’s) told me some convenience store cashier in rural texas politely asked him to take off his hat so she could could get a look at his horns. From the way he tells it he wasn’t even offended, just confused lol
"This is the kind of stupidity that comes from seeing antisemitism as a ‘virus’ rather than an ideology. You could get a virus at any moment; you might get Covid tomorrow and be bedridden for literally minutes. Ideologies aren’t like that though. How likely is it that Libertarians will take over America three years from now? Not very, but they have had a party getting 2 or 3% in elections for decades and a whole nonprofit ecosystem promoting their beliefs. Do antisemites have that? So what are you even talking about?"
It's a common cope between antisemite rightoids believing the "great awakening" is just a matter of time and if it not happened yet is because Hollywood propaganda movies about Holocaust and da jooz controlling porn industry are forcing people to masturbate in front of a screen instead of going to assault jewish storages like old good times.
Let's presume tomorrow Hollywood stop producing Holocaust movies, that would suddenly incentivize people to hunting jews like Hans Landa in Inglorious Bastards? If my memory helps there was a time Hollywood used to produce a lot of Western movies featuring Indian Americans as victims of evil yankees. Now you don't see a lot of films like that anymore, and yet there are still zero white americans larping as General Custer moving to assault last Indian tribes...
“Real antisemitism has been tried and there’s no good reason its proponents should be listened to at all. Genuinely, at this point, the greatest contribution they could make to the White race would be putting a bullet in their head.”
Saying antisemites have nothing of worth to contribute to the JQ is akin to saying that a group formed in response to an issue has no business of having discussions about it (veganism, feminism, white nationalism). The JQ will continue to be a pressing issue for as long as Jews continue to remain a powerful force in society while maintaining a distinct collective identity as they demand everyone else to be universalist.
Your post is filled with personal insults, strawmanning and idiotic claims such as craving up of Poland is a result of antisemitism. When it comes to identifying particular Jewish behaviour fueling antisemetism you’re dismissing it as a joke. And promotion of “Filth-leftism” is not even the main problem people have with Jews. A bigger issue is those promoting it, supporting the Jewish state of Israel even as they unleash the Gazan genocide. This is called double standards. One rule for the noble Jews and another for goyim.
The fact that you can’t entertain the possibility that people throughout time and space are upset with Jews over something that Jews still continue to do is yet another example of a Jewish coping strategy.
Gay.
You're a slovenly lying kike and I look forward to the day we make the holocaust actually happen. Count your days. You can't run forever.
Gay.
"Saying antisemites have nothing of worth to contribute to the JQ is akin to saying that a group formed in response to an issue has no business of having discussions about it (veganism, feminism, white nationalism)."
Communism was formed in response to capitalism. Like antisemitism, it was put into practice at a state level, with empirical evidence readily available as to its results. Thus, in 2024, serious thinkers do not look to unreconstructed Stalinists for deep economic insights. We've already seen what the antisemitic answer to "the Jewish Question" looks like. It didn't turn out so well for anyone involved, including the nations that tried to implement it.
Lol at "Your post is filled with strawmanning" combined with "Jews continue to remain a powerful force in society while maintaining a distinct collective identity as they demand everyone else to be universalist." Thank you to the poster for introducing me to the term "kosher sandwich" to explain how antisemites cope with the cognitive dissonance of merging Jews with diametrically opposed positions into one amorphous octopoid blob (though octopuses are trayf, of course).
The serpents on Hermes’ Caduceus are literally diametrically opposed to each other. Yet they ultimately work towards the same goal.
That’s a metaphor, not an argument.
Important distinction that applies to a shockingly high proportion of rightoid thought.
Things I don't like are A LOT like a cabal designed to mess with me!
How many Gazans have been killed? How many Syrians were actually gassed and carpet bombed with inaccurate bombs by Assad? Please post YouTube videos to all those college protests yelling about the actual genocide in Syria of Sunnis.
Serious question, why do you think Sunni states have been more willing to work with the Zionists than Shi’i regimes? Alawites are pretty much universally hated in the Arab world, it would seem they could have been a natural ally of convenience like the Druze. Do you think they are just trying to curry favor?
Assad's great-great grandfather in fact welcomed Zionism for precisely the reason that he saw it as providing an additional ally against the intolerant Sunni majority. But subsequent generations of Alawites thought it was better to use anti-Zionism as a way of psy-oping the Sunni majority to accept their rule under the banner of Arab nationalism. It worked pretty well until it didn't.
