I'm not a swastika-poster. I hate your Uncle Adolf almost as much as FDR's "Uncle Joe" (may you burn in Hell, Frankie). But tribalism is very interesting, and very real, and in that sense, I feel it necessary to point to some recent posts:
Glenn Reynolds posted a link to an Algemeiner post defending Bari Weiss and said,
Remember: If you interpret “woke” as a synonym for “crazy and stupid” — or, increasingly, “crazy, stupid, and vicious” — you’ll seldom go far wrong.
So far, so good. And Kerstein offers a mildly stiff defense of Western civilization. But that post also made an odd point:
Cancel culture is necessary in order to prevent the spread of racist, violent, and insurrectionary incitement.
He even links to another article he wrote, "We Need Cancel Culture to Fight Hate and Antisemitism, but Must Limit Its Abuse," saying, "Trump deserved to be canceled for his incitement..."
... Really? Because this is a lie and deeply unAmerican.
Remember, HUAC did not pursue Communists. It pursued people who had joined the CPUSA, which was infamously under the control of Comrade Stalin. In other words, they did not investigate belief, they investigated membership in a foreign-controlled political party.
Remember when Gina Carano posted "the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?" Someone noted the Auschwitz Museum posted almost exactly the same thought.
That is correct.
Everyone has political beliefs, even if they can't articulate them. To persecute someone for what they believe is as anti-human as any anti-Semitism, because you're persecuting them for what they are, not what they do.
The old Protestants of the Reformation called this, "freedom of conscience," and this idea was and is anti-thought crime. (Yes, Cromwell and others banned the public practice of the Catholic mass, but the Pope was an enemy of the Anglican Church for a long, long time.)
Not all Jews believe this. A. J. Kaufman, discussing black-on-Asian violence in ‘Whitewashing’ troubling attacks on Asian Americans, said, "Matters aren’t helped when disingenuous outlets like CNN often avoid identifying the ethnicity of the recent assailants... No group has a monopoly on hatred or racism."
Of course, a lot of Jews see Nazis everywhere. Even Dennis Prager fails to fully recognize this failure in "I Now Better Understand the 'Good German'":
Of course, I still judge Germans who helped the Nazis and Germans who in any way hurt Jews. But the Germans who did nothing? Not so fast.
What has changed my thinking has been watching what is happening in America (and Canada and Australia and elsewhere, for that matter).
It's a good article, but Prager elides a very important point: by the time Weimar hit, the two major parties were the Catholic Zentrum (soft socialist) and the SPD, hemi-demi-semi-maybe-democratic Socialist party.
The Communists, under the KPD, were out to destabilize Weimar and destroy the Zentrum/SPD duopoly, and they co-operated with the Nazis and other radicals to do it... until 1932, when the Nazis were about to seize power, and all of the sudden the Red Shirts became "Antifaschistische Aktion," a monumentally bald-face lie, er, "re-branding" of the people who had made the Germans desperate enough to vote 40% for the Nazis.
We are in the same situation now.
Cancel culture is one step up from early-'90s P.C., closer to the Red Guards and CCP's Social Credit. Some people think we should stay away from CC. "It makes us as bad as them."
No, it doesn't. What did Saul Alinsky say? "Make them live up to their own rules."
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
— H. L. Mencken
Good and hard. Until they stop. Until they apologize to the people they tried to destroy.
Comment Removed: Rule 16
Comment Reported for: 16: Identity attacks
Comment Removed.
"Censorship is just because reddit admins make us!!!"
For most of the rules there, yes. These, obviously not.
Aha, did somebody read an early life section they shouldn't have or why are you getting your panties in a bunch again?
No, I was just told I was procrastinating on my moderation, so I'm keeping pace with it now.
Great, so this place is going to shit the same way as the reddit version.
The fuck happened here?
Oy vey'ing happened.
Comments explicitly targeting a race as inferior or degenerate in some way.
Lemme guess, the Jews?
In this one, yes.
Strangely, there was one about whites somewhere in here.
Cuck.
Currently reading a Cathy Young tweet where she seemingly has no issue with the cancellation of Dr. Seuss. People like her aren't even the worst, she's a moderate for a small hat.
I think Cathy Young is insufferable since she is crypto-woke.
However you are right that she is relatively "moderate" compared to some of the worst individuals such as Jennifer Rubin. That bitch is the worst.
The crypto-woke are the worst. Back before I deleted my Facebook (and before Facebook was exclusively used by your grandma), I had this one acquaintance whose every post was like, "You know, I'm a conservative, but DAE we should let transsexual Muslim convicts peg our children? It's just basic human rights."
If you're going to embrace Clown World, at least be honest about it and don't try to play both sides like a pussy.
Actually her other posts were unbelievably shitty takes on music. And she was kind of ugly. I'm not sure why I was friends with this girl.
What I really seem to not like about jews is that they don't understand the consequence of their action until they suffer the same as the rest of us. I always get that mindset from them. That explains why I despise Brett Weinstein. He was fine with all these cancel culture, social justice activism until they got to his career, now you see him attempting to be like Peterson and Rubin navelgazing about current society.
I always make the argument of whats the big deal with holocaust.. every group of people have done very bad things to another group or have been victims of bad things done by another group.
Yeah, just consider it an attempt to "cancel" Jews.
What's special about the Holocaust is it's industrial scale and mechanism. It is not an exaggeration to call some of the death camps "Factories of Death". That's a good description of what was being attempted. The mechanized and industrialized effort to depopulate an entire race out of existence.
Many genocides are about removing some group from a single political region as an identitarian leader seizes control. There's normally a larger aspect that is about sectarianism and economics in a region.
The Nazis were Ethno-Nationalist Socialists, who decided to create a fair and just Europe by murdering every single Jew possible in the continent, and thereby "saving" Europe from what Marx identified as "the bourgeoisie". The focus on murdering Jews was so paramount that the National Socialists were nearly as dedicated to that as they were winning the war. Murdering Jews, even in the face of an invading Russian Army, was still considered so important that the death camps and labor camps kept running until just before or as the allies arrived.
The Holocaust is remarkable because of a) it's scope, b) it's zealotry, c) it's industrial mechanism.
You're completely brainwashed.
Answer me one question. Since when do "Factories of Death" have maternity hospitals staffed with midwives?
Why would an "industrial scale" "mechanised" "death camp" allow it's inmates to have successful pregnancies?
Yet Hitler never gave an order to do it... strange.
I suspect that, like all holocaust deniers, you're absolutely alarmingly ignorant about the Holocaust, so we're gonna need to break down a whole lot of things you don't understand but are trying to throw at me in this one sentence.
Starting with: a) Not all camps were extermination camps. Plenty were labor camps. If you have workers preforming labor, it is valuable to keep healthy enough ones working until they become unnecessary. So, lets first start with whether or not you even understand that there is more than one camp, and more than one type of camp, and that different camps require different set-ups for different purposes.
b) Mechanization and logistics requires timing. Just like a slaughter house, you don't just kill every single animal that wanders in through the gate immediately. Immediate executions did happen for some groups, only when it was feasible given the logistical burden on a particular extermination camp. Like I said, these were very literally factories of death. Given the logistics and mechanization, you can only kill x number of people at a time, but you may be getting xx number of people in. If a raw material enters a factory, but cant be outputted, you get storage. Thus, you have to store people in a place that produces death until they can be killed in an efficient way. If you're going to use a mechanized killing process, people have to be in a controlled process to kill them. That's a key aspect of the Holocaust.
c) Hospitals and clinics, like with regular prisons, are going to need to treat the staff as well. Do you really know whether or not what you're calling a hospital, with a maternity ward, in an extermination camp, wasn't meant for the guards, staff, and family that lived there?
d) Do you realize that the premise of part of your question is the assumption that pregnancies were being allowed to regularly take place in facilities that were explicitly gender segregated? Women can't get pregnant during their stay. If there is a maternity ward, and if it is for prisoners, it is for women who are already pregnant on their arrival. Not because they were allowed to see their loved ones.
"The Wannsee Conference didn't real! Hitler was a good boy who dindu nuffin! He was on his way to art school!"
Hitler constantly argued and called for the depopulation of Jews from Europe. He intentionally directed violence against Jews. He ranted and promised that he would expunge Jews from Europe for years before he took power. His entire racial ideology was based on the elimination of Jews. Was aware of the camps existence, was aware of the transportation of people out of ghettos to camps, was aware of the vast sums of gold being deposited to Deutchebank from some of these camps that never produced gold, but just so happened to never know anything about what went on in them?
Spare me.
Who said they were? Auschwitz had a maternity ward. Was Auschwitz a labour camp?
I mean, the real answer to that is of course yes, but according to your new religion it was a horrible, horrible mechanised extermination camp.
With a maternity ward. And theatre hall. And pool with diving board.
Except that's the exact story. The train lines go directly to the "gas chambers".
So that's a fucking lie.
Lol. Because so many prisons have hospitals where the staff give birth. Because they have no life outside of their work and must give birth on the premises.
Shut the fuck up.
So? How does that negate the fact that an "extermination" camp allowing pregnancies to go to full term makes ZERO sense?
Almost like it's completely made up bullshit that they thought nobody would ever question.
He sure did. He even put his eeeeeevil plots into action!
By paying their way to Jerusalem...
Oh. How HORRIBLE!!!
You have no evidence the "FINAL SOLUUUUUUTIIOOOOOOON" was extermination. None.
You have no evidence Hitler ordered extermination. None.
You have no evidence the camps that are claimed to be "extermination camps" are such, other than the say so of the JEWISH bolsheviks who "liberated" them.
All the camps liberated by the Americans were labour camps full of starving prisoners because the Allies had cut off supply lines.
Fucking funny that the trustworthy source only found labour camps and the lying commie Jews only found "extermination" camps.
You condescending fucking faggot.
It's one of those little facts I have to make sure you understand first given the enormous lack of knowledge about the Holocaust that seems to be a major part of Holocaust Denial.
Yeeeaaahhh. So, that specifically is what I'm talking about. Auschwitz was not a labor camp. It was not designed to be a labor camp. Other camps were designated as labor camps, but Auschwitz was not. Again, that's one of the reasons the Holocaust is unique as a genocide: the industrial process includes the use of maximum efficiency, capitalization of labor, and compartmentalization.
This isn't really even a worthy argument to try. Nobody considered it to be a Labor camp, not the Americans, not the Soviets, not historians, not even the Nazis. Labor camps are fundamentally different. I mean, there's a reason that none of the Labor Camps had the kinds of gas chambers that Auschwitz specifically had.
No, you're just not familiar with how Auschwitz worked as a camp. Yes, many women were initially executed, if the gas chambers could process them, and if the executions could be scheduled before arrival. There were other justifications for execution within the camp, but that's a different process. In many cases, there were entirely separate concentration camps exclusively for women, like the one in Ravensburg.
Honestly, this is the thing about you guys, you really aren't familiar with the base material. Seriously, this stuff is all fairly well documented if you're interested in actually digging into the details.
You do when the staff lives in the camp. Famously, many Camp Commandants lived in their camps in specially designated areas.
You literally can't kill everyone on arrival. There's too many people to kill. It's the fundamental reason why they stopped just shooting everyone immediately (not to mention it wore on the soldiers and executioners psychologically). That's literally the whole point, there has to be a mechanized and industrialized system to depopulate that many people.
Not to mention, not everyone in Autchwitz was a Jew anyway. Nazi racial laws required different treatment for different groups. From what I looked up, Jewish pregnant mothers might simply have been shot when the gaurds found out. The Maternity ward, according to the people that were there, spent most of their time trying to prevent pregnancies rather than delivering them unless delivering them was the only sensible option, after which the infants would eventually die.
Instead of just assuming that there isn't an answer, why don't you go look for one in any of the available research?
There's a lot of physical evidence, including the gas chambers themselves, and the very suspicious lack of people being allowed to leave Auschwitz compared to the numbers they were taking in.
Also, the Soviets aren't Jewish. They're Russian.
No, prisoners were treated racially differently. The Russians always got fairly poor treatment, and the Americans & English significantly better than other groups. It's why the Nazis weren't mass executing American POWs. Conditions in POW camps were fairly poor in general, but became truly atrocious after some camps became overwhelmed by surrendered troops from The Battle of The Bulge. Starvation became far more serious. While Nazi Germany could have fed it's prisoners, they typically did almost everything in their power to keep the German people as fed as possible, even if it meant intentionally starving the Russians to death.
What we see from the liberated western POW camps is more along the lines of a lack of supplies, rather than intentional atrocity. And these conditions are absolutely nothing like what we find at the forced labor camps, let alone the actual extermination camps. There are no gas chambers at the POW camps, I'm not even sure there are crematoria.
If Auschwitz was simply a place where starving civilians lied, it wouldn't have been different from the what American and Soviet troops encountered in the Stalags. But it was a lot different. It was a lot worse.
He was so happy to let the Jews leave... he banned them from leaving.
Not to mention, he didn't pay their way to Jerusalem. Thanks to the Reich Flight law, anyone (including Jews) that left Germany could see vast swaths of all of their assets seized by the state. In the early 30's, the Nazis weren't paying them to leave, they were robbing them blind. They were robbing Jews blind, but being Socialists, they robbed everyone they could.
You genuinely don't know what you're talking about. I can't even really be mad at you. You just don't know about the things you're ranting about.
You ignored my points in a vain effort to feel superior to me so I'm not reading beyond this shit.
They were all labour camps. That's why they had resource sucking amenities.
But even if I accept your lies and believe Auschwitz was a "designated" "death camp", the question remains...
WHY WOULD A DEATH CAMP ALLOW INMATE PREGNANCIES TO GO FULL TERM AND USE VALUABLE RESOURCES TO KEEP BOTH BABY AND MOTHER ALIVE, IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR, JUST TO "EXTERMINATE" THEM LATER???
