ww2 was righteous, Hitler was the worst guy evar, anyone who questions is a bad guy
because if you did ask questions you will see EVERYONE was the bad guy
and if EVERYONE was the bad guy maybe we can take an unbiased look into the motivations of the players
and once we look into the motivations of the players you will see a lot of what Hitler was concerned about is happening right now, including his predictions of what would happen if Germany lost the war
and if some of his complaints seem reasonable you might start questioning why we had to go to war and WHO pushed the hardest to get us into the war and WHY they wanted us in the war
The people who benefit from the ww2 mythology are desperate to avoid that from happening.
In a sentence, imagine “Borat”, except with the main character “Hitler”. At first I was astounded, how could such a movie have been made, in Germany of all places. By the end of the movie it will be more clear, but regardless I found it an enjoyable watch. Some of the most surprising parts were when Hitler interviewed some of the founding members of the AFD, people at migrant protests and the like. Shocking all the more so because this was made in 2013.
Here’s a short clip to see if you think you’ll like it (it’s what convinced me to find and watch it lol):
It’s like American history X where they mention all the racial issues, but then offer no solutions and just say racism bad though. So the message is “Yes German is being destroyed by immigrants but racism bad so don’t do anything about it”
I read what was freely available for the article. It's interesting how with the way Hanson writes, he's implying that Jews were completely divorced from what the Soviet Union was at the time of WWII. Even if Stalin had purged all the higher ups who helped create the Soviet Union, the fall to Marxism was still initiated by "what [Hitler] called Jewish Bolshevism", which is probably why the dictator felt them responsible and wanted to eliminate their people entirely.
Well yes, that is the shibboleth required to be published. I find the writings of the Chief of the Army General Staff about liquidating civilian Russians to be more troubling.
I'm all about the debate itself. If there's points to be made, let's hear them. It's the constant seething and REEEing at the idea that the Narrative is being challenged at all is the scary part to me.
They never point out any specifics when condemning people or put out counter arguments. It’s always just stating the conclusion. Never an explanation. At most they’ll say something was debunked or discredited but never go into how or why.
Same thing happened at the Olympics with the XY guys punching the XX girls out in boxing. They just called the past tests proving XY discredited. They then refused to just do another test or anything. Simple test too. Same day results. Wouldn’t even need blood. Just hair.
I appreciate this guy tackling the complete nonsense that is Jim Jones' legacy as we get taught it, as its absolutely them hiding the truth in plain sight by telling us all the juicy parts to hide the small ones.
But I disagree heavily with his belief in it. Jones' wasn't some true believer in Civil Rights because of moral reasons, he simply lacked any form of racism to prevent him from being pragmatic about it.
Blacks are super easy to whip into a frenzy, its why Black Churches are such a meme. Jones always wanted to be a dictator like Hitler as a kid, and he found the easiest audience to get idolization out of. Especially at the time, he could take thier struggles and make himself a Messiah out of them. And he did do a lot of good in a way that most Civil Rights leaders we learn about failed. He'd just straight go into jails and argue with cops to save his congregation, he'd write letters for them, he'd get down to the individual to fight for them and actually made a visible difference instead of just marching forever in hopes of sweeping societal change.
But he didn't do this entirely for the goodness of it. He knew it would make them fiercely loyal to him and increase his godhood among them by being able to point to exact points he had helped each of them. He was building an army that would follow him to anything, and their civil rights was just a means to that end.
And that anything was Socialism. That's the part that history ignores entirely. Jones' entire goal was socialism. Its why its called the Peoples Temple (no apostrophe to remove ownership). Its why before they killed themselves they were all asking if Russia would come to their aid. Its why many of them on the Death Tape itself espouse that they were dying for Socialism and that was their entire goal for the entire Jonestown.
This gets ignored because, besides being a bad look for socialism, it also reveals some Civil Rights Leaders and Black people were actually socialist/communists in large numbers during the Cold War and actually were both willing to defect and undermine America for that goal. Which would completely dismantle the deification of those Civil Rights protesters by showing that hatred of them wasn't just some form of racism, but a legitimate resistance to foreign ideologies.
