A while back on John Michael Greer's forums we were discussing "The Holocaust Story" - essentially the unassailable comic book version that Must Not Be Questioned In Any Way. I appreciate your unpacking of that and describing the rapid transition from forgetting to remembering to believing.
I must say that I find it hard to agree with your claim that "Holocaustianity" constitutes a religion. I simply don't see it as playing that central a role in the identities and cosmologies of a significant number of people.
I think it would be fairer to say that the comic-book Holocaust Story constitutes a religious narrative, a myth in the sense that you describe, but that in this regard it is just one among many such stories that collectively make up a modern secular religion - one that might be called "Progress" or "Globalism" or something like that.
As you note, there are other comic-book stories - or modern myths - and from where I stand they appear to be on equal ground with, not subservient to, the Holocaust Story.
The Vaccination Story says that we have collectively achieved victory over the dirty, disease-ridden past in which life was nasty, brutish, and short, and that all must partake of the sacrament, the sacred elixir to ward off evil, as soon as we are born and as often as our priests recommend throughout life.
The Climate Change Story says that we are faced with great suffering on account of our collective sin, and that we may be absolved by way of surrender to a higher authority - namely the WEF-aligned governments and bureaucracies that offer austerity and electric cars and artificial meat and other supposed solutions.
The Green Energy Story says that we are on the verge of a great breakthrough that will allow technological progress and economic growth to continue, that our present troubles are a minor and temporary setback caused largely by backwards thinking and an obsolete addiction to fossil fuels, and that thanks to wind, solar, and ultimately fusion we will have abundant energy too cheap to meter for an ever-growing population.
As for the Holocaust Story...
As I see it, on the one hand it fills a role that must be filled by some myth in every religion: that of the ultimate human evil. For much of early Christianity, this role was filled by a fanciful idea of paganism, then later (during the Crusades) by Islam. Probably the nastier versions of antisemitism represent a myth that casts Jews into this role. A better student of history could say what myth filled this role prior to the 1970s; I might argue that in large part the declining relevance of the Holocaust Story is due to the ascendance of a new Racism Story - a similar comic-book history that brooks no dissent and posits our racist and slave-owning ancestors as perpetrators of the ultimate human evil.
On the other hand the Holocaust Story teaches a particular set of moral lessons important to the Progress/Globalist religion: Nationalism - solidarity with one's country or one's "people" - is a dangerous impulse that leads to genocide. And the modern West - a diverse and global coalition, reigns victorious after World War II and this victory represents an unquestionable moral triumph over the evil Nazis. The resurgence of nationalism on the political right represents a break from the Progress/Globalist religion and so renders the Holocaust Story "narratio non grata" in one political tribe while in the other it has been supplanted by a new Story of Human Evil with its own distortions of history and its own agenda.
Certainly equal ground after 2008, but that's built into my argument. So to whatever extent I portrayed the Holocaust as being of a different intrinsic nature than post-Greta doom contagion, etc., I was probably being too enamored of my own words. Which is hard to avoid when discussing cultures and behaviors, to distinguish metaphorical from literal. If I say, "It's a secular religion but it's not like people were going to churches for it every week (but they did make pilgrimages)," it's a hit on paper, but have I really made an actual point?
It was different from the new cults in being good (on paper) at the work a religion needs to do, which is sustain the status quo by explaining it, and these new cults can't do that even on paper.
Of course, it can't even do that anymore if (per my thesis) the key part was belief in redemption and that has been renounced. So we could ask of the French woman pleading with the camera whether she was imagining herself living up to the parables of Holocaust indifference. This is why I say it also built in the problem. And this exactly extends to nationalism, which could only be sustained in an explicitly anti-right global order by the loose idea that certain nations are anti-right as part of national identity, and so crushing Germany was the US's bona fides. But I haven't offered any real argument for this part, it's just something I tend to believe partially based on my own evolution of thinking.
I imagine there was no one ultimate before the 1970s, maybe some people had one from religion or instinct, for everybody else, nothing there. And now we're in a "everything is the ultimate evil so nothing is" period of total chaos.
Prior to the 1970s one of the largest film genres was Westerns. So it was probably the Wild West Story that filled this role (in the US, I assume other cultures are playing out their own stories for the most part). The Racism Story can be seen as an expansion of the Civil Rights Story to explain the failure of the sacrifices made to the Civil Rