It would be easy to ascribe it to the wickedness of the persecutors, but that does not fit all the facts. It exists even in lands, like Great Britain and the United States, where Jew and Gentile are equal in the eyes of the law, and where large numbers of Jews have found not only asylum, but opportunity. These facts must be faced in any analysis of anti-Semitism. They should be pondered especially by the Jews themselves.
For it may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution — that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer.
The central fact which dominates the relations of Jew and non-Jew is that the Jew is 'different.' He looks different. He thinks differently. He has a different tradition and background. He refuses to be absorbed.
-Winston Churchill
This is a blatant attack on the freedom of the press.
I wish people would stop using it this way. The press is a technology, not a class of people. Freedom of the press means congress can't stop you from printing whatever words you want.
This is mostly a freedom of speech issue, though I guess he does have the Daily Caller.
Sorry, I just hate how journalists have carved themselves out a protected class from an individual right through the perversion of language.
In the same sense that "we don't know if we are brains boiling in a vat created by a mad scientist", yes. But of course, while Hitler often made sure to not have any written orders for undertakings that may turn out to be failures, the likelihood that what happened occurred without his command, approval and knowledge range from infinitesimal to impossible.
Disagree. My understanding is that Hitler was cautious of written orders after Catholics complained about the euthanasia orders, but I could be wrong. However, it's still speculation. That's the point. I think it's highly unlikely that he had no knowledge of what was occurring, but there's no proof of any orders, which is what my statement of fact concerned. As I said before, history is a process of revision. It was unchallenged "fact" that the road to Auschwitz was straight, until the 70s.
Who are those 'some people', other than such notorious frauds as David Irving? Because I don't know any serious historian who would say anything like that. Particularly because it's not as if there was a void between Mein Kampf and 1942. Even in January 1939, Hitler said that a world war would result in "the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe". This was then later cited by Goering that "the war has come, the annihilation of the Jewish race must be the logical consequence".
Yet even after Mein Kampf, and after January 1939, the Nazis - Hitler - did not have an ideological commitment to killing Jews. They just wanted them out of Europe, to languish and die either in a place like Madagascar or a reservation in the USSR. Mass killing was a result of radicalization spurred by the war and by an overpopulation problem, where local Nazis who had Jews dumped on them resorted to the expedient of murdering them to avoid feeding them and outbreak of disease among the tightly cramped ghettos, a practice which then spread with the objective of making Europe free of Jews rather than solving local problems (this is the structuralist explanation for the Holocaust, which I do find more persuasive).
Okay, admittedly, I did a horrible job of summarizing the functionalist vs intentionalist debate, but you got there anyway. It really seems likely to me that the Nazis stumbled and blundered their way into the holocaust. Hitler may have approved (and based on surrounding context, almost positively did), but that's just conjecture.
but I'm not with any fact.
Fair, but the writing of history is an exercise of revision, and every revision leaves the taint of the writers own bias. Things are lost, or extrapolated, sometimes without any other reason than a modern lens. When a historical figure becomes Legend, that also factors in, as much as the author may claim it doesn't. In this environment, "fact" becomes a bit amorphous. I mean, Black Reconstruction in America has heavily influenced the teaching of US reconstruction, despite ignoring primary sources, and some of Du Bois apparent leaps of logic.
When you discover that you can't really trust what you've been told your whole life to be true, it can give you a bit of a license to say anything. A place like this is particularly susceptible to saying anything, but that's an opportunity that isn't afforded generally, whether you want to counter it, or support it.
Here's a fact. "It's unknown whether Hitler ordered the death of any Jew."
Not a popular fact, sure. Some people have the opinion that Mein Kampf inspired the Holocaust through his subordinates, while others are of the opinion that it was a secret operation with orders from the top. The latter view is what most consider to be fact, but it's not a fact at all.
I enjoy being able to say that.
Churchill is closer to the modern era, and I agree he had a moral core, but I think many of the more prominent politicians in the early years of the US had a strong moral core as well, likely far stronger than Lincoln. Ultimately, though, they're all human, and should be considered as such.
I don't like the cult of worship (or hatred) that surrounds so many historical leaders. This community is great, because we can say audacious things about revered and reviled figures, and sometimes have a decent conversation about it.
It's part humor, but I'm not sure why I'd be upset about anti-white infighting. Seems reasonable enough to me. Of course, that's premised on the idea Jewish people skew anti-white, which doesn't seem to be a position you accept at all.
I'm aware of how devastating hookup culture has been to society (thanks, Frankfurt School. Thanks for evolving it, Wolfe Herd). Shame and stigma are important safeguards to common decency, and we should work to have them reimplemented.
If you mean I haven't fucked anyone except for my wife in over a decade, then you'd be correct. That whole honor thing.
If you mean I'm not around them, then no, the majority of my interactions are with women. Nearly half the people I'd consider "friend" are women.
I'm sure there are many, many divorced men who can set the record straight for you on how amazing marriage is.
Why would I care about what some random divorced guys have to say, when I can hug my kids good night and curl up next to my wife? Honor is extremely important to me, and my wife is acutely aware of this fact.
Divorced men aren't rare, but my experience says that honorable men are.
Siblings don't like each other. Ever. I don't know a single pair of siblings that don't hate each other.
Sorry you live in such a shitty place, man. Maybe it's only something that could fuck up places where family does actually care about each other, even if it's a plutonic thing. Would be a smart attack, if that's your target.
Hell, maybe that's why incest became stereotypical of the South. Kin was important, and became perverted occasionally?
Either way, fuck the slippery slope. I'm no longer willing to give an inch.
"If you think people would actually fuck shitholes and cut off their dicks, I don't know what to say."
Weird thoughts are part of the human condition. Repudiating the fucked up ones is societies job, and society is failing miserably right now.
Wrong. Just a total victory for an old, international ideology.