Especially as Jones had a huge list of fans and friends who constantly sucked him off. Celebrities, politicians, the wife of a president. Even Lee O'Ryan, whose death caused the mass suicide, was in the process of returning to write a glowing letter about how good socialism was working until defectors jumped on his ride with him.
I don't know the full credentials of this historian nor the context for this interview, but the stunning lack of mention about Socialism in regards to Jim Jones, while ironically talking about the parts people ignore, undermines it a lot for me.
They were, and its a completely buried detail about them.
Jones, however, actually walked the walk instead of just screaming about it constantly. He built communities that self functioned, heck he built his own town to prove his point. He wasn't paying lip service to the idea to seem hip or anti-American (like most celebrities and leaders did at the time), he went out and did it.
He also proved why it always fails while doing it, but its tied deeply to his story and actions and it needs to be mentioned constantly to tell it truthfully.
Even though no one of his claims “went too far”, the ones that have the usual suspects shiddin themselves are…thought provoking to say the least. Some interesting commentary happening over at Unz/alt media in general, which is the more interesting/important outcome of this discussion imo.
They are very invested in WW2 being 'the good war', and they in turn vicariously playing the role of 'the good guys' - because it gives them legitimacy. Coincidentally, this is also why even the post-Stalin USSR prohibited Vasily Grossman from publishing his work in which he equated Stalinism with Nazism. The USSR victory in WW2 allowed it to have legitimacy in the eyes of most its people for several decades, and the same is true for the regime in the US and its puppets in Europe.
I do think the way the ultra-right goes about combating this is very counterproductive and wrong.
They are very invested in WW2 being 'the good war', and they in turn vicariously playing the role of 'the good guys' - because it gives them legitimacy.
That’s absolutely a huge part of it, more so in the past than today (which has chosen to suppress the memory of past glory in order to fixate obsessively on alleged shame) - the Narrative(s) told about this time are far more widespread than the realities
I do think the way the ultra-right goes about combating this is very counterproductive and wrong.
I think I know what you mean. When the “enemy” has so completely assumed control of the Narratives, and the Paradigms, and the organs of society, the only proper response is shining the light of truth. Things like fake talmud quotes or purposefully taking things out of context are poisonous, doubly so because there is so much real crime and corruption to expose.
There really is something to be said for “not stooping to their level”. And I’m not saying that in a “oh just turn the other cheek” cop-out, I’m saying: the entire legitimacy of this “new world order” rests on their ability to predict our actions. The worst thing we can do is fall for the same traps that are always set and always sprung. We need to surprise the “powers that be” with something new.
Yeah, exactly my point - best example I can think of, given the despicable nature and insidious cultural results of the real verses (and the surprisingly frequent occurrence of such “fake” verses being smuggled into a set of real ones, leading to dismissal by association).
I’m not sure how often you browse beyond the walls of KiA, but the best user on the site for exposing fake talmud quotes (when they get posted, usually by handshakes) is, in my experiences, TallestSkil, funnily enough. That’s the hardest part of discerning the truth imo, seeing through the bullshit constructed to mislead us based on our biases. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn much if not all of the “fake” stuff originates as deceptive psyops, “poison pills” meant to spread in the discourse and kill the discussion before it can begin.
Though it’s posted to r/judaism in the context of “I’m sure these are fake but I don’t know how”, this helps ensure discussion stays safely within bounds
Here is one of the top responses:
Soferim does not exist. This is a completely fabricated book and quote.
He then goes on to use word-magic to muddy the waters on a few of the other quotes. Is he correct? Only by adopting some excruciating twists of logic. Will (most) everyone who googles “talmud quotes” walk away thinking the whole thing is much ado about nothing? A large amount will, unfortunately.
But yeah, what I mean by “fake” quotes are the ones taken from sources other than the talmud, being presented as “talmud quotes”. Often you’ll see stuff from, e.g. the toledat yeshu added in. Heinous filth of course, but there’s no reason to muddy the waters of our own arguments (when we uncritically share selections with these subverted/smuggled in verses). I’m not talking about the pilpul often used to try and weasel out of the plain meanings of the translations, just the conflation of sources, which happens surprisingly often.
That’s absolutely a huge part of it, more so in the past than today (which has chosen to suppress the memory of past glory in order to fixate obsessively on alleged shame) - the Narrative(s) told about this time are far more widespread than the realities
Both shame and pride can be used to keep the people down. Look at how shame is instrumentalized in Germany and the United States. It's funny, because the German state now demands unquestioning obedience from its subjects based on the fact that the German people with mostly unquestioning obedience followed the Nazis. Obviously, we're very far from trying to learn any useful lessons, rather than trying to manipulate people.
Things like fake talmud quotes or purposefully taking things out of context are poisonous, doubly so because there is so much real crime and corruption to expose.
That is actually not what I meant, but yes, when you presented those quotes from the Talmud I thought "here we go again, it's probably fake as hell". But it turned out you actually had the goods, which was a surprise.
What I mean, in terms of World War 2, is that "Churchill was a psychopath" is not a particularly useful statement. Not just because he was a politician, and if he wasn't less psychopathic than average, he certainly wasn't more so. But it doesn't actually accomplish anything, even you manage to persuade someone of that, which is unlikely.
World War 2 was a colossal failure on the part of the 'allies', both France/England and the USSR. Why on earth would you let them spin that into something positive? There were numerous times at which the Nazis could have been stopped, from the Rhineland takeover to the invasion of Czechoslovakia, with very little bloodshed. If you say the Nazis are bad, and I do grant that, then why would you get any credit for belatedly and at the cost of tens of millions of lives getting rid of them, rather than when it could have been done without much cost?
Incompetence is far more unforgivable than evil. They don't care about their leaders killing a million Iraqis, why should they care about how many Bomber Harris killed? They don't care about Nazi atrocities either. They'd cheer for Nazis if the media told them to, and they do... see Ukraine.
There really is something to be said for “not stooping to their level”.
It's like with the pro-Trump people who thought they could riot because BLM did so. Turns out, BLM can only do so because the ruling class is unanimously on its side. If you do 1/1000 of what they did, they'll come down mercilessly on you: see Jan 6.
Both shame and pride can be used to keep the people down.
Best example today is israel, ironically (?) enough
Look at how shame is instrumentalized in Germany and the United States.
Yeah I think there are a lot of parallels all around the world on this one. I just read someone comparing the slavery Narrative in the US to the colonialism narrative in Europe to the indian mistreatment narrative in Canada and so on and so forth - but now I can’t find it. Unfortunate, because it was spot on with the parallels.
What I mean, in terms of World War 2, is that "Churchill was a psychopath" is not a particularly useful statement.
Ahh, that makes sense. Yeah I guess more broadly this issue is “hyperbolizing / straw manning” the opposition. I see it so often where all people who call themselves “left leaning” are smeared with the worst possible framing of the word. “Everyone’s a deranged commie, they’re all satanists, they want to kill babies” etc etc
99% of people think they are the good guy. The vast, vast majority of those people are reasoning their way to that position, though it must obviously be the case that the vast majority of those are using faulty reasoning in some way(s). Therefore I try to treat the faulty reasoning as the enemy, not the dunce who’s been duped, because I know that often enough I’ve been that dunce.
Best example today is israel, ironically (?) enough
There's not much pride left in any Western country, except for things that ain't so.
Yeah I think there are a lot of parallels all around the world on this one. I just read someone comparing the slavery Narrative in the US to the colonialism narrative in Europe to the indian mistreatment narrative in Canada and so on and so forth - but now I can’t find it. Unfortunate, because it was spot on with the parallels.
I can't say I see much of the 'colonialism' narrative in Europe. Maybe the UK, and even there it's not even close to the German, American and Canadian stories.
The fact that you can claim that tree roots are mass graves and get away with it in Canada speaks volumes.
Ahh, that makes sense. Yeah I guess more broadly this issue is “hyperbolizing / straw manning” the opposition. I see it so often where all people who call themselves “left leaning” are smeared with the worst possible framing of the word. “Everyone’s a deranged commie, they’re all satanists, they want to kill babies” etc etc
Speaking of that, I've found it highly effective to criticize woke policies to people who are on the left, by simply not referring to those policies as 'left-wing'. People get defensive when they think you attack or criticize their tribe. But if you talk with them like "sensible people are against X", they can be with you.
But apart from persuasion, people here seem to think that when I point out that "a lot of leftists aren't X", I'm "defending" them. As if you don't need to have an accurate view of your opposition, and that hyperbole in any way serves your cause. They can afford to demonize us because they are in power, and they don't need to persuade us, just the people in their influence that we are Bad.
99% of people think they are the good guy. The vast, vast majority of those people are reasoning their way to that position, though it must obviously be the case that the vast majority of those are using faulty reasoning in some way(s). Therefore I try to treat the faulty reasoning as the enemy, not the dunce who’s been duped, because I know that often enough I’ve been that dunce.
And same for me, of course. Hell, I bought into a lot of the very crap that I now find abhorrent, and I think that is why I have a somewhat better understanding of what leads people to believe such things than people who have always seen feminism/BLM for what it is.
I can't say I see much of the 'colonialism' narrative in Europe. Maybe the UK
My understanding of things is that almost all of the early non-native populations in white European countries (like the UK, France, Spain, the Netherlands, etc) came from their colonies. The UK took in a bunch of indians, France took a ton of Algerians/africans, Spain took a ton of South Americans/mestizos, the Nordic countries allowed people from their African colonies to immigrate, and so on and so forth.
Which is to say, I totally see the “colonialism narrative” existing as part of the root cause of the current migration crisis in Europe, parallel to those other narratives discussed earlier, and likewise built on “national shame”.
But if you talk with them like "sensible people are against X", they can be with you.
Makes sense and seems like an improvement over the endless adhoc adhoms which tend to be the default - that is, as long as it never gets to the point of an attempted gaslight (“this is what sane people think!”). Not to say you do that, but it’s an easy trap to fall into. You see it often in conspiracy discussions. Someone will have “insane” (to normies) opinion X, Y, and Z, but if you mention conspiracy W to them you’re either a retard or a shill.
If you want to see the usual cryfest from the usual suspects, just search “Darryl Cooper Tucker Carlson” in your subverted-searchengine of choice and you’ll have pages and pages of denunciations and accusations to laugh at, but I won’t bother linking them here. The only reason the piers video came across my screen was (I assume) because I watched that rabbi shmuely video the other day. What a time to be alive.
the reasoning goes like this:
The people who benefit from the ww2 mythology are desperate to avoid that from happening.
I was kind of blown away when I found this movie the other day called “Look Who’s Back”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WiiUm7v0ilo&pp=ygUabG9vayB3aG8ncyBiYWNrIGZ1bGwgbW92aWU%3D
In a sentence, imagine “Borat”, except with the main character “Hitler”. At first I was astounded, how could such a movie have been made, in Germany of all places. By the end of the movie it will be more clear, but regardless I found it an enjoyable watch. Some of the most surprising parts were when Hitler interviewed some of the founding members of the AFD, people at migrant protests and the like. Shocking all the more so because this was made in 2013.
Here’s a short clip to see if you think you’ll like it (it’s what convinced me to find and watch it lol):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iiuesTpIPVQ
It’s like American history X where they mention all the racial issues, but then offer no solutions and just say racism bad though. So the message is “Yes German is being destroyed by immigrants but racism bad so don’t do anything about it”
I'm seeing plenty of condemnation and plenty of name calling toward Tucker.
But near zero calling him wrong about it.
Not casting my lot with either side, but Victor Davis Hanson had a decent rebuttal (unfortunately half locked behind a paywall). This kind of sober tone should have characterized the response.
I read what was freely available for the article. It's interesting how with the way Hanson writes, he's implying that Jews were completely divorced from what the Soviet Union was at the time of WWII. Even if Stalin had purged all the higher ups who helped create the Soviet Union, the fall to Marxism was still initiated by "what [Hitler] called Jewish Bolshevism", which is probably why the dictator felt them responsible and wanted to eliminate their people entirely.