Faggot.
That doesn't even make sense. Labor camps produce things. That's how you know it's a labor camp. The prisoners are forced into production.
And I answered your question, you didn't like it.
They didn't. How each group was dealt with was different. Many were killed initially upon arrival. Pregnant Jews would typically be killed when there was knowledge of this. Pregnant Poles, Latvians, and Russians were treated differently. Many of their children were left to die, or aborted. If this hospital treated staff, the children would not have been killed.
Once again, you can't simply kill everyone on site immediately. Auschwitz didn't have the processing capability for that.
Not to mention you originally argued that the inmates might have impregnated each other, which would not have been possible due to the gender segregation.
here before antonio gets mad that his chosen people are getting unwanted attention again
One does not simply read the early life section without facing consequences. Now pick up that can, citizen!
Comment Removed: Rule 16
Interesting post with some good info, but where did the 80% figure in OP come from? Are you conflating "voting for Democrats" with "loving Cancel Culture"?
Yes. And I don't think I'm wrong to do so.
I think almost every Jewish American who's come out against cancel culture has been: a Leftie personally defenestrated (Bari Weiss, Bret Weinstein); already on the right (Gad Saad, David Cole, Daniel Greenfield, Andrew Klavan, but NOT Ben Shapiro who tried to blacklist Alex Jones, Mike Cernovich, and Milo); or a few dedicated contrarians (Bill Maher). The people howling on YouTube about cancel culture on YouTube are overwhelmingly not Jewish. (Nor are they conservatives, largely.)
Obviously, I think this is very sad.
Let's take a look at the Jewish votes for President, GOP side:
2004 Bush 24% 2008 McCain 22%
2012 Romney 30%
2016 Trump 24%
2020 Trump 22%
Trump did well in 2016, but Romney is the real outlier. He almost beat Ronald Reagan, who got only 31% and 35%. (Carter had the Camp David accords. Freakin' Eisenhower beat Hitler and only got 36% and 40%. Think about that.)
Trump was polarizing, yes, but Israel is even more so.
Romney was a standard Conservative Inc., RINO candidate, not too different from McCain. What was so compelling about Romney?
I think it's his religious minority status. (Or identity, pardon while I roll my eyes.)
Romney is Mormon, of course. Yes, his essential RINOcity may have attracted some of the Jewish vote; he was governor of Massachusetts after all.
Take a second look at that Mondoweiss article linked above. "Asked whether antisemitism stems from the right or left, or is not a political ideology, here’s how Jews respond":
Pity they don't say how which group of Jews (religious/agnostic, political spectrum) responded.
How annoying: 42% of American Jews think the GOP wants them dead. But in another light, 43% of Jews think it's equal or only "mostly" right-wing. (The threshold for "mostly" is usually 55/45.) Perhaps they consider al Qaeda or ISIS "right-wing," in spite of being nothing an American would consider right-wing.
It's that 29.8% who interest me. "Social/cultural/ethnic factors". Is this really a ethno-cultural issue, or is it where leftie Jews who think anti-Semitism comes "all" or "mostly" from the Left park themselves? "Ah, poverty [or marginalization or the patriarchy or ...] causes anti-Semitism," they nod sagely to themselves.
Is this where "Romney's 10%" came from? "Ah, he's a minority like us," they thought, "he'll understand."
But that "not political" part... In addition to Hitler-on-the-brain (which I do not fault them for, anymore than I fault a black American who regards whites with a certain reserve), I think a lot of Jews are exhibiting an anti-majoritarian streak that is damaging the country as a whole―a kind of "Whatever it is (those dumb hicks want), I'm against it."
As I suggested in the post above, most Jewish Americans seem to be placing themselves in a self-fulfilling prophecy:
The endless hostility of Marxists towards observant Jews makes me suspect that the suicidal nature of the strategy is not accidental. (This is hard to distinguish from everyday suicidal Marxism, of course.)
The school lockdowns have convinced most Americans that the teacher unions are out to get them, and have pushed lots of people towards home schooling or toward privatizing education. Given the push for "black-only" spaces from blacks, they may well be in favor of that, too. (As a part anarcho-capitalist, I heard Antifa's first calls for "defunding the police" with glee, though I suspected they wanted to replace cops with social-workers-with-arrest-powers, which they do.)
But not the Democrats, and not non-Orthodox, non-right-wing Jews. Which brings up another hard-to-answer thought: does the relentless drive to over-regulation provoke the hostility which Jews interpret as anti-Semitism, which drives even more efforts to over-regulation?
Now we even need unreddit for .win sites. Just great.