Jewish Guilt and the Weight of Nuremberg
anthony
The long awaited thread is here.

A while back I said I wanted to write about a perceived moral plight of the Jews. Their own relationship with what some call "Jewish Values" in relation to power and politics which can be so binding on us. My general thinking remains the same. Now a bit updated in light of recent events. I'll just link the original line of thought below.


Quote:I've been thinking about Ari Folman lately after someone linked me something about his latest film. The work that's really on my mind is his 'Waltz With Bashir'. I talk a lot about how modern and especially leftist art is crippled by an aversion to human nature and things we all naturally like. A lot of talk about how Jews did this, yeah, they largely did, not as much about how this effects Jews. Both in politics and existential matters (which I've written about before), and especially not in the popular arts and media.

The way I'd like to frame this thread and discussion is the idea that the Jews did not get away with WW2. They did things that were genuinely repugnant to the human spirit and because they are also in fact human like us the weight of these acts is punishing them and their descendants. Probably more through chance an opportunism the jews found themselves in a position of attempting to eat their cake and have it. The cake being natural human pathos. With Nuremberg, their coup de grace against the Axis, they effectively declared a new world order in which coherent existential politics were redefined as a form of homicidal insanity. They then immediately formed a nation state and started pursuing coherent existential politics. I believe that the defensive nature of earlier Israeli conflicts and the generally put upon and trying state of the thing made it easy to ignore the dissonance in the Jewish worldview. Also this worldview was less defined and formed. Holocaustianity was not quite a religion yet. They did not define themselves as and draw virtue from identifying as meek victim. They were too busy growing and surviving. If anybody raised "are we evil" ideas back then it would have been easy to ignore.

But by the time of the Lebanon War in which Ari Folman was a participant, things had changed. Jews were now becoming Holocaust victims. Understanding themselves as victims of grievous moral wrongs. And Israel was no longer a struggling underdog in a frantic battle for mere survival. It had become a regional power. It was secure, and its actions no longer felt readily classificable as fighting to live. Now it was about power. Of course nobody is truly safe in the world, and there are perfectly coherent and justifiable cases to be made for things like Israel's intervention in Lebanon. Coherent to people like us, that is. If you have seriously internalised the Nuremberg world-picture, it's not so simple. Or rather, it's simple in the other direction. No. You are stronger, you need to be the adult in the room and suffer this. Violent self-assertion against the world is evil. I'm sure at the time plenty of Jews could still pull a "try not to think too hard about it" with themselves and others, many probably didn't have sophisticated moral pictures of the world at all, but several also unfortunately did. Ari Folman obviously being one. The man was a real soldier, fought in real battles, but he's also an artist. Made of more sensitive stuff. He can't let this kind of thing be. He's too active on the inside. The dilemma one hits, which seems central to Folman's work as a filmmaker, is that apparent necessities of self interest and force need to be reconciled with history. There are two ways about this, and to Israel's misfortune, Folman, and most sensitive Israelis, seems to have taken the leftward path. To square Israel's existence with history, history must be favoured. The sanctity of Nuremberg is upheld. Israel must yield meekly in the face of hostility and aggression from without, lest it become the monster it survived the wrath of in the 20th century.

To make the subject more timely I also wanted to discuss the career of Neil Druckmann, a man who despite commercial and (((critical))) success is completely incapable of tapping into any serious human pathos in his work. I don't want to continue drafting this OP now, but this was another direction on my mind. Also I want to write about John Milius, for obvious reasons ("There is only one Nazi on this team. I'm the Nazi.") and Stanley Kubrick (Full Metal Jacket is one of my favourite films, but Spartacus, Paths of Glory, and Clockwork Orange would also be relevant).

Before making this thread I'd like to see Waltz With Bashir again and read some stuff about Folman, and also God help me I may have to buy The Last of Us 2. For sociological purposes I may make this sacrifice.


I did not buy The Last of Us 2. I more or less know what it's about.

Anyway, given what's happened since I outlined this, does it look like the Jews have gotten away with changing all the rules to frame their enemies badly and suit themselves? We can of course still see the tension and neurosis in their art, but now it's in their politics and international relations. You know, or can probably imagine, how I feel about various Jewish works on conflict. What we can discuss here and now is the relation (if any) between historic "Jewish" attitudes and framings and their current plight.

I looked up what Ari Folman has to say about the current situation. He is calling for 'empathy' from the anti-colonialists and a fair appraisal of the situation. Perhaps this sounds familiar.


Quote:Folman expressed his criticism of the west’s “total unawareness that Hamas is a fundamentalistic [organization]. They are not freedom fighters. They are sick monsters who slaughtered babies and chopped [off] heads. They raped I don’t know how many girls at that rave party. These things, I don’t see them echoed.”


Anti colonialist heroes with western fans are actually rabid psychos? You sure? Rethuglicans have been pitching that lie for a while now. I listen to JOURNALISTS, so I know better. David Halberstam told me to look out for the likes of you.

This piece has a lot of good details about Folman's personal situation in relation to all of this.


Quote:One of the hostages, the 79-year-old peace activist Chaim Peri, is a friend of Folman; Peri’s son, Lior, has worked as a gaffer on the director’s films.
“For the last 30 years, this guy was waiting at the checkpoint for Palestinian children who are sick with cancer. He took them to the Israeli hospitals to get treatment and then he drove them back to Gaza.”


And this great note about his family history.


Quote:Working on the project, says Folman, reminded him of the experience of his mother, Wanda, who is now 101. Along with her new husband and her younger sister, the 17-year-old Wanda was deported to Auschwitz in 1944.

Folman’s parents were separated, but Wanda was able to successfully shield her sister until, one day, she returned from work and saw Nazi doctor Josef Mengele and his assistant. “They took her sister. She always says: ‘If I had come back five minutes earlier …’


You know what I'm thinking. Let's just see if anybody has more to say. Here's your thread for now.
Guest
There is no such thing as "Jewish Guilt". For what would a Jew feel guilt? Perhaps if a Jew believes he has hindered the schemes of the tribe in some way, he may feel something resembling guilt (or more accurately shame), but otherwise the Jew is a rapacious and unrepentant criminal exceeded only by the Negro. That is not to say that a Jew is incapable of feeling guilt, merely that he will not feel guilt because the Jewish worldview posits that Jews are inherently good so all they do must be good. That is the essence of "Jewish values". Everything more elaborate than that is simply an attempt to rationalize or excuse their criminal nature.

It must also be stated that the Jews always had a concept of guilt, and were never unaware of it, but it was always restricted by their aforementioned narcissism. Guilt is for the goyim to feel after you recriminate them, not for you to feel after poisoning the village well or raping and murdering another child. Oh yes, Jews are humans too, and they can feel the same feelings I do- But why should I care? They will never see you as anything more than a toy at best or a beast at worst, so they will never feel guilty about anything except that which they cannot excuse to each other.

Knowing how rarely a Jew feels real guilt, I must clarify that the thing that many people call "Jewish Guilt" is merely Jewish self-pity. Interminable, insipid, infinitely irritating, and inevitable. Why is it inevitable that Jews are always feeling self-pity? When you are told from birth that your people are demigods and all other men are animals, only for you to see Count Orlok when you look in the mirror, you will not feel good about yourself. Sadly, this does not lead to self-reflection on the Jews part. Their narcissism comes in as a defense mechanism by instead framing them as victims of unwarranted cruelty from the goyim. That's why the Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you. He's not only thinking "It's not fair!" or "You made me do it!", he's thinking something like "I shouldn't need to do this at all!" If one can say Jews did not "get away" with WWII, it is in regard to that last line of thinking. Getting away with it for them would mean National Socialism never happened and they went straight from Weimar to Bolshevik Germany (A ridiculous idea to any sane person). That is also why they show no gratitude to Americans for saving them. To them, what the US did is no more commendable or exceptional than a child wiping up a cup of milk that he spilled.


This leads us to Ari Folman: By all accounts a typical Jew who occasionally virtue signals by wallowing in self-pity. He'll tell you he feels bad about his actions in the Lebanese war, and then cry about Hamas (allegedly) committing atrocities not seen since the Shoah. That Anne Frank film he made should tell you all you need to know about his real feelings.
anthony
(06-04-2024, 05:12 AM)Guest Wrote: There is no such thing as "Jewish Guilt". For what would a Jew feel guilt? Perhaps if a Jew believes he has hindered the schemes of the tribe in some way, he may feel something resembling guilt (or more accurately shame), but otherwise the Jew is a rapacious and unrepentant criminal exceeded only by the Negro. That is not to say that a Jew is incapable of feeling guilt, merely that he will not feel guilt because the Jewish worldview posits that Jews are inherently good so all they do must be good. That is the essence of "Jewish values". Everything more elaborate than that is simply an attempt to rationalize or excuse their criminal nature.

It must also be stated that the Jews always had a concept of guilt, and were never unaware of it, but it was always restricted by their aforementioned narcissism. Guilt is for the goyim to feel after you recriminate them, not for you to feel after poisoning the village well or raping and murdering another child. Oh yes, Jews are humans too, and they can feel the same feelings I do- But why should I care? They will never see you as anything more than a toy at best or a beast at worst, so they will never feel guilty about anything except that which they cannot excuse to each other.


Interesting start. And perhaps vindicated by the subjects of this thread so far.

Quote:Knowing how rarely a Jew feels real guilt, I must clarify that the thing that many people call "Jewish Guilt" is merely Jewish self-pity.

Now we have something we can talk about. Do we examples of Jews acting out serious "guilt"? We have examples of Jews saying similar things to "White Guilt" cases. But there's a key difference I see. Both of the artists (or "artists") I have mentioned so far are Israelis. They lament the nature of conflict, bad things that may have been done. But they both are from and are loyal to a state which has conflict more firmly entrenched in its nature than arguably any other in history. It is not merely a product of conflict (as all nations and countries are), it was explicitly built to participate and survive. Israel is a state with a mission. And that mission is basically their version of the 14 words.

Neil Druckmann perhaps cannot create compelling "ohrt" because he is a faggot who is not willing or able to publicly affirm any reasonable picture of conflict or human nature. His work affirms the extremities of libtardism. Lay down sobbing in the fetal position of aggressed upon because otherwise you might do a fascism. The human condition is a giant tragic bicycle of violence in which trauma is always still alive somewhere and waiting to spread. Occasionally a hero turns the other cheek and reduces the total a little, at their own expense.

He says that when it's "ohrt" time, and he makes this filth in America. But when the chips are down and his homeland is in danger, suddenly everything is very complicated and maybe stacking bodies is actually a necessary thing and you really have no right to comment because you weren't there.

Here's the one piece I could readily find on Druckmann and Israel. Specifically post happening. Amusingly, the ones before that are all triumphs and victory laps about how chuds can't handle politics in their OHRT.


Quote:In October 2000, two Israeli Defence Forces reservists were killed by a mob in Ramallah, Palestine. Footage of the incident – later referred to as the “Ramallah lynching” – was broadcast around the world. Among those watching in horror was 22-year-old aspiring video game designer named Neil Druckmann. 

“It was the cheering that was really chilling to me,” he would tell the Washington Post. “In my mind, I thought, ‘Oh, man, if I could just push a button and kill all these people that committed this horrible act, I would make them feel the same pain that they inflicted on these people.’”


Interesting... We continue a little...


Quote:The Last of Us was universally praised. As is often the case with long-awaited follow-ups, the second game proved more divisive. That’s partly down to several shocking twists (see below for spoiler-filled details). These made Druckmann the target of a segment of the fanbase that wanted part two to essentially rehash the first Last Of Us. But there has been disquiet, too, about its politics. In particular, Druckmann’s explanation that the intense loathing between key factions in the game was informed by his experiences growing up on the West Bank and by the Ramallah lynching. 

The enmity Druckmann had experienced towards those who killed the two Israeli soldiers would fade. Later, he would feel “gross and guilty” about those emotions. With The Last of Us 2, he wanted to explore the ways in which such negative feelings can consume a person. How they can trigger a perpetual cycle of violence – as happens to Ellie and Abby, who destroy their lives in their frenzied desire to get even with one another. (Warning: spoilers follow.)


He feels "gross and guilty". Sure. But the Palestinians remain. Have you changed? What's different now aside from hypocritical distance?


Quote:The big pivot early in the game is the fate of Joel, hero of the original Last of Us. In part one, he killed a doctor who was carrying out a procedure on Ellie that could potentially create a cure for the zombie plague that has destroyed humanity, at the cost of Ellie’s life (she has a unique immunity to the fungus that turns people into the chittering, mindless “Infected”). Those chickens come home to roost in the Last of Us 2 as the surgeon’s vengeful daughter, Abby, tracks down Joel and beats him to death with a golf club – in full view of Ellie.

Ellie vows to get her own back – and is soon on the trail of Abby, who has headed west to Seattle. But then halfway through comes another twist. Druckmann plays a game of switcheroo by having the player take on the part of Abby. We see her with her father hours before he is gunned down by an out-of-control Joel. We experience first hand her hatred of Ellie, who tries to kill her in a torturous “boss battle”. And we see her risk her life to protect a trans teenager named Lev, who is fleeing religious oppression.

It’s a powerful lesson in empathy. Both Ellie and Abby have justifiable reasons for their hate. Both are good people at heart. Their weakness has been to let their thirst for revenge consume them – a message that stays with the player long after they have finished the game.


ah ha haaaaaaaaa...

Again, how exactly is this applicable to the case of the dead Israeli reservists, and by extension, the entire Israeli situation? To Jewish existence and historic continuity?


Quote:“I landed on this emotional idea of, can we, over the course of the game, make you feel this intense hate that is universal in the same way that unconditional love is universal?” Druckmann told the Washington Post in 2020. “This hate that people feel has the same kind of universality. You hate someone so much that you want them to suffer in the way they’ve made someone you love suffer.”

Ellie and her companions travel to Seattle in pursuit of Abby, who has joined the de facto rulers of the city, the Washington Liberation Front, or Wolves. They’ve taken over Seattle but are locked in conflict with a religious sect called the Seraphites – referred to as “Scars” owing to disfigurements they cut in their cheeks as part of their spiritual awakening.

To some, The Last of Us 2 draws unambiguous and distorted parallels between the WLF and the Scars and Israel and Palestine. The Scars are described as “religious fanatics” and worship at a location called the “Martyr Gate”. They are presented as intolerant of minorities, such as Lev. And they get around Seattle through a loop of “sky tunnels” that seem inspired by the network constructed by Hamas beneath Gaza

Political metaphor is in the eye of the beholder. Many gamers have played The Last of Us 2, oblivious to any real-world analogies. However, others have criticised Druckmann. “The cycle of violence in The Last of Us Part 2 appears to be largely modelled after the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” argued Vice magazine, which said the portrayal of the Seraphites as “fanatical” served to “marginalise [s] Palestinian experience in a manner that perpetuates a horrific status quo”.



Neil Druckmann stunningly and bravely depicts two deuteragonists brought to opposing hatreds by circumstances. Everyone is human. This is a richly and deeply feeling story in which the humanity of both sides is explored. And both sides are of course comfortable progressive icons (butch machowoman who defends trans kids (literally) v dyke with jewish girlfriend who also defends trans kids (spiritually)). Oh and by the way some people are just zealous deranged retards who will attack you for no reason and exist to be killed off in droves. They never get a humanising flashback.

Who are the Palestinians in this story again? Are they... Abby? And while we're at it, who are Europeans...?


Quote:The last thing Druckmann or anyone involved with The Last of Us television series will want is for it to be derailed by a controversy around Israel and Palestine. Going into season one, Druckmann was keen to clarify his statements about the Ramallah lynchings and their impact on Last of Us 2.

“There’s a slight nuance there that I think is important, based on the conversation that happened on the second game, and I never talked about it,” Druckmann told Israel’s Haaretz newspaper last year. “But it was inspired by, not based on. That’s a really important nuance because my inspiration is… my feeling towards a cycle of violence that I experienced as a child growing up in Israel, growing up in the West Bank specifically, coming to the United States and observing it then from the outside, vs. being in it.”

He was particularly anxious that the game not be regarded as an allegory for any particular conflict. “The game deals a lot with tribalism,” he continued. “Sometimes tribalism on a very large scale, between two groups that are fighting for land – and again, that has obvious similarities to stuff that happens in the West Bank – but sometimes it’s tribalism within its group, of like religious people vs. secular people, or people that have experienced violence and feel – and that’s another theme of the story – a sense of a group that feels righteous. And when you’re righteous, it’s very easy to diminish another group and say, ‘They are less than me, and I’m correct, and they’re wrong,’ and therefore that gives me permission to inflict violence upon them.” 

Ahead of season two, Druckmann and Mazin have promised to include more of the zombie-like Infected after fans complained about their scarcity in the first season. Raising the zombie count is a no-brainer. The bigger ask is tackling the Wolves-Scars conflict in a way that does not invite further comparisons to Israel-Palestine. Druckmann was no doubt disappointed by the Emmys pointed snubbing of The Last Of Us. But he knows the real challenges are yet to come.


Mhm. We're talking in general about tribalism. Because that is what drives conflicts. Arbitrary divides which happen for no reason and are bad. What is happening in the West Bank is a "cycle of violence". Well Neil. How are cycles of violence resolved? In your game the deuteragonists are just two people. They can fuck off from each other. Can two nations do that? Should they? What does being the bigger person look like when we're talking about nations? Well, this writer (who may be wrong or speculating) says that a priority is not inviting further comparisons to Israel-Palestine. It strikes me as strange that it's taken for granted that now is not the time to be making statements on conflicts. You either believe you have a serious, credible view on conflict, which at the very least means something to you because it's your own, or you don't. And if you don't what the hell were these games about? And if you do, how can you justify not speaking when we're now at such a critical moment when what we believe is shaping the world and human fates?

I believe that, back in line with the original subject of the thread, Druckmann is pinned here. Politically if not personally. And I suppose that is in fact the central question, not whether this pinning is taking place. It obviously is. But to what extent is this merely a denial of expedient options which will be accepted by the wider world, and to what extent are Jews feeling this conflict themselves?

The weak, inherently libtarded nature of Druckmann's "ohrt" gave the impression he might be a genuine full and true believer libtard. Because after all, he's compromising his "ohrt" for the sake of his values. His work is gay and boring. But one could also say it's very expedient. His work, bad as it is, is very successful.

Then we have his lack of comments against Israel. This is not the true 100% libtard party line. Yes, it's complicated by the fact he's Jewish. But plenty of Jews are anti-Israel. And perhaps this is a key dividing line. Druckmann isn't just a Jew. He's Israeli. One who claims he has the privilege of looking in from outside in America (he does, of course), but is he meaningfully transformed by this perspective?

Back to Guest, maybe we can answer the rest now.


Quote:Interminable, insipid, infinitely irritating, and inevitable. Why is it inevitable that Jews are always feeling self-pity? When you are told from birth that your people are demigods and all other men are animals, only for you to see Count Orlok when you look in the mirror, you will not feel good about yourself. Sadly, this does not lead to self-reflection on the Jews part. Their narcissism comes in as a defense mechanism by instead framing them as victims of unwarranted cruelty from the goyim. That's why the Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you. He's not only thinking "It's not fair!" or "You made me do it!", he's thinking something like "I shouldn't need to do this at all!" If one can say Jews did not "get away" with WWII, it is in regard to that last line of thinking. Getting away with it for them would mean National Socialism never happened and they went straight from Weimar to Bolshevik Germany (A ridiculous idea to any sane person). That is also why they show no gratitude to Americans for saving them. To them, what the US did is no more commendable or exceptional than a child wiping up a cup of milk that he spilled.

This leads us to Ari Folman: By all accounts a typical Jew who occasionally virtue signals by wallowing in self-pity. He'll tell you he feels bad about his actions in the Lebanese war, and then cry about Hamas (allegedly) committing atrocities not seen since the Shoah. That Anne Frank film he made should tell you all you need to know about his real feelings.

Did Druckmann feel and express conflict in his heart thinking about the nature of violence? Is that what drove him to make The Last of Us 2? Or was it perhaps indulgence in a highly performative and self-flattering self-pity? It pays to be someone who feels oh so strongly on these matters. Clearly. Look at the shitjournos who go to bat for this man every time. And the moron failed artfag poser army.

I would actually, in light of what has happened since, revise the original draft (written before the last outbreak of violence in the middle east) in line with Guest's suggestion. Druckmann was not personally cornered by the contradictions of the post-war moral order and history. His work sucks to some extent because he is forced to lie, sure, but I now think he's actually quite comfortable lying. And quite comfortable holding disorder close to his heart and living in hypocrisy.

Folman I might respect more. As an artist he seems to have more ideas, his investment in the state of Israel seems heavier and more backed by skin in the game, even if he doesn't have it in him to reason his way to a workable answer. He fought for Israel, and has friends working to help the Palestinians within the current (pre-happening) state of affairs (who got kidnapped for their trouble). He feels bad that Palestinians live hard and that peace hasn't worked, and he believes Israel should concede nothing and treat people who attack them like enemies. Something of course has to give eventually, and bad as he might feel about it, he's probably ultimately going to let Palestine be shoved out of the territory for good. Perhaps not a morally robust position ultimately, but probably fairly normal across the whole of humanity. Self-pitying and ultimately self-oriented. Oh well. What else is possible?

This is of course made more interesting by his Anne Frank film in which refugees in Europe are equated with the Jews under Nazi persecution. Sure. For one, Ari, how do these brown brothers in oppression feel about you now? And two, can we send them to your house?

I suppose we ultimately can't tell if someone is seriously compromised by the New Morality until we see them kill themselves.

[Image: IMG-0976-600x600.jpg]
NuclearAbsolutist
(06-04-2024, 07:40 AM)anthony Wrote: This is of course made more interesting by his Anne Frank film in which refugees in Europe are equated with the Jews under Nazi persecution.

If not in a direct legal sense(The topic deserves its own thread I'll say this for anyone reading all countries have to deal with it The Jewish State™ included, acceptance of such population movements by nations or having to deal with them at all due to various factors)  morally the cases are considered the exact same by libtards Jew or not. There's a entire school I've noted coming from the EU, or lovers of it about the importance of such values "Never forget the displaced and KILLED BY IT in WWII" in media, particularly in games.  https://store.steampowered.com/app/733790/Not_Tonight/

[Image: 8ml5DPS.png]

Which I see as more proof of your point Folman is the more inline with mankind of the two, this sappy moralism is cherished from Toronto to Mumbai. His racial character(As I see so often) manifests in his execution of his little aesop artistically, those infamous scenes saved to webms particular details I've no doubt were talked about in some commentary etc.
anthony
(06-04-2024, 08:41 AM)NuclearAbsolutist Wrote:
(06-04-2024, 07:40 AM)anthony Wrote: This is of course made more interesting by his Anne Frank film in which refugees in Europe are equated with the Jews under Nazi persecution.
particularly in games.  https://store.steampowered.com/app/733790/Not_Tonight/

Oh my science. This might deserve a thorough look.
PhotogenicKalocrat
I would like to raise an issue with this one particular statement, especially the second sentence:

(06-03-2024, 10:40 PM)anthony Wrote: Jews were now becoming Holocaust victims. Understanding themselves as victims of grievous moral wrongs.

This is correct as it pertains to the perception of Jews among Westerners, but as for the perception of Jews of themselves, I believe it is mistaken.

At first it may seem indeed that the Holocaust was a transformative event for the Jews, seeing that it became the cornerstone of their identity, outranking everything else:

Quote:What does being Jewish mean in America today? Large majorities of U.S. Jews say that remembering the Holocaust (73%) and leading an ethical life (69%) are essential to their sense of Jewishness. More than half (56%) say that working for justice and equality is essential to what being Jewish means to them. And about four-in-ten say that caring about Israel (43%) and having a good sense of humor (42%) are essential to their Jewish identity.

The prominence of Holocaust is best exemplified by the Hebrew equivalent of the Godwin’s Law:

Ms. Gardenswartz Wrote:A friend of mine once pointed out a kind of mental exercise she played whenever she was in a gathering of Jews: how long would it take before a Holocaust reference was made? When she first told me about it, I was a bit taken aback. “Really?!,” I asked, skeptically. “You’re telling me that, in every conversation you have, even with people two or three generations removed from the Holocaust, and even with people who may not have relatives who are survivors, the subject comes up?” She answered in the affirmative and then challenged me to pay closer attention to surrounding conversations to further test the point. Sure enough, she was and continues to be right.

And keep in mind that while the original Godwin’s Law applies to online discussion – which is always anarchic, temporally extended, and topically unhinged – what makes the Hebrew Godwin’s Law so special is that it applies to actual physical people conversing in hearing distance. Unlike online discussion, real life conversations are subject to all the restraint and taboo which usually constricts it to anodyne chatter. What this means is that among the Jews the Holocaust is so commonplace that it passes for the mundane; it is the anodyne chatter of Jews. As such, we are immediately faced with the fact that it constitutes the part and parcel of their very social fabric.

So in light of the above, what issue could I take with Anthony’s statement? Well, how likely does it seem that a single historical event could in the span of mere decades so utterly transform the self-conception and social fabric of a nation? Lets keep in mind there is no equivalent among non-Jews: not 9/11, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the Armenian genocide, nothing. Not even WW2, whether you're a Russian or a Westerner, for although it reached religious proportions in the former, and ushered a totally new socio-political paradigm in the latter, it did not quite breach into the mundane, never becoming a culmination of the conversations of eternal grillers.

There is no analogy because the Holocaust did not bend the Jewish mind. Instead, the Holocaust is, and has always been, part of the Jewish telos.


The Extended Judeotype

Like Dawkins’ The Extended Phenotype did with the biology of an organism and its environment, I’ll try to show how Jewry is not merely the practice of Jews alone, but an interaction between Jews and their hosts – The Extended Judeotype. In short: Jewry has stumbled into an ecological niche, whereby it sustains itself solely by being an alien actively seeking to incite an allergic reaction in its host, incurring persecution, which Jewry then feeds back into Jewish chosenness, preserving the Jewish identity for the next cycle, usually accompanied by a (forced) migratory period. Without persecution there is no Jewry. Therefore instead of Jews becoming the victims of grievous moral wrongs in the 1960s-ish, I will show that being the victims of grievous moral wrongs is all that Jewry ever was and ever will be. The day Jews stop being forced to wear yellow bands and judenhut or live in ghettoes or be subjected to regular pogroms is the day Jewry ends.

(The Extended Judeotype is a functional system, not an intentional one. Meaning it operates based on the POSIWID principle. Meaning (most) Jews are not aware of it.)

I’ll demonstrate the system by breaking the Jewish behavior down to three steps: 1) being a bullheaded alien in their host, 2) attaining special status, followed by the grand payoff 3) getting persecuted.

I will be demonstrating this on the basis of Jews in ancient Rome, relying mostly on a study by Giorgio La Piana.


1. Bullheadedly alien: conspicous and aloof.

Has there ever been a more conspicuous ethnicity than Jews? The Aleinu prayer is recited thrice per day, containing the following:

Quote:It is our duty to praise the Master of all, to exalt the Creator of the Universe, who has not made us like the nations of the world and has not placed us like the families of the earth; who has not designed our destiny to be like theirs, nor our lot like that of all their multitude.

Rabbi Maimonides gives an explanation:

Rabbi Maimonides Wrote:We may not follow the accepted practices of the idolaters and we may not resemble them, not in our dress, our hairstyle, or the like, as it is stated “And you shall not follow in the ways of the nations”… This warns us not to resemble them. Rather, the Jew should be distinct from them and recognizable in his dress and other deeds, just as he is distinct from them in his beliefs and understanding.

Okay so we have conspicuousness; on to aloofness. On Jews in ancient Rome:

La Piana Wrote:Jewish intolerance and the Jew's arrogance in supposing they alone possessed truth and righteousness caused men of culture to lose their patience, just as Jewish aloofness provoked the resentment and even hatred of the masses.

La Piana Wrote:Their concentration in special districts was not imposed upon them by law, and was not the restriction on their liberty which it gradually came to be in the Christian period. It was rather due to natural inclination and affinity, and still more to the many detailed obligations imposed upon the Jews by their religious law and its prescriptions about clean and unclean food and contact with gentiles.

La Piana Wrote:Mutual assistance was so highly developed among them [Jews] as to impress the Romans, and Latin writers mention it, although the satirical poets took pleasure in pointing out that Jewish charity was liberal only towards the jews and had a heart of stone for others.

La Piana Wrote:Consequently the Jewish community in Rome, as elsewhere, had both in its membership and in its institutions a character of permanence which set it in striking contrast to the other foreign groups whose constituency and organization were in constant process of change and in danger of exhaustion through lack of newcomers to supply the place of the older elements absorbed into the Roman racial mixture. With rare exceptions the Jewish families remained from generation to generation faithful to their racial traditions and connections, and their [unmixedness] saved them from being absorbed by other races and protected their community against dissolution for lack of members.



2. Attain special status.

Already before becoming a major population inside Rome, the Jews were experienced:

La Piana Wrote:[...] in the second century B.C., the Jews had already had a long experience as immigrants in foreign lands. Under the most varied circumstances, and overcoming all kinds of obstacles and objections, they had everywhere succeeded in maintaining either de jure or de facto the exercise of their own laws, and in forming a separate community wherever a large number were present in a town.

The Romans had usually no trouble integrating vanquished nations. They only demanded loyalty and taxation, and left religion and law for the people themselves. Some of that loyalty did require religious oaths and offerings for the cult of the emperors, but that wasn’t a problem, since polytheism was very flexible and made easy accommodations. But the Jews were no polytheists, and their God was a very jealous one. The Hebrew God was unconditional and absolute, there was no chance of its inclusion in any syncretist Kumbaya nonsense. So Roman religious tolerance began having to afford exceptions for Jews. It wasn’t a big deal initially, since Jews were only 'peregrini,' ie. citizens of a Roman subject state – Israel. But over time the exceptions became tied to their nationality, so even those Jews who became Roman citizens retained their special privileges. They were the only nation ever accorded such exceptionalism.

La Piana Wrote:The juridical wisdom of Rome was ready to go as far as possible in its respect for the national religious traditions of a race which opposed stubborn resistance to all the influences by which the gradual ethnical fusion or the levelling policy of the empire might have led to its absorption.

Now everything is set, the pieces are in place: the Jews are bullheadedly alien, conscpicuous and aloof, and have attained an unparalleled exceptionality. They have accrued attention and it is obviously a tense balancing act. As with any other of their hosts, the relationship with Jews is a love-hate one. And this segues finely into the next step:


3. Get persecuted.

So the love-hate meant that privilege and persecution took turns, according to whatever temperament the current emperor happened to have:

La Piana Wrote:On these points the imperial government hesitated long between a policy of tolerance and one of restriction and repression. From the benevolent tolerance of Augustus to the expulsions under Tiberius, the coercive measures of Caligula, and the renewed expulsions under Claudius, and from the new general grant of privileges by Claudius to the restrictions imposed by Domitian and later by Hadrian and Septimius Severus, the two main points on which friction arose were either the worship of the emperor, or and mroe often, proselytism.

Palestine was essentially a powder keg and in 66 A.D. a large Jewish rebellion broke out, which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish State in 70 A.D. The effect on Jews?

La Piana Wrote:Whether or not an independent Jewish state still existed in Palestine, their religious consciousness was not changed nor their hopes shattered; on the contrary, the disappearance of the Jewish political state led the Jews more than ever to find in their religious organization and practices the centre of their national individuality and their racial consciousness.

And we see the payoff – persecution enlivens Jewry. Which itself isn’t anything special: that outside pressure would strenghten group identity is nothing new. The Jewish trick, however, is to retain that pressure in perpetuity. That is their specialty, that is the Extended Judeotype. Whether they burn bridges and are forced to relocate as a result does not matter, because the Extended Judeotype is an endogenic process – it is internally driven to perpetuate Jewry and the external only matters to the extent that it applies the necessary reaction. The Extended Judeotype has no further goal beyond self perpetuation.

Here I would like to quote something that illustrates the mindset produced by the Extended Judeotype, a curious combination of chronic levels of perseverence, unease, and spite:

La Piana Wrote:To pious Jews Rome and its empire constituted after all a mere episode in the divine plan of history, in which Israel on the contrary had its place always at the centre of the stage; but though even the emperors who inflicted the most atrocious punishments on the Jewish nation were to be considered as the instruments of God’s will, to the Jews at large the Roman power was the object of a fear and hatred which found relief only in the apocalyptic hopes. The utterances of several Jewish teachers who visited Rome, as well as certain Jewish legends about Rome and its emperors which have been preserved, describe the grandeur of the great city in emphatic language, but do so only to make the more portentous its future downfall and Israel's triumph the more glorious.


Persecution Fetishising

Persecution is one of the core bases of Jewish identity. Their status as the Chosen People stems from their covenant with God, in which he promises them goodies – sometimes for favors in return. There’s quite a few of these covenants, actually, and the one that defined Jews as a nation, their special mission in the world, their law and ethics, is the Mosaic covenant. That’s when God saved Jews from slavery in Egypt in the Book of Exodus. What is the Exodus about? It’s an archetypal Jewish story, where their identity is (re)forged by the pressures of the harshest persecution. And they can’t get enough of Exodus: it is celebrated in numerous festivities and primed in prayers multiple times per day. Every single Jew has to feel the weight of the Exodus and consider himself personally affected by it:

Quote:In every generation a person is duty-bound to regard himself as if he personally has gone forth from Egypt, since it is said 'And you shall tell your son in that day saying, it is because of that which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt.

Sounds vaguely familiar?

Oh, among all other things the Exodus is also tragically made up:

Mr. Rosenberg Wrote:The Exodus is so fundamental to us and our Jewish sources that it is embarrassing that there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it.

There was never a Jewish slavery in Egypt. There were never Jewish encampments in Sinai. All a fable.


Conclusion

So going back to the beginning, did the Holocaust really transform the Jewish self-conception? We can see how instead of being some unforeseen calamity, Jewry seems to have an almost teleological receptiveness to the Holocaust. Instead of becoming victims of grievous moral wrongs post-Holocaust, the Jewish identity has been built from the ground up on the premise of being victims of grievous moral wrongs. The Holocaust may in fact be the most quintessentially Jewish thing yet; it may be the biggest affirmation of Jewry there ever was.

And we can see how it has been mobilized identically to previous persecutions eg. in the form of Exodus and the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem:

Mr. Fackenheim Wrote:Jews are forbidden to hand Hitler posthumous victories. They are commanded to survive as Jews, lest the Jewish people perish. They are commanded to remember the victims of Auschwitz, lest their memory perish. They are forbidden to despair of man and his world, and to escape into either cynicism or otherworldliness, lest they cooperate in delivering the world over to the forces of Auschwitz. Finally, they are forbidden to despair of the God of Israel, lest Judaism perish.


Addendum – end of the line?

It could well be argued that we are living in the least antisemitic times of at least over a millennium, so where does this leave the Extended Judeotype? One can easily find Jews yearning to throw off its yoke, seeking to define Jewry otherwise than by persecution:

Rabbi Schulweiss Wrote:We abuse the Holocaust when it becomes a cudgel against others who have their claims of suffering. [...] For decades the justification for our fidelity to Judaism has leaned entirely on the Shoah. The Shoah has become our instant raison d'etre, the short-cut answer to the penetrating questions of our children: "Why should I not marry out of the faith? Why should I join a synagogue? Why should I support Israel? Why should I be Jewish?" We have relied on a singular imperative: "Thou shalt not give Hitler a posthumous victory." That answer will not work. To live in spite, to say "no" to Hitler is a far cry from living "yes" to Judaism.

So can there be Jewry without spite? Some would argue the numbers disagree: intermarriage, infertility, secularism, it is all currently taking its toll on Jewry. In any case, I don’t think history is going to let that experiment run its course...


Disclaimer

This is all mostly based on profuse googling and Wikipedia parsing. By no means am I an expert.

Edits: made it snazzier by renaming it to Extended Judeotype.
kythustra
I agree with everything that PhotogenicKalocrat has posted. These two sections represent the core of your argument, and I want to include them here for my own reference. I also included two recent BAP tweets.  I disagree with his approach, and though I share his goals, I believe he does not well understand the political dynamic of American Jews. I also want to talk about the present conflict as it relates to Jewish guilt.

(06-09-2024, 12:11 PM)PhotogenicKalocrat Wrote:
Ms. Gardenswartz Wrote:A friend of mine once pointed out a kind of mental exercise she played whenever she was in a gathering of Jews: how long would it take before a Holocaust reference was made? When she first told me about it, I was a bit taken aback. “Really?!,” I asked, skeptically. “You’re telling me that, in every conversation you have, even with people two or three generations removed from the Holocaust, and even with people who may not have relatives who are survivors, the subject comes up?” She answered in the affirmative and then challenged me to pay closer attention to surrounding conversations to further test the point. Sure enough, she was and continues to be right.

And keep in mind that while the original Godwin’s Law applies to online discussion – which is always anarchic, temporally extended, and topically unhinged – what makes the Hebrew Godwin’s Law so special is that it applies to actual physical people conversing in hearing distance. Unlike online discussion, real life conversations are subject to all the restraint and taboo which usually constricts it to anodyne chatter. What this means is that among the Jews the Holocaust is so commonplace that it passes for the mundane; it is the anodyne chatter of Jews. As such, we are immediately faced with the fact that it constitutes the part and parcel of their very social fabric.

So in light of the above, what issue could I take with Anthony’s statement? Well, how likely does it seem that a single historical event could in the span of mere decades so utterly transform the self-conception and social fabric of a nation? Lets keep in mind there is no equivalent among non-Jews: not 9/11, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the Armenian genocide, nothing. Not even WW2, whether you're a Russian or a Westerner, for although it reached religious proportions in the former, and ushered a totally new socio-political paradigm in the latter, it did not quite breach into the mundane, never becoming a culmination of the conversations of the eternal grillers.

There is no analogy because the Holocaust did not bend the Jewish mind. Instead, the Holocaust is, and has always been, part of the Jewish telos.

(06-09-2024, 12:11 PM)PhotogenicKalocrat Wrote: Conclusion

So going back to the beginning, did the Holocaust really transform the Jewish self-conception? We can see how it has been mobilized identically to previous persecutions in the form of Exodus and the destruction of the Jewish State by Romans:

Mr. Fackenheim Wrote:Jews are forbidden to hand Hitler posthumous victories. They are commanded to survive as Jews, lest the Jewish people perish. They are commanded to remember the victims of Auschwitz, lest their memory perish. They are forbidden to despair of man and his world, and to escape into either cynicism or otherworldliness, lest they cooperate in delivering the world over to the forces of Auschwitz. Finally, they are forbidden to despair of the God of Israel, lest Judaism perish.

Instead of being some unforeseen calamity, there seems an almost teleological receptiveness to the Holocaust in Jewry. The Holocaust may in fact be the most quintessentially Jewish thing ever; it may be the biggest affirmation of Jewry there ever was.


You have precisely laid out my own thoughts on the matter regarding the holocaust and Jewish self conception. I agree with everything you said. Regardless of the truthiness of the event itself, there is no doubt that the holocaust is only the most recent iteration of the cycle of victimization. Further, I believe that this cycle of victimisation is exactly the grounds on which Israel itself has managed to conquer its land. To even call Israel a conquest would make any lib jew blush, frankly. I believe that the best example of this argument is found in this excellent Cremieux piece. I extracted the relevant portions of his argument here:


Quote:Cremieux 



The Jews did not come violently. They were not expropriating land. In fact, this was viewed as antithetical to the mission of Zionism. As Morris wrote in his 2011 book Righteous Victims: A History of Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001:

Quote:Between 1878 and 1908 Jews purchased about four hundred thousand dunams out of a total land mass of 27 million dunams. The most prominent families—including Nashashibis, Husseinis, and al-‘Alamis of Jerusalem, Dajanis of Jaffa, ‘Abd al-Hadis of Nablus and Jenin, and Shawas of Gaza—sold land to the Jews. The major incentive was swiftly rising prices, caused largely by Zionist demand. Land prices in Palestine increased between 1910 and 1944 by as much as 5,000 percent.

Land purchase was the underpinning of Zionism. As Menachem Ussishkin put it in 1904, “Without ownership of the land, Eretz Yisrael will never become Jewish.” Purchasing was referred to in Zionist parlance as “redemption” or, indicatively, as “conquest” of the land. Land is acquired in the modern world by three methods, wrote Ussishkin, a Hovevei Zion leader: “By force—that is, by conquest in war, or in other words, by robbing land from its own;… by expropriation via governmental authority; or by purchase.” The Zionist movement, Ussishkin made clear, was limited to the third choice, “until at some point we become rulers.”

Eventually Jews did become the rulers of Israel, but between the end of the 19ᵗʰ-century and May 14ᵗʰ, 1948, the pattern of violence was decidedly factious.

Quote:Some of the victim-blaming Israel receives has had a vaguely academic background. For instance, numerous groups have claimed that Jews settling Israel is itself a form of violence. But buying land is nonviolent, instances of people ‘moving in’ to someone’s house are mostly fictitious, and non-military interpersonal violence within Israel, even in settlement areas, is lopsided. While the Arab homicide clearance rate is low and has worsened under Ben Gvir, we still sporadically obtain information about perpetrators, and the difference is always lop-sided, with Arabs killing each other more often and committing more interreligious homicides to boot. In 2023, the Arab murder rate has apparently been some twelve-times the Jewish one.

Quote:The claim that “settler colonialism” is violent ends up being the claim that people who move into an area through peaceful means rather than by killing its inhabitants are doing some sort of violence by merely immigrating, working the land, and—in many cases—operating under well-defined property law instead of previously-extant informal, often tribal rules. Opposition to settler colonialism is a concept that was more or less invented from whole cloth to justify its adherents’ preferred positions in any conflict. Everything the outgroup does can be colonialism, one merely needs to recontextualize it.

Quote:Israel’s Arab citizens comprise around a fifth of its total population and they have the same rights as its Jews. They’re not pushed into camps or “open air prisons” that are, notably, larger and less densely populated than Manhattan. If these people were able to provide proof of their family’s history in the region, they would be able to obtain citizenship as an Israeli.



I've extracted from his piece the core of his argument, which is that Palestinians and the surrounding countries chimp out, and then the Israelis retaliate effectively, killing way more Palestinians than they killed Israelis. I don't doubt any of his factual assertions on the exact numbers. His analysis is great and he has a keen insight on how to parse out what is and what is not true based on data. My Gazian dialogue thread plays on his arguments about Israeli restraint.

But looking at the data is not going to get Cremieux or anyone else close to the heart of the matter. Take for example this assertion "buying land is nonviolent". Is it really nonviolent? Is permanently changing the racial makeup of a land not doing biological violence to the inhabitants? Especially if the foundation of the state itself is explicitly stated as maintaining a racial majority? I completely reject Cremieux's framing on this point. He tries to counter this point with "Israel's Arab citizens comprise a fifth of its total population" as if this is proof against financial and legal conquest. Surely, they are treated as any other citizen, but do you really think for a second that if the Arab citizens in Israel started to gain a racial majority that the non-Arabs would do nothing about it?

His operating model of the world is that all people's must respect property laws, and that if you simply buy land from a person with the aim of racial replacement, that this is fundamentally different than explicit conquest. What a crock of shit, frankly. The Palestinians are literally retarded. They are unable to govern themselves and always have been. Imagine if I landed on the shores of an uncontacted tribe, and then told them that I wanted to "buy their land" and offered a lifetime supply of cans of Spam and nice looking trinkets. And then I moved in, started developing it, and they got mad at me. Would you really think that they understood what they agreed to? No, absolutely not. And if I were to then use violence to stop them from destroying my developments, have I really not violently conquered them? Again, you can't do legal jiu-jitsu to call conquest by another name.

My favorite psychological tic in the Israel debate is the dismissal of the activities in the West Bank. Control-f through the Cremieux article to see how he brings it up. Hint: fake and gay. Israelis move into the West Bank, develop the land, get attacked, and use the attacks as a justification. And then they have the audacity to claim that it was done fairly in self-defense.

If you keep pushing an Israeli, he will eventually call some but not all of the settlements illegal. Are you fucking kidding me? Illegal? What the fuck are you talking about? If it was illegal, then the state would do something about it. But there is no real state in the West Bank other than Israel, and because they are left to do what they want, they are de facto legal settlements. The only reason that Israel calls them illegal is because they don't want to be seen as conquerors.



Okay, now I want to return to my original point about American Jews and BAP. Here are two recent tweets:

[Image: 149ibz.PNG]

[Image: 1n7xmh.PNG]

BAP claims that it is evangelicals and ethnocentric donors which provide the base for Israeli support. This claim is made in many places, both by people who like jews, and people who don't like jews. But it is wrong, and I am going to try and explain why this is the case.



I can't speak about elsewhere, but I know many jews in nyc, and there is a decent amount of cross pollination between the Israelis and the American jews. There are many Israelis who move here, and then befriend other jews who live here. There is also a long tradition of sending your jewish kids to a jewish summer camp, where they will talk about how great Israel is. If you want more insight on this, go to r/jewish and search "summer camp israel". The whole subreddit is good for psychological research. If you sort by the top posts for the year, there are many about getting "betrayed" by the left. Here is a good example of what I'm talking about regarding the summer camps. You'll notice that it's brought up because opponents of Israel have correctly identified the psychological underpinning of its American support, probably better than jews have themselves, because they are unable to understand their own psychological quirks.

Another effective strategy is the Birthright Israel trip. Basically, if you qualify, you can get an all expenses paid trip to das Vaterland, where you will have a great time, you will hook up with someone, you will learn all about how cool Israel is, you will go to cool nightclubs in Tel Aviv, and then you come home, fondly remembering the time that you spent there. This forms a psychological anchor for the rest of your life.

So maybe you have an isreali friend, or you went to a summer camp, or you went on a birthright trip. If any one of those cases are true, you will, involuntarily, become a double agent for the state of Israel. And then you will go on to work for a bank, or make films, or write for the new york times, etc. And in anything you do, you will subconsciously push the case that Israel is good and worth preserving, and you will take its side in all conflicts.

But these american jews are fundamentally trapped. Because they, at bottom, cannot side with the conquerer.

Imagine the archetypal liberal jew of nyc. He grew up on the upper west side of manhattan. Most of his friends are jewish, some of them are wasps, and some of them are smart minorities. In 2012, when Trayvon Martin was shot, all of his liberal friends marched to protest his death. He wasn't particularly drawn to it, but he would look bad if he didn't go. After the 2016 election, he and his friends marched to protest against Trump. And after Saint Floyd was murdered by the police, they marched again. He was uncomfortable during the latest round of protests, especially with how rowdy they got, but it's all above board so far as his social circle is concerned. And now we are at the present moment. Gazans sent out the retard brigade and smoked a bunch of Israeli grandmas and Trance Music Appreciators. His family is outraged, his jewish friends are outraged, and they reflexively, and rightly, take the side of Israel.

But the conflict has dragged on, and Israeli support among his leftist non-jewish friends is a rounding error. And the leftist cause célèbre is precisely his psychological anchor. And it is also the psychological anchor of many other american jews. Bill Ackman, lib jew par excellence has explicitly stated that he only turned against the left because they went after Israel.



So to address BAPs point, I think it would be a blunder if the right moved on from Israel. And though I agree with his views on the nature of Israel itself, there has never been a better opportunity to drive a wedge between american jews and the left.
august
(06-09-2024, 03:39 PM)kythustra Wrote: BAP claims that it is evangelicals and ethnocentric donors which provide the base for Israeli support. This claim is made in many places, both by people who like jews, and people who don't like jews. But it is wrong, and I am going to try and explain why this is the case.

(06-09-2024, 03:39 PM)kythustra Wrote: So to address BAPs point, I think it would be a huge blunder if the right moved on from Israel. And though I agree with his views on the nature of Israel itself, there has never been a better opportunity to drive a wedge between american jews and the left.

Drive a wedge between American Jews and the left for what purpose exactly? If you're simply referring to the Jew population of America generally, there's ~6 million of them (......), or 2% of the total. Of course, it doesn't really mean anything for several reasons, but if all 2% of them voted for President Donald John Trump in 2020, he still would've lost the popular vote, per the cowardly accepted 'official' results. That obviously would never happen, but my point is that based on how many of them there are alone, they should be a political nullity in textbook "democracy" line of thought. But they aren't. So then what explains the political effectiveness if "evangelicals and ethnocentric donors which provide the base for Israeli support" is the "wrong" answer?

Here is where I kindly disagree with you. I am obviously not a Jew. Based on the examples that you gave about Birthright trips and Jewish summer camp, along with the conclusion that you ultimately reached, I'm not sure if you are one yourself but in all honesty I couldn't care less if you are and my apologies for even typing this sentence out if you aren't. Anyway, I know people who did all of this stuff, and even another odd thing that Jews do called the Maccabiah games where they go to Israel and compete in athletic competition. Despite this, their Jewish pride always seemed to me to be paper thin in the grand scheme of things. I seriously doubt that they would give a shit if someone didn't tell them that they had to, and contrary to what both the Lying Press AND wigger antisemites will assert, I am not convinced that Jews are the rock solid, unified monolith that they're made out to be. Actually, I think that beyond their superficial yiddishkeit, they're probably far more prone to viewing their co-ethnics with contempt than any other peoples on the planet (this also applies to women, who are also Jews). The most self-hating Jew to have ever lived was so embarrassed by his backwards, boorish, and uncivilised ethnic brethren and hated them (i.e., himself) so much that he made it the basis of his entire life's work. And what was the great plan that he came up with to solve this ordeal? Make everyone a self-hating Jew. And now everyone hates every other self-hating Jew. Naturally, this was retarded and bound to fail. But the damage still affects us to this day, and it will continue to do so as long as the democratic environment wherein the self-hating Jew thrives is abandoned for good.
[Image: JBqHIg7.jpeg]
Let me alone to recover a little, before I go whence I shall not return
MisterHerrSenor0
(06-09-2024, 12:11 PM)PhotogenicKalocrat Wrote: (High-effort post.)

You raise a lot of interesting points there. Especially on the Jewish tactic to "retain that pressure in perpetuity," and the fact that their whole identity is bound up in the Exodus myth.

Something I was just reminded of is how, despite their high in-group preference and aversion to intermarriage, the Jews are a very mixed-race people. There isn't really a Jewish "race" as much as there is a bunch of somewhat-related mixed-race ethnicities. Perhaps the Jews resort to high exclusivity as a way to make up for that? Maybe they have this persecution-centric identity as some kind of substitute?
Zed
(06-09-2024, 08:19 PM)august Wrote: Here is where I kindly disagree with you. I am obviously not a Jew. Based on the examples that you gave about Birthright trips and Jewish summer camp, along with the conclusion that you ultimately reached, I'm not sure if you are one yourself but in all honesty I couldn't care less if you are and my apologies for even typing this sentence out if you aren't. Anyway, I know people who did all of this stuff, and even another odd thing that Jews do called the Maccabiah games where they go to Israel and compete in athletic competition. Despite this, their Jewish pride always seemed to me to be paper thin in the grand scheme of things. I seriously doubt that they would give a shit if someone didn't tell them that they had to, and contrary to what both the Lying Press AND wigger antisemites will assert, I am not convinced that Jews are the rock solid, unified monolith that they're made out to be. Actually, I think that beyond their superficial yiddishkeit, they're probably far more prone to viewing their co-ethnics with contempt than any other peoples on the planet (this also applies to women, who are also Jews). The most self-hating Jew to have ever lived was so embarrassed by his backwards, boorish, and uncivilised ethnic brethren and hated them (i.e., himself) so much that he made it the basis of his entire life's work. And what was the great plan that he came up with to solve this ordeal

This is correct on an individual level and even mass populace level, but kythustra is more correct on the elite human capital level. If you're a low to middle-class ethnic jew, your social value doesn't usually justify any attempt at political grooming. On the other hand, actual attempts at cultivation amongst the higher-value subsets of the demographic are very real. Birthright/Jewish summer camps are good examples, but the best place to usually see this is at university Hillels. A good friend of mine, with about the most stereotypical Jewish name imaginable, would get a couple emails per year from the Hillel Rabbi trying to prod him to attend their events, and his name was even shared with an off-campus Jewish organization, which proceeded to invite him to even more events. Mostly secular things, professional networking, parties with free food (usually quite good), but often with an emphasis that it was a great place to meet other Jewish women. He was annoyed by it for awhile, but eventually started attending, and dragged me to a few of the events for the free food.
Senusret iii fan
*admits induction into talmudic tunnel network for "free food"*
Zed isn't actually a poster per-se, but rather an elaborate mask or performance developed as a tolerance test for Amarnites
august
(06-11-2024, 08:00 AM)Zed Wrote: on the elite human capital level.