Well yes, that is the shibboleth required to be published. I find the writings of the Chief of the Army General Staff about liquidating civilian Russians to be more troubling.
I'm all about the debate itself. If there's points to be made, let's hear them. It's the constant seething and REEEing at the idea that the Narrative is being challenged at all is the scary part to me.
They never point out any specifics when condemning people or put out counter arguments. It’s always just stating the conclusion. Never an explanation. At most they’ll say something was debunked or discredited but never go into how or why.
Same thing happened at the Olympics with the XY guys punching the XX girls out in boxing. They just called the past tests proving XY discredited. They then refused to just do another test or anything. Simple test too. Same day results. Wouldn’t even need blood. Just hair.
I appreciate this guy tackling the complete nonsense that is Jim Jones' legacy as we get taught it, as its absolutely them hiding the truth in plain sight by telling us all the juicy parts to hide the small ones.
But I disagree heavily with his belief in it. Jones' wasn't some true believer in Civil Rights because of moral reasons, he simply lacked any form of racism to prevent him from being pragmatic about it.
Blacks are super easy to whip into a frenzy, its why Black Churches are such a meme. Jones always wanted to be a dictator like Hitler as a kid, and he found the easiest audience to get idolization out of. Especially at the time, he could take thier struggles and make himself a Messiah out of them. And he did do a lot of good in a way that most Civil Rights leaders we learn about failed. He'd just straight go into jails and argue with cops to save his congregation, he'd write letters for them, he'd get down to the individual to fight for them and actually made a visible difference instead of just marching forever in hopes of sweeping societal change.
But he didn't do this entirely for the goodness of it. He knew it would make them fiercely loyal to him and increase his godhood among them by being able to point to exact points he had helped each of them. He was building an army that would follow him to anything, and their civil rights was just a means to that end.
And that anything was Socialism. That's the part that history ignores entirely. Jones' entire goal was socialism. Its why its called the Peoples Temple (no apostrophe to remove ownership). Its why before they killed themselves they were all asking if Russia would come to their aid. Its why many of them on the Death Tape itself espouse that they were dying for Socialism and that was their entire goal for the entire Jonestown.
This gets ignored because, besides being a bad look for socialism, it also reveals some Civil Rights Leaders and Black people were actually socialist/communists in large numbers during the Cold War and actually were both willing to defect and undermine America for that goal. Which would completely dismantle the deification of those Civil Rights protesters by showing that hatred of them wasn't just some form of racism, but a legitimate resistance to foreign ideologies.
Especially as Jones had a huge list of fans and friends who constantly sucked him off. Celebrities, politicians, the wife of a president. Even Lee O'Ryan, whose death caused the mass suicide, was in the process of returning to write a glowing letter about how good socialism was working until defectors jumped on his ride with him.
I don't know the full credentials of this historian nor the context for this interview, but the stunning lack of mention about Socialism in regards to Jim Jones, while ironically talking about the parts people ignore, undermines it a lot for me.
Most of the Civil Rights Leaders were socialist.
Jones wasn't even religious. He was an atheist. Lying isn't wrong if it's in service of utopia.
That's the basic premise that makes these people evil. Temporary suffering is not comparable to eternal bliss.
They were, and its a completely buried detail about them.
Jones, however, actually walked the walk instead of just screaming about it constantly. He built communities that self functioned, heck he built his own town to prove his point. He wasn't paying lip service to the idea to seem hip or anti-American (like most celebrities and leaders did at the time), he went out and did it.
He also proved why it always fails while doing it, but its tied deeply to his story and actions and it needs to be mentioned constantly to tell it truthfully.
They're trying to take out Tucker.
The guy was off base on some stuff, but I didn't get the impression at all that he's a nutsi. Far from it.
Even though no one of his claims “went too far”, the ones that have the usual suspects shiddin themselves are…thought provoking to say the least. Some interesting commentary happening over at Unz/alt media in general, which is the more interesting/important outcome of this discussion imo.