It would be interesting/ironic if Ghajar became the last Alawite community in the Middle East.
Do you think Syria would one day normalize relations with Israel? I have the feeling it could happen in next 10-15 years, but it's just my assumption
In its current state, it would scarcely matter one way or the other. One of the most grimly hilarious things about this war is that when Israel assassinated a bunch of Iranian Revolutionary Guards this was interpreted as a cassus belli by Iran, but the fact that it happened literally in Syria was ignored. If I'm not mistaken, I have not seen one response of the Syrian 'government' to hundreds of infringements of Syrian sovereignty by Israel from day one of this war reported in the media. No-one cares.
Way to delete your comment about my name having Alexander in it and calling it Greek. Your earlier posts about living with the Satmars and getting married are full of shit. I listened to your fagcast with Walt. You made it a year and a half there and got shit for instagramming with a girl. You didn’t get married. You’re a fake. And you clearly didn’t learn basic stories like Shimon haTzaddik and Alexander the Great. You didn’t know that an entire year all the Jews named their newborn sons Alexander?
In terms of the Shia, who cares, my point was to that guy who was bitching about duh Israeli genocide of 40K gazans (with more than half being actual Hamas/PIJ members which makes for the best ratio of combatants to civilians ever in modern war). Shia are the true kofrim of islam. Just look at ISIS’s gameplan order of who to fight. First they said they would purge the Sunni world, then fight all the Shia, then Christian’s, and only last the Jews. The Israelis are friendly with Druzim who have their own little bubble and don’t bother anyone, Shia have a crazy fantasy about bringing the end of the world.
I didn’t delete anything Pavel. I would never call you Greek either. I think you are getting your wires crossed. I would call you something like Russian peasant or a refugee LARPing to escape the second world. I was trying to ask the question in good faith but as you clearly dont know what you’re talking about I’ll ask the real Jews going forward.
You’re like the boy who cried wolf. I have to know know when you’re being friendly and asking things in “good faith” after you said Jews should choke on Zyklon?
Also, I would imagine all the people who have been massacred by the Druze over the year, would probably disagree that they don’t bother anyone.
Don’t worry about it Boris. You aren’t under any obligation to try and answer.
Yes. Unpublished parts of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, split up Poland into German and Soviet spheres, and this agreement was adhered to until Hitler declared war on the USSR. Stalin was smart, though, and didn't invade until Germany had already completely defeated the Polish army, and thus didn't have to declare war - meaning Britain and France weren't obligated to declare war on the USSR.
>Antisemitism is a really bad ideology. It had as fair a crack as anyone could reasonably ask and it led to the death of tens of millions of Europeans, the Communist capture of half of Europe, and the near extinguishment of the European civilization antisemites purported to defend. No-one forced the Nazis to team up with Stalin to dismember conservative Catholic Poland.
1. It, by virtually every standard, did not have "as fair a crack as anyone". Nazi Germany did not collapse because of internal strife or inability to compete with other countries on a basic economic level like the Soviet Union did, it collapsed because the Western powers were hellbent on its destruction.
2. The Nazis offered alliance against the Soviets with "Conservative Catholic Poland" in exchange for control over the territories the Germans owned in 1914, the same Germans who gave the Poles independence. The Poles rejected. The reason the Nazis and Soviets agreed to split up Poland was because it was understood that, if the Soviets invaded Poland prior to the Germans, the Soviets would be a few dozen miles from Berlin, and the Germans (understandably) did not trust the Poles to defeat a second Soviet invasion. The Soviets had similar concerns -- they didn't want the Germans getting all of Poland, a territory which they had mostly controlled before World War I. It was very obviously the Western Allies who triggered World War II by forming an alliance with the Poles for pretty much no reason other than to have an excuse to declare war on Germany once the Germans came to take back what was theirs.
None of this is to say that the Germans weren't interested in "lebensraum" but Poland was not their target. It was the wheat and oil fields and mineral deposits of Western Russia that they needed to stave off influence from the rising powers of the world, and cripple the Soviet Union.
3. Antisemitism and the geopolitical policies of Nazi Germany are not the same thing. Pretty much every Western state had policies of state antisemitism before the 19th century, and they produced a lot of great things.