What does this even mean? That's rhetorical. I know what it means, but to me it's a pointless reduction to economic formulation that could only ever find acceptance under the circumstances that I mentioned, "the democratic environment wherein the self-hating Jew thrives". It's just fake, modern human resources language that's antithetical to what the words themselves generally connote. The baseline for elite human capital level and higher value subsets of the demographic is ... what exactly? Anomalously remarkable intellect? Questionable, at best. Sensibility? Absolutely not. Beauty? Even they know the answer to that one. So then, we're left to conclude that, ah yes, the stock market Jew is a symbol of greatness and of the "elite" human type.

(06-11-2024, 08:00 AM)Zed Wrote: If you're a low to middle-class ethnic jew, your social value doesn't usually justify any attempt at political grooming.

But it does. In fact, the lumpenjuden may just be the basis by which those who esteem themselves as "elite" Jews have always furthered their own ends. This was true of the Ostjude the same as it is for the Average Joel of today. The reason I chose to quote the specific parts of kythustra's post that I did is because I think that The Pervert understands this better than kythustra gives him credit for. He made an interesting argument one time that wignat antisemites make the same mistake that the National Socialists did in that they both label these nobody shtetl Jews as some kind of great enemy and plague on humanity, which actually allows the Jews with power and influence to use this type of prejudice as a means to justify the perpetual protection in the never ending fight against Antisemitism™. I'm paraphrasing, but he says something like: ADL or Soros types use the average Jew as a shield, and the average Jew's vanity and sense of self-importance (like most everyone else, Jew or not) causes them to allow themselves to be used in this way. So then, the social value of the low to middle class ethnic Jew is actually of supreme importance. Again, all characteristic of "the democratic environment wherein the self-hating Jew thrives".

(06-11-2024, 08:00 AM)Zed Wrote: Mostly secular things, professional networking, parties with free food (usually quite good), but often with an emphasis that it was a great place to meet other Jewish women. He was annoyed by it for awhile, but eventually started attending, and dragged me to a few of the events for the free food.

My uni had one of these too; there were always more non-Jews there for free smoked salmon bagels than there were Jews. It doesn't change my opinion though. You should have also bolded the sentence after which you stopped: "Actually, I think that beyond their superficial yiddishkeit, they're probably far more prone to viewing their co-ethnics with contempt than any other peoples on the planet".
[Image: JBqHIg7.jpeg]
Let me alone to recover a little, before I go whence I shall not return
anthony


In multiple sittings, I eventually got through this. I think it's relevant.

This is a moral and existential discussion which refuses to accept itself as one. So there is lots of arguing, numbers, piling on of detail, but it all ultimately doesn't really matter or amount to much in the face of fundamental questions none of these people can really touch.

The Israelis obviously see themselves as people who have won the land. The Palestinians feel like it's theirs by birthright. Nobody's budging. They don't want to compromise very much. Maybe the Israelis are ultimately the less cooperative side (I lean towards that being the case), but I don't believe it matters. The moment I consider important came up near the end. I think Mister Finkelstein's partner said that he watched Destiny's preparation stream (something like that) and was "disturbed" (maybe not an exact quote) by Destiny saying that he didn't believe Jim Crow was Apartheid. There was a moment of loud inconsequential jewing over this. But what is important is that Destiny (who was on a sort of vulgar Pro-Israeli side here) believed that both Jim Crow and Apartheid were bad, as a matter of course. Everyone in the room did.

Which I thought tied back around helpfully to their inconclusive first leg of discussion. The 1940s. Each side parades its evidence that each side was very displeased with the presence of the other and wanted them all gone. I don't think that anybody can really deny that no matter what was said in particular by anybody at any moment, each group's most far-sighted leaders would have wanted total expulsion of the other side.

I respect Finkelstein as a very heavy and committed scholar willing to upset people for what he believes is right. He has integrity. I think all of these men except for Destiny are more or less men of strong character trying to make the best sense they can out of a hard human problem. But they are all hamstrung in the way most people are now with regard to politics. It is illegal to take territory in war. It is wrong for one population to exercise its will against another to serve its own interests at their expense. Where does the world go from here? How does any problem get solved? The answer is what all of these men say, compromise. Deals. A state for everyone. 

Then what?

I don't mean in the next week, or decade, what about the next hundred years? Israel was founded by men who thought like that. The resisting Palestinian Arabs would have been thinking like this. What happens long term if these people are forced to co-exist on top of each other? An old school Israeli would not flinch from the pessimistic chud answer. What happens when populations at significantly different levels of development and capacity to build and advance civilisation are placed next to or on top of each other? Jim Crow and Apartheid were attempts at creating working solutions to this tough situation. And they were declared morally intolerable (all men in this "discussion" concur). What has happened since in each case?

Now, Palestinians are not niggers. I am aware. I am also aware that half of the Jews in Israel might as well be Palestinians ethnically.

But this still feels like it makes a serious nation-building process unviable long term. A place as fundamentally "English as England" (these men have nothing to say about the receding truth of that statement by the way). More than demographics, I just don't see what this limited shared Israel is meant to be. If Israel successfully became a relatively peaceful mixed or two state region at some point in the past few decades it would still be facing the same civilisational problems as the rest of the western world then. The Israeli and Palestinian causes are about the continuity of people and culture, both of which in any other context all four of these people would probably call irreverent, outdated, stupid, reactionary, etc.

Really, even if either side got their ideal victory I don't see things going well.

I don't think I remember where I was going now. This was a very absurd discussion.

If you want to reply to me, tell me what any side's post-victory existence looks like. Team peace and co-existence, team palestine, and team Israel. That's the giant hole I saw in this discussion. And I think it's there because all of them look absurd when it's considered. Even, unfortunately perhaps even especially, Finkelstein.
PhotogenicKalocrat
(06-10-2024, 09:08 PM)MisterHerrSenor0 Wrote: Perhaps the Jews resort to high exclusivity as a way to make up for that? Maybe they have this persecution-centric identity as some kind of substitute?

Their exclusivity predates their mixedness, ie. before they were forced into countless exiles and formed a large diaspora. It has more to do with their monotheism which by its nature is exlusive, which made it very peculiar and abrasive to contemporaries. The Jews' stumbling into monotheism is probably the reason they're anything more than some long forgotten desert tribe. We don't know exactly when or why they became monotheist, but it was probably related to the Babylonian exile, when a bunch of their elite were taken into Babylon, and on their return instilled monotheism on all of Jews. That the Talmud, including the Exodus, was canonized at about during or after the exile, seems to confirm the connection of their persecutory/exclusionist identity and monotheism.

Overall monotheism was such a massive religious innovation that nowaday everyone except India and the Far East is monotheist. Eg. I was fascinated to find out that the Kaaba used to be a polytheistic shrine, before Muhammad took it over and bashed the numerous statues for different gods into pieces. Truly an argument for the strength of intolerance.

But of course a secondary factor for their exclusivity must be geography – the eternal no-man's-land, a worthless piece of dirt that always stands in anyone's way that's moving from wherever to wherever.


(06-11-2024, 09:31 AM)august Wrote: [both posts]

I hope you don't mind if I ask you a bunch of maybe simplistic questions.
1) Are there non-self-hating Jews?
2) How does this democratic environment differ from a text-book "democracy"?
3) Why does the self-hating Jew thrive in the democratic environment?
4) How does the democratic envrionment make the Average Joel supremely important?
5) If not for wigger antisemites, would the Average Joel not side with ADL-Soros and instead be totally assimilated?
6) What's the basis for saying that the Jewish pride is paper thin, or that Jews are contemptuous of one another?


(06-12-2024, 10:16 AM)anthony Wrote: This is a moral and existential discussion which refuses to accept itself as one. [...] they are all hamstrung in the way most people are now with regard to politics. It is illegal to take territory in war. It is wrong for one population to exercise its will against another to serve its own interests at their expense. Where does the world go from here?


I'm not too informed on the current conflict, but I remember reading that Israelites have basically accepted the permanence of this endemic state of conflict, and are completely psychologically innoculated against it. There is no correct solution available, so it'll be this indefinite Chauvinite kneeing; hands tied, but the Floydians are too retarded to do anything. This cannot change unless the liberal paradigm breaks. I'm sure Bibi understands this and although I've not watched the video you posted, it seems (some of?) the participants are desperately trying to distract themselves with meaningless abstractions from the factual reality. But I think I just rephrased you.
MisterHerrSenor0
(06-12-2024, 06:03 PM)PhotogenicKalocrat Wrote: Their exclusivity predates their mixedness, ie. before they were forced into countless exiles and formed a large diaspora. It has more to do with their monotheism which by its nature is exlusive, which made it very peculiar and abrasive to contemporaries. The Jews' stumbling into monotheism is probably the reason they're anything more than some long forgotten desert tribe. We don't know exactly when or why they became monotheist, but it was probably related to the Babylonian exile, when a bunch of their elite were taken into Babylon, and on their return instilled monotheism on all of Jews. That the Talmud, including the Exodus, was canonized at about during or after the exile, seems to confirm the connection of their persecutory/exclusionist identity and monotheism.

That depends on when you say "their mixedness" began. If you're a Biblical maximalist, then the Israelites first started becoming mixed mere moments after Joshua son of Nun died. If you're a Biblical minimalist, then the Jews/Israelites were always mixed; ancient Palestine seemingly was always a place where different ethnic groups converged and intermingled with one another. It also appears that (no matter which side you take) there was large-scale mixing before/during the Persian period, so it's not like Israel only became intermixed with other peoples in the Hellenistic or Roman periods.
august
(06-12-2024, 06:03 PM)PhotogenicKalocrat Wrote: I hope you don't mind if I ask you a bunch of maybe simplistic questions.
1) Are there non-self-hating Jews?

I don't know. Maybe that is one of the unspoken questions sought to be answered in this thread. Though, it's probably true that today—more than ever in history—most Westerners are Jewish (especially "American" "Catholics" on the internet) whether they're aware of it or not.

(06-12-2024, 06:03 PM)PhotogenicKalocrat Wrote: 2) How does this democratic environment differ from a text-book "democracy"?
3) Why does the self-hating Jew thrive in the democratic environment?

Because liberalism is moral syphilis. Nobody (whose brain operates at any temperature above absolute zero) actually thinks that the word "democracy" means what their school textbook (racial communism indoctrination materials) said it meant. "Democracy" obviously doesn't mean 'populism' (which is bad, actually). It doesn't mean 'representative democracy' (which is also bad if the demographics of your population are anything less cohesive than colonial America or Japan, and even then it is still usually bad ... see Schopenhauer's thoughts on "national character"). Draco's 'constitution' allegedly granted the privileges that accompanied citizenship to 'those who could provide arms'; Solon's to 'those whose property entailed the greater expenditure in public services'. Those groups almost certainly consisted of the same exact people and were probably, at most, around a quarter of the total population. I think it's a fair claim to say that only after the beginning of the Greeks' colonial projections that something resembling the modern idea of "demos" comes to life due to a probable necessity of having to lift up, so to speak, non-landholding groups.

Though I am no expert when it comes to Heidegger, nor do I want to come across as pretending to be one, his concept of the "dictatorship of the they" is useful for explaining my understanding of how the "democratic environment", while claiming to value individualism above all else, actually inevitably reduces and levels everything and everyone downward (i.e., 'atomisation' and 'tyranny of the masses' blah blah blah). Everything has to be average.

Being and Time Wrote:Overnight, everything that is primordial gets glossed over as something that has long been well known. Everything gained by a struggle becomes just something to be manipulated. Every secret loses its force. This care of averageness reveals in turn an essential tendency of Dasein which we call the “levelling down” of all possibilities of Being.

Atomised life. No alluring sense of great struggle or mystery in day-to-day affairs, whether those affairs be spiritual or worldly. You can just outsource the only action that is characteristic of individuality, that is, the capacity and ability to make your own decision. Outsource it to who? To they. Who is they? Nobody.

Take the modern Gay "Rights" Movement in America. I choose this example only because it is the clearest and most proximate one that I can think of at the moment to partly explain the "democratic environment" that I'm referring to, not because I necessarily care (nothing matters). Anyway, I've read about how the American Extreme Court made Gay Sex a constitutional right in the early 2000s, and one of the questions that they gave specific attention to was whether or not "the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole of society through operation of criminal law." Again, that had to do with the 'constitutional right' to have Gay Sex—not sure if they run polls on that type of question. But it appears that "the majority" opposed Gay Marriage at that time "by a margin of 60% to 31%." Most polls are usually manipulated anyway, but remember, that's in the early 2000s where you have the Extreme Court going against the view that "the majority may use the power of the state to enforce [its] views on the whole of society". In other words, we can say that this effectively means that the Arbiters of Justice went against 'textbook democracy' right? I don't know—Jews have spent thousands of years selectively breeding themselves to be good lawyers in ways that my stupid goyim brain isn't smart enough to comprehend; maybe GraalChud will return to explain all of this.

In any case, it only took another decade for the Extreme Court to decide that Gay Marriage was also something worthy of protection. At that time, apparently 55% of Americans supported it and 39% opposed it. Today, something like 71% support it. Does such an overwhelming shift on a position like this one come about by way of organic "democracy"? Well no, obviously not, since Gay Sex became a 'constitutional right' even though a majority of the citizenry clearly opposed Gay. The better explanation is that anyone who had formerly opposed it suddenly lost any legitimate "democratic" means of continuing to do so. Could they go to the polls and vote for someone who would change it? No. I don't think it would even be realistically possible for an elected person to do that. Thus, accepting defeat, they bowed to the "dictatorship of the they", i.e., Liberalism (also known as Libtardism). They should have stepped over it. But they didn't, and so the world spins on.

(06-12-2024, 06:03 PM)PhotogenicKalocrat Wrote: 4) How does the democratic envrionment make the Average Joel supremely important?
5) If not for wigger antisemites, would the Average Joel not side with ADL-Soros and instead be totally assimilated?

Lowbrow antisemtism ONLY aids ethnic political effectiveness for the reasons that I allude to in my responses to kythustra and Zed. To me, this is the most convincing argument at the moment. I went back and found where it is stated in more depth and it's only right that I point you to that as opposed to acting like my second hand synopsis is sufficient: "Origin of Meaning of Ghey Movement" ~40:00-45:00.

(06-12-2024, 06:03 PM)PhotogenicKalocrat Wrote: 6) What's the basis for saying that the Jewish pride is paper thin, or that Jews are contemptuous of one another?

My own observations.
[Image: JBqHIg7.jpeg]
Let me alone to recover a little, before I go whence I shall not return
PhotogenicKalocrat
(06-13-2024, 10:59 AM)august Wrote:
(06-12-2024, 06:03 PM)PhotogenicKalocrat Wrote: 1) Are there non-self-hating Jews?

I don't know. Maybe that is one of the unspoken questions sought to be answered in this thread. Though, it's probably true that today—more than ever in history—most Westerners are Jewish (especially "American" "Catholics" on the internet) whether they're aware of it or not.

I should have rephrased the question to something like "What is a self-hating Jew?" The aim being to figure out whether such a category is justified, which in turn would depend on whether Jews are any more self-hating than non-Jews, or whether their self-hatred is somehow fundamentally different than that of non-Jews. The latter could be the case by reasoning that the self-hatred of non-Jews is caused by the self-hatred of Jews. But generally speaking, I’m unwilling to deem whites (or anyone) lacking in agency enough to be unilaterally affected by outsiders; the alluded to Talmudic Trio of Jesus-Marx-Freud notwithstanding. Such explanations seem content blaming an abritrary evil, a culprit, without going further into either the driving mechanisms of the culprit, or, more importantly, the deemed ’victim.’ Eg. why would someone buy snake oil? Is it because the conman is evil, or because the snake oil offers much needed hope and solace unavailable elsewhere? Meaning, is the snake oil fulfilling an important function? It is easier to judge the salesman and the eternal spook of arbitrary ’evil’ than to ask what options did the ’victim’ have. Basically: market forces.

(06-13-2024, 10:59 AM)august Wrote: Draco's 'constitution' allegedly granted the privileges that accompanied citizenship to 'those who could provide arms'; Solon's to 'those whose property entailed the greater expenditure in public services'. Those groups almost certainly consisted of the same exact people and were probably, at most, around a quarter of the total population. I think it's a fair claim to say that only after the beginning of the Greeks' colonial projections that something resembling the modern idea of "demos" comes to life due to a probable necessity of having to lift up, so to speak, non-landholding groups.

Assuming you’re bringing up the constitution as an ideal, the last sentence here is critical. I would ask what exactly is the mechanism by which said constitution lost its predominance, and whether the same mechanism is at play currently as well? Is there some larger historical trend at play, and is there a choice involved, or is it a necessity of circumstance? I lean towards the latter.

The same questions would apply to the following quote:

(06-13-2024, 10:59 AM)august Wrote: Atomised life. No alluring sense of great struggle or mystery in day-to-day affairs, whether those affairs be spiritual or worldly. You can just outsource the only action that is characteristic of individuality, that is, the capacity and ability to make your own decision. Outsource it to who? To they. Who is they? Nobody.



(06-13-2024, 10:59 AM)august Wrote: Anyway, I've read about how the American Extreme Court made Gay Sex a constitutional right in the early 2000s, and one of the questions that they gave specific attention to was whether or not "the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole of society through operation of criminal law." Again, that had to do with the 'constitutional right' to have Gay Sex—not sure if they run polls on that type of question. But it appears that "the majority" opposed Gay Marriage at that time "by a margin of 60% to 31%." Most polls are usually manipulated anyway, but remember, that's in the early 2000s where you have the Extreme Court going against the view that "the majority may use the power of the state to enforce [its] views on the whole of society". In other words, we can say that this effectively means that the Arbiters of Justice went against 'textbook democracy' right? I don't know—Jews have spent thousands of years selectively breeding themselves to be good lawyers in ways that my stupid goyim brain isn't smart enough to comprehend; maybe GraalChud will return to explain all of this.

One should keep in mind that gay marriage is a more extreme proposition than gay sex, so it’s best to look at gay acceptance polling instead of gay marriage, and on that question those for gay sex have outnumbered those against since about 1998. But I would add that "acceptance" is also a more extreme proposition than mere legality. For example, compare fat acceptance, which is contentious, vs the legality of fatassery, which is not. So one should expect the support for legalizing gay sex to be even higher than the support for gay acceptance. If we also believe state laws are representative of their constituents, and federal laws of citizenry as a whole, then the fact that  by 2003, only 13 states out of 50 had laws against sodomy would seem to corroborate this higher support. In any case, the clear trend was towards homosexxing things up and if anything, the Supreme Court seems to be lagging behind the consensus, not driving it.

As for whether the majority may override the minority, well that's not a given in 'textbook democracy'. Eg. the majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority. The 2003 question was merely whether said rights encompass the right to homosex, to which in 1986 the Court answered "no", but in 2003, "yes".

(06-13-2024, 10:59 AM)august Wrote: Gay Sex became a 'constitutional right' even though a majority of the citizenry clearly opposed Gay. The better explanation is that anyone who had formerly opposed it suddenly lost any legitimate "democratic" means of continuing to do so. Could they go to the polls and vote for someone who would change it? No. I don't think it would even be realistically possible for an elected person to do that.

At the end of the day, the constitution is a bunch of pieces of paper reflecting the shifting consensus of its time. When we imagine the obstacles in front of a politician planning to campaign against homosex, is it really some tint on papers, or the bricks of fanatical libtardism through his window, and the nearly immediate disavowal of him by his own political party to save face? Lets face it, if the people wanted it, there would be zero trouble dealing with the papers. Just another Supreme Court decision would do.

Now the question that seems to follow from this is: to what extent is the consensus of its time organic? I would venture to say the question is actually meaningless. Any attempt to define organicity seems bound to be nonsensical. This goes back to snake oil. I'm not a fan of treating the masses as passive receivers. I don't think that's true at all. If we deem something snake oil, but it's doing numbers, then we should take a more sober look – it's doing something right. I have not read Schoppenhauer, Nietzsche, Evola, Heidegger, etc., none of those, so I may be very wrong here, but my intuition is that some of the infatuation The Right has with them is a cope. Your market's been cornered and you're out of business? What better escape than to regress into the unlit corner of the classroom, doing therapeutic fingerpainting about the stupidity of the masses. Again, I know I may sound like a total retard, but that's my uninformed impression.

(06-13-2024, 10:59 AM)august Wrote: Lowbrow antisemtism ONLY aids ethnic political effectiveness for the reasons that I allude to in my responses to kythustra and Zed. To me, this is the most convincing argument at the moment. I went back and found where it is stated in more depth and it's only right that I point you to that as opposed to acting like my second hand synopsis is sufficient: "Origin of Meaning of Ghey Movement" ~40:00-45:00.

Unfortunately episode 76 is unavailable on his archive and I can’t find working alternatives. But I’m not sure if the apoliticality of the Average Joel is possible without his total assimilation.

(06-13-2024, 10:59 AM)august Wrote:
(06-12-2024, 06:03 PM)PhotogenicKalocrat Wrote: 6) What's the basis for saying that the Jewish pride is paper thin, or that Jews are contemptuous of one another?

My own observations.

Funnily enough I was just recommended this today.
august
(06-14-2024, 10:57 AM)PhotogenicKalocrat Wrote: But generally speaking, I’m unwilling to deem whites (or anyone) lacking in agency enough to be unilaterally affected by outsiders; the alluded to Talmudic Trio of Jesus-Marx-Freud notwithstanding. Such explanations seem content blaming an abritrary evil, a culprit, without going further into either the driving mechanisms of the culprit, or, more importantly, the deemed ’victim.’

I only alluded to Freud, but inclusion of Marx is fine too. Even if we say that Jesus was/is "Jewish", there's no reason for inclusion in this "Trio" because Jesus is not "Talmudic" nor modern (historically speaking). When I speak of Freud, and now Marx as well, I am essentially offering Cuddihy's analysis in Ordeal of Civility, which I did allude to in my first post. I direct you to that book for a more comprehensive explanation of the general argument, which is very fitting for what you say here.

(06-14-2024, 10:57 AM)PhotogenicKalocrat Wrote: Assuming you’re bringing up the constitution as an ideal

I wasn't, at least not in a sense that would apply to today. My ideal is not liberalism, which is historically what constitutions basically are (with the caveat that "constitutions" of antiquity were quite unlike modern constitutions). But that's unrelated. The only reason I brought it up was (1) to provide an example of the so-called origins of "democracy" and how even those origins bear no resemblance to what the word is used to describe today (2) because you asked me to.

(06-14-2024, 10:57 AM)PhotogenicKalocrat Wrote: I would ask what exactly is the mechanism by which said constitution lost its predominance, and whether the same mechanism is at play currently as well?

I think that I already said what the mechanism was. Expansion of the franchise. But by way of further explanation of why expanding the scope of 'The People' is usually detrimental, consider the Schopenhauer quote that I previously limited to mere reference:

Quote:Since you cannot speak of national character without referring to large masses of people, it is impossible to be loud in your praises and at the same time honest. National character is only another name for the particular form which the littleness, perversity and baseness of mankind take in every country. If we become disgusted with one, we praise another, until we get disgusted with this too. Every nation mocks at other nations, and all are right.

I read this to mean that what he is talking about is a process by which the intentions of a founder or visionary, no matter how perfect and noble such intentions are to start, inevitably erode and decay as the passage of time filters them through the masses until they are eventually reduced to a particular "baseness of mankind" present in any given population of people. To prevent this, there would have to be an ever watchful institution tasked with maintaining said visionary's intention, and the name of that institution is very obviously not anything available under "democracy".

(06-14-2024, 10:57 AM)PhotogenicKalocrat Wrote: I'm not a fan of treating the masses as passive receivers. I don't think that's true at all. If we deem something snake oil, but it's doing numbers, then we should take a more sober look – it's doing something right.

Well then I would only suppose that you probably live your life in extreme disappointment when the masses do in fact inevitably reveal themselves as passive receivers, or with misplaced optimism about how independently minded the current-year masses actually are. I don't mean that as an attack or slight against you at all; I just totally disagree about the cognisance of "the masses" and their role in what drives historically important events. "If we deem something snake oil, but it's doing numbers," I believe that the "more sober look" is to say: yes, the snake oil salesman is doing something right ... being an effective snake oil salesman. What's the crucial element needed to be a good snake oil salesman? Willing customers capable of being fooled. What was it that I said in my first post again? "I'm paraphrasing, but he says something like: ADL or Soros types use the average Jew as a shield, and the average Jew's vanity and sense of self-importance (like most everyone else, Jew or not) causes them to allow themselves to be used in this way."

As to the legal stuff, it was just an example to answer your question and I fear that continuing on about it risks the thread straying from its topic, which I feel that this post itself is already starting to do. It's actually useless to do so anyway since all of it happened after VE day 1945 and thus under the authority of the New State.
[Image: JBqHIg7.jpeg]
Let me alone to recover a little, before I go whence I shall not return
PhotogenicKalocrat
Unfortunately yes, some of the interesting threads are drifting off topic. I'll leave them.

(06-13-2024, 07:39 AM)MisterHerrSenor0 Wrote: That depends on when you say "their mixedness" began. If you're a Biblical maximalist, then the Israelites first started becoming mixed mere moments after Joshua son of Nun died. If you're a Biblical minimalist, then the Jews/Israelites were always mixed; ancient Palestine seemingly was always a place where different ethnic groups converged and intermingled with one another. It also appears that (no matter which side you take) there was large-scale mixing before/during the Persian period, so it's not like Israel only became intermixed with other peoples in the Hellenistic or Roman periods.

Frankly I'm not really knowledgeable on the subject. My guess is that mixedness didn't play a part, since if we're talking of local Middle Eastern intermixing, one would think all Middle Eastern groups would show this exclusivity if it was due to that. But as things are, the only difference between Jews and non-Jews before Christianity and Islam is monotheism. That's what made them different.

(06-14-2024, 12:52 PM)august Wrote: "If we deem something snake oil, but it's doing numbers," I believe that the "more sober look" is to say: yes, the snake oil salesman is doing something right ... being an effective snake oil salesman. What was it that I said in my first post again? "I'm paraphrasing, but he says something like: ADL or Soros types use the average Jew as a shield, and the average Jew's vanity and sense of self-importance (like most everyone else, Jew or not) causes them to allow themselves to be used in this way."

The snake oil salesmen are on both sides, ADL-Soros and wigger antisemites. The fertile ground is the simple existence of the Average Joel – a Jew – among lowbrow mouthbreathers – non-Jews – susceptible to wigger antisemitism. I don't really see too much that can be done here. We can't 'demobilize' the Average Joel without his total assimilation – making him a non-Jew. That's not going to happen. Okay, then is there a practicable way of 'demobilizing' the wigger antisemite? Is simple awareness going to cut it? The "sober look" I was advocating was with regard to observing the conditions that make people more receptive to stuff. It is actually a difficult task to recognize what it is that people desire, so lets not underestimate salesmanship (lets drop the "snake oil"). So what do we sell to wigger antisemites? What exactly are they buying in the first place?
Aizen
PhotogenicKalocrat Wrote:So going back to the beginning, did the Holocaust really transform the Jewish self-conception? We can see how instead of being some unforeseen calamity, Jewry seems to have an almost teleological receptiveness to the Holocaust.

This entire post was incredibly enlightening. I would like to focus on this moment, the early 20th century, the rise of National Socialism in parallel with Zionism, and the mythos of the Holocaust. And yes, it is a mythos whether you accept the orthodox story or not.

I believe that the gravest issue that Jews feel real guilt for is the alliance of Zionism and National Socialism from 1933 - 1939. A gift that keeps on giving is the statement "the foundation of the State of Israel was the most anti-semitic act in history". Herzl believed that Israel should be a Jewish Racial State, an outpost of European civilization on the edge of Europe with a particularly Jewish character, but European in its cultural mores. The Zionists sought to make the Jews a Nation out of a people. They achieved this with a single-minded intensity of a particularly un-Jewish character. They allied with Hitler for 6 years, their Irgun was a prime cause for WWII, and they exploited their persecution after the war with great intensity for the material gain of a State--not for some vague spiritual gain.

After reading your post Kalocrat, in particular the sections on the Hebrew Godwin's Law and Hitler's posthumous victory, I feel even more convinced that this is where the modern Jewish guilt comes from. If Jews care about the Holocaust enough to talk about it in virtually every conversation, it follows that most would know about Haavara, fewer but still many would know about Irgun, and maybe some would feel some guilt over taking the land because of their persecution.

Wouldn't the leftist, college edumacated Jew know much more than the average? Is Israel's existence itself handing Hitler a posthumous victory? Population data from the British Mandate of Palestine would suggest so. Some 300k - 500k Jews of German origin immigrated into Palestine from 1933 - 1939 under Haavara.

What of Ben Shapiro and other Conservative, Israel supporting Jews? The kind that say "the only Democracy in the Middle East"? Certainly they know of this uncomfortable history, especially the ones you know about. It's something they'd rather not talk about. Just like how the average White Conservative would rather not talk about what happened to the Natives, Slavery, etc. "Well, we ended Slavery, we brought the Natives Christianity" just like the Jews brought Palestine out of the darkness and into the light of Democracy---at least according to Shapiro. They would hand wave this history if you brought it up, they would never address it directly. I remember he felt very uncomfortable in the Groypers' finest moment where so many were asking about USS Liberty, a missed opportunity to talk about Haavara just for the lulz.

There is, in my view, certainly a feeling of guilt over this---collective guilt over this cynical alliance with the Third Reich---but it's more advantageous to keep saying "I just can't understand why a Jew wouldn't support Israel!"

A Call to Action: If any of you are proficient at memeing, a la Ricky Vaughn, it would be a wonderful thing if the White Left were exposed to the Nazi Origins of Israel for this upcoming election.
[Image: cca7bac0c3817004e84eace282cc7a3d.jpg]
Reply 



[-]
Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: Ricky23, 1 Guest(s)