It’s being hit bigly by the ol’ streisand effect
They are very invested in WW2 being 'the good war', and they in turn vicariously playing the role of 'the good guys' - because it gives them legitimacy. Coincidentally, this is also why even the post-Stalin USSR prohibited Vasily Grossman from publishing his work in which he equated Stalinism with Nazism. The USSR victory in WW2 allowed it to have legitimacy in the eyes of most its people for several decades, and the same is true for the regime in the US and its puppets in Europe.
I do think the way the ultra-right goes about combating this is very counterproductive and wrong.
That’s absolutely a huge part of it, more so in the past than today (which has chosen to suppress the memory of past glory in order to fixate obsessively on alleged shame) - the Narrative(s) told about this time are far more widespread than the realities
I think I know what you mean. When the “enemy” has so completely assumed control of the Narratives, and the Paradigms, and the organs of society, the only proper response is shining the light of truth. Things like fake talmud quotes or purposefully taking things out of context are poisonous, doubly so because there is so much real crime and corruption to expose.
There really is something to be said for “not stooping to their level”. And I’m not saying that in a “oh just turn the other cheek” cop-out, I’m saying: the entire legitimacy of this “new world order” rests on their ability to predict our actions. The worst thing we can do is fall for the same traps that are always set and always sprung. We need to surprise the “powers that be” with something new.
There's no need for fake talmud quotes.
They (not all) openly tell you that they believe they are god's chosen people.
And what does that make everyone else? It makes them people who were not chosen by god.
Yeah, exactly my point - best example I can think of, given the despicable nature and insidious cultural results of the real verses (and the surprisingly frequent occurrence of such “fake” verses being smuggled into a set of real ones, leading to dismissal by association).
I’m not sure how often you browse beyond the walls of KiA, but the best user on the site for exposing fake talmud quotes (when they get posted, usually by handshakes) is, in my experiences, TallestSkil, funnily enough. That’s the hardest part of discerning the truth imo, seeing through the bullshit constructed to mislead us based on our biases. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn much if not all of the “fake” stuff originates as deceptive psyops, “poison pills” meant to spread in the discourse and kill the discussion before it can begin.
Yep, just expounding on it.
Ay? Which commonly spread ones are fake?
I’ll illustrate with a scenario since everyone has seen different images/posts/articles/etc:
Open gewgle - search for “talmud quotes”, go to images
First result looks exactly like the kind of post we’re talking about (damning talmud quotes)
https://i.redd.it/rrjqxm9eqx9d1.jpeg
Though it’s posted to r/judaism in the context of “I’m sure these are fake but I don’t know how”, this helps ensure discussion stays safely within bounds
Here is one of the top responses:
He then goes on to use word-magic to muddy the waters on a few of the other quotes. Is he correct? Only by adopting some excruciating twists of logic. Will (most) everyone who googles “talmud quotes” walk away thinking the whole thing is much ado about nothing? A large amount will, unfortunately.
But yeah, what I mean by “fake” quotes are the ones taken from sources other than the talmud, being presented as “talmud quotes”. Often you’ll see stuff from, e.g. the toledat yeshu added in. Heinous filth of course, but there’s no reason to muddy the waters of our own arguments (when we uncritically share selections with these subverted/smuggled in verses). I’m not talking about the pilpul often used to try and weasel out of the plain meanings of the translations, just the conflation of sources, which happens surprisingly often.
Both shame and pride can be used to keep the people down. Look at how shame is instrumentalized in Germany and the United States. It's funny, because the German state now demands unquestioning obedience from its subjects based on the fact that the German people with mostly unquestioning obedience followed the Nazis. Obviously, we're very far from trying to learn any useful lessons, rather than trying to manipulate people.
That is actually not what I meant, but yes, when you presented those quotes from the Talmud I thought "here we go again, it's probably fake as hell". But it turned out you actually had the goods, which was a surprise.
What I mean, in terms of World War 2, is that "Churchill was a psychopath" is not a particularly useful statement. Not just because he was a politician, and if he wasn't less psychopathic than average, he certainly wasn't more so. But it doesn't actually accomplish anything, even you manage to persuade someone of that, which is unlikely.