4. Antisemitism is perfectly rational if you do not want a liberal (or worse) fifth column among your nation's economic elite. Jews were a necessary cause of the civil rights movement. Jews vote Liberal basically everywhere except maybe France (I don't consider the Tories in the UK to be sufficiently conservative to give Jews credit for voting Tory) and obviously Israel
https://sectionalismnotes.substack.com/p/the-jewish-question
>A lot of people say that Jews should combat antisemitism by desisting from subverting western countries through the promotion of filth leftism. I’m not promoting filth leftism, though, and if other Jews are then WTF am I supposed to do about it? Jews, stop promoting filth leftism. There, I did my best, what now?
It's nothing personal, you know. If it makes you feel any better, I don't hate you for being Jewish. But I can recognize that Jews, collectively, are a fifth column and are responsible for many of the problems in the west today. Hell, this is something even the founders of Zionism were well aware of.
Thankyou for your response. It must be quite stressful trying to promote an ideology when an overwhelming majority of your co-ideologists are semi-literate numbskulls and/or severely disturbed. The fact that you do it with good humour shows true grit, and I respect that. As to your points.
1) You are dinduing. There were factions in British and American politics very hostile to Nazi Germany, but they had almost no influence until 1938, and not really until 1939. The reason the pro-peace party lost control of policy is because Hitler kept ostentatiously cucking them out. If you do a lot of predatory militarism and you have an ideology that praises predatory militarism as a special good, you will turn a lot of countries against you. Ideologies are judged by their ability to navigate reality as it actually is, not in a Tucker Carlson retard world where Hitler could just conquer as many countries as he wanted without anyone opposing him.
2) More dinduing. Nazi Germany had to team up with the USSR to invade Poland to stop the USSR invading Poland. Boring.
3) Antisemitism emerged from German revanchist thought, and it is there that its truest and most pure form can be found. All non-German antisemites are to some extent LARPing. In any case, the fact is that the Nazis themselves declared that antisemitism was their ideology, and that no other aspect of their agenda could be separated from antisemitism. What exactly would a more purely antisemitic regime look like in the real world?
The only other important country that made antisemitism an important part of the state ideology was late Tsarist Russia. This can be defended as a way of redirecting popular unrest while the regime tried to get it's shit together, but it didn't work out. Would have been smarter to pay for Jews to take degrees in Physics and engineering so as to become a global superpower.
4) I have an article planned about Jewish influence on politics in Western countries. Briefly though, it's just meaningless to say the UK doesn't count. If your thesis is that Jews pull countries to the Left, then their political impact has to be Left relative to the country at large. France and Britain are 3rd and 8th respectively in terms of Jewish population per capita (excluding Israel and the occupied territories - 2ns and 7th if you don't count Gibraltar) so this is evidence against the theory. What you are doing is shifting the goalposts, which is what defenders of KMac's model have been doing ceaselessly since around 2005 when empirical reality departed ever farther from the theory.
Finally, I don't think you are actually even an antisemite. Your qualification 'many of the problems' is a tacit rejection of antisemitism. You just feel an urge to keep it up because of inertia and some bullshit about ifunny asabiyyah. You don't have to do this though. You can, to borrow a phrase, just rejoin humanity whenever you want.
FDR was hellbent on destroying nazi germany from the get go. Both hitler and the Japanese government made his job much easier by attacking or declaring war first, but one suspects that FDR would have found some way to intervene absent that.
Chamberlain wanted to manage nazi German as a threat; unlike Churchill he wasn’t so obsessed as to value an alliance with the Soviets.
Asking why the nazis and the Soviets wanted to partition Poland is like asking why the Americans wanted to get rid of communist Cuba. The polish state was and is inescapably weak compared to its neighbors and also annoying when propped up by foreign powers.
I don't really disagree with this, except the last part. In particular, I agree that it would have been better for Chamberlain to have continued in leadership, principally because of Churchill's misjudgement on the Soviet question. One of the tragedies of democratic politics is that the process of learning from bitter experience makes it impossible to be respected as a leader. In general, I think WW2 revisionism is important and interesting. It's just that most people who engage in it are just interested in dinduing for Nazis.
It’s honestly fascinating to witness a group of people that are clinically unable to see their own reflection.
🤯
I was reading this article without really having much to say about it one way or the other. Then I saw the ratio and laughed out loud. Nearly four times as many comments as likes. This topic legitimately makes people insane
Ratio on Substack doesn't mean what it means on Twitter. On Twitter, most responses are some version of 'I hate you' so it's a rough proxy for 'dislike', which you can compare to 'like'. On Substack, you are responding to articles, so more comments often just means there is more content in the article to respond to. That said, a lot of the comments on this article do amount to 'I hate you'.
The guy writing this is an insane retard.
Death of Europeans? Uh no you kike faggot it's purported to kill millions of small hats, which sadly, it didn't. Seethe you coin clipper KEK!
10s of millions of Europeans died in WW2. You would have understood the referent if you weren't unintelligent and mentally unstable. If your concern is the eugenic health of the white race, then there are various avenues through which you can painlessly end your life.
Nope.
It’s funny that you call people mentally unstable and hold yourself on this high chair of authority, which you then sandwich with “kys” at the end of lol.
Kys.
LOL. I wasn’t even disagreeing wit you whiteboy but aight nigga!
This started out as an interesting website but has turned into a cesspool for your old groyper friends to come & splash around while you play with them.
Won't be back.
“I’ll emphasise again that there is no such thing as leftwing antisemitism. I don’t say that in order to vindicate leftwingers, I say it, first, because it’s true, but also to condemn leftwingers. ”
🙄
You deny reality with the claim that there is no left wing antisemitism.
You deny what is going on on U.S. college campuses with woke / DEI / intersectionality / critical race theory oppressor-oppressed ideology, and that any means necessary are justified for the BiPoC Palestinian oppressed to overthrow their white Jewish oppressors.
While I’m pretty sure I understand what you mean (“the liberalism that I love that dominated on the left for decades until about 10 years ago did not include and would never abide such anti-Semitism”), you fail to understand that the current left is il-liberal - certainly in the U.S. - and that radicals and the young left are massively anti-Semitic and feel virtuous about it!
The line you are pushing is wrong, and it is dangerous. It is NOT reality. It is burying your head in the sand.
I feel a little badly for you. I feel MUCH more badly for the rest of us that Jews like you deny the reality right in front of your eyes.
You have me banged to rights. I just love liberalism too much to see the terrible truth.
Well, based on your quoted statement, the only other explanation is that you claim YOU get to define “anti-semitism” only to mean what YOU claim it means.
But those of us in the real world have to live with a different reality. In the U.S. almost ALL of the very visible anti-semitism is on the left today. That is simply a fact.
You would be a happier and more productive person if you went back, read my three articles and understood my argument. Try! You can do it!
I could. I skimmed quickly. But other than you getting to define words to mean only what YOU claim they mean - Alice in Wonderland-style - could it make your claim above that I quoted true.
This is precisely not what I am doing. I am saying the term antisemitism should be applied specifically to the phenomenon described when the term was invented and things similar to it that exist in a traceable historical relationship. I am objecting to the post-WW2 extension of the term to include all manner of unlike things whose only point of commonality is conflict with Jews. My chief argument is that *according to the very people who use this definition* it leads to numerous incomprehensible paradoxes that defy reason.
Well, you do you.
In the real world, antisemitism refers to Jew hatred and hateful actions against Jews.
En masse, at least in the U.S., this is coming predominantly from the left today.
As exhibited by, e.g., the 3 university presidents who refused repeatedly before Congress to acknowledge that calling for the genocide of Jews is “bullying and harassment”, even as at Harvard their mandatory student training asserts that misgendering and fatphobia “constitute violence”. (And let me be VERY clear so you do not misunderstand: whether or not any of the 3 presidents is antisemitic [one is Jewish, IIRC] is irrelevant; they are defending antisemitism on their campuses even as they aggressively police all sorts of other microagressions.)
And at UCLA, where Jewish students were denied - first by pro-Hamas forces, and then by the campus security - passage in certain parts of the campus, unless they explicitly denounced the right of the Jewish state to exist.
So you have fun with words. (As if the definition of words doesn’t and hasn’t changed over time... 🙄)
Even as you do harm to Jews with your claim that antisemitism doesn’t exist on the left.
How is their brand of anti any different than the anti-appartheid nonsense that has led to the destruction of South Africa?
I reject the superficial comparisons of Israel-Palestine to the apartheid that existed in South Africa. Without suggesting that I like where South Africa is today, I am with those who said that apartheid needed to be dismantled. It is sad that in the process of doing so, they have done such further damage to their own country as they have moved away from free enterprise and towards socialism.
But this discussion has nothing to do with those issues, even as radicals and woke leftists, in America at least, try to frame the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the oppressor-oppressed terms of South Africa - right down to skin color (the Palestinians are People of Color, according to them, while the Israelis are white).
There are many differences between the two situations, for better and for worse, but the basic situation is a country trying to make things work in a difficult region, and Leftists trying to bring it down because of their depraved ideology of eglitarianism.
While the differences might matter, all countries, ethnic tensions, religious enmity, are but steps on the shining path, if you will.
No, they are not. Yours is the false equivalence that justifies, or at least excuses, radical woke leftist ideology.
I have had this happen to me as a kid
small typo: "emphasised. though" should be a comma instead of a period
Ok.
Racial antisemitism = Bad and moronic.
Religious antisemitism, i.e. opposition to the Talmud and Judeomasonry = Goooood.jpg (Emperor Palpatine Meme)
What’s the source on zionists promoting anti immigration parties in Europe? I hadn’t heard of any connections between them and guys like orban and the afd.
Orban is well known and documented. https://www.direkt36.hu/en/az-izraeli-szovetseg-ami-atirta-orban-politikajat/
Other stuff is more under the counter, except Wilders. I think they are still wary of the AFD though. The basic deal is that Israel agrees to help them out with giving them cover on accusations of antisemitism in return for them pushing back on pro-Palestinian EU policy.
Unrelated to the post: Do you think we should go to the streets and protest to get the hostages back?
No, I think that Bibi is right that control of the Philadelphi corridor is a non-negotiable condition of a ceasefire. I also think that willingness to make large concessions to free captives has significantly eroded Israel's position over 3 decades and that, however painful, a line now has to be drawn. I think that any psychologically normal person, however, in Bibi's position would give way to emotion and capitulate to Hamas demands in return for the hostages. This is why it is a good thing that Bibi is not psychologically normal. That is what I wrote, and I meant it.
When you come back I’d be interested in your thoughts on what I always called “South Park Antisemitism”. This is when people, usually kids, in rural or suburban communities who have had no irl experiences with Jews but recognize them as something of an outgroup and think the offensive tropes they heard from adult cartoons are funny and don’t really know any other way to interact with the few (or often single) Jews that they meet than to blurt them out at them. I mean it’s not really a pressing issue or anything because it never holds up when you press people on but it effected the day-to-day life of young Jewish people in these communities when I was growing up.
I used to make Jew jokes all the time when I was younger because I literally thought antisemitism was some long-gona past bigotry that resolved itself after WW2 and it seemed so cartoonish and conspiratorial that I couldn't take it seriously. I didn't really know any Jewish people then to tell me otherwise, that antisemitism was, in fact, still a thing. I don't really make Jew jokes anymore unless I'm in company that understands that it comes from a place of absurdity and irony and that I'm not being sincere. But I'm also curious to hear thoughts from a Jewish person about this sort of "South Park Antisemitism" phenomenon whose participants find it relatively innocuous but whose targets usually do not.
I personally enjoy this humour, because I'm not by nature very ethnocentric, and I just generally prefer humour to have some rudeness in it. I like to tell/listen to jokes about other ethnic groups, so I think it's important to be consistent and see the humorous side in your own group. On the other hand, I respect someone who is not willing to listen to this kind of humour about his own group as long as he shows the same respect to other groups. There's also the familiar funniness-offensiveness ratio which not everyone manages to pass. Common sense stuff really.
A bit part of what I'm trying to do here is distinguish between antisemitism, which is an ideology that has had objectively disastrous consequences, and just generally having a negative conception of Jews to various degrees. If I make a joke about an Irish person, it's not a slippery slope to the extermination of the Irish and even if I just plain don't like Irish people, that's not a slippery slope to genocide either. With that said, no-one is obligated to enjoy the company of people who are hostile to them.
I get that. I like rude humor about a variety of ethnic groups, too, also including my own. I have a draft started about how I miss when jokes about white people were actually funny and good-humored instead of the more sincerely malicious ones we hear more often now, because it's harder to laugh at myself with a person who genuinely seems to hate me and anyone who looks like me.
Do you know any good Alawite jokes?
Jewish guy i know (now around 65, this probably happened in the 80’s) told me some convenience store cashier in rural texas politely asked him to take off his hat so she could could get a look at his horns. From the way he tells it he wasn’t even offended, just confused lol
lol