World War 2 was a colossal failure on the part of the 'allies', both France/England and the USSR. Why on earth would you let them spin that into something positive? There were numerous times at which the Nazis could have been stopped, from the Rhineland takeover to the invasion of Czechoslovakia, with very little bloodshed. If you say the Nazis are bad, and I do grant that, then why would you get any credit for belatedly and at the cost of tens of millions of lives getting rid of them, rather than when it could have been done without much cost?
Incompetence is far more unforgivable than evil. They don't care about their leaders killing a million Iraqis, why should they care about how many Bomber Harris killed? They don't care about Nazi atrocities either. They'd cheer for Nazis if the media told them to, and they do... see Ukraine.
It's like with the pro-Trump people who thought they could riot because BLM did so. Turns out, BLM can only do so because the ruling class is unanimously on its side. If you do 1/1000 of what they did, they'll come down mercilessly on you: see Jan 6.
Best example today is israel, ironically (?) enough
Yeah I think there are a lot of parallels all around the world on this one. I just read someone comparing the slavery Narrative in the US to the colonialism narrative in Europe to the indian mistreatment narrative in Canada and so on and so forth - but now I can’t find it. Unfortunate, because it was spot on with the parallels.
Ahh, that makes sense. Yeah I guess more broadly this issue is “hyperbolizing / straw manning” the opposition. I see it so often where all people who call themselves “left leaning” are smeared with the worst possible framing of the word. “Everyone’s a deranged commie, they’re all satanists, they want to kill babies” etc etc
99% of people think they are the good guy. The vast, vast majority of those people are reasoning their way to that position, though it must obviously be the case that the vast majority of those are using faulty reasoning in some way(s). Therefore I try to treat the faulty reasoning as the enemy, not the dunce who’s been duped, because I know that often enough I’ve been that dunce.
There's not much pride left in any Western country, except for things that ain't so.
I can't say I see much of the 'colonialism' narrative in Europe. Maybe the UK, and even there it's not even close to the German, American and Canadian stories.
The fact that you can claim that tree roots are mass graves and get away with it in Canada speaks volumes.
Speaking of that, I've found it highly effective to criticize woke policies to people who are on the left, by simply not referring to those policies as 'left-wing'. People get defensive when they think you attack or criticize their tribe. But if you talk with them like "sensible people are against X", they can be with you.
But apart from persuasion, people here seem to think that when I point out that "a lot of leftists aren't X", I'm "defending" them. As if you don't need to have an accurate view of your opposition, and that hyperbole in any way serves your cause. They can afford to demonize us because they are in power, and they don't need to persuade us, just the people in their influence that we are Bad.
And same for me, of course. Hell, I bought into a lot of the very crap that I now find abhorrent, and I think that is why I have a somewhat better understanding of what leads people to believe such things than people who have always seen feminism/BLM for what it is.
My understanding of things is that almost all of the early non-native populations in white European countries (like the UK, France, Spain, the Netherlands, etc) came from their colonies. The UK took in a bunch of indians, France took a ton of Algerians/africans, Spain took a ton of South Americans/mestizos, the Nordic countries allowed people from their African colonies to immigrate, and so on and so forth.
Which is to say, I totally see the “colonialism narrative” existing as part of the root cause of the current migration crisis in Europe, parallel to those other narratives discussed earlier, and likewise built on “national shame”.
Makes sense and seems like an improvement over the endless adhoc adhoms which tend to be the default - that is, as long as it never gets to the point of an attempted gaslight (“this is what sane people think!”). Not to say you do that, but it’s an easy trap to fall into. You see it often in conspiracy discussions. Someone will have “insane” (to normies) opinion X, Y, and Z, but if you mention conspiracy W to them you’re either a retard or a shill.
Kevin Macdonald writing for the Occidental Observer with some interesting takes:
https://www.unz.com/article/the-carlson-cooper-podcast-a-major-step-forward/
Johnny English has been deployed:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=53x0FECym2M
If you want to see the usual cryfest from the usual suspects, just search “Darryl Cooper Tucker Carlson” in your subverted-searchengine of choice and you’ll have pages and pages of denunciations and accusations to laugh at, but I won’t bother linking them here. The only reason the piers video came across my screen was (I assume) because I watched that rabbi shmuely video the other day. What a time to be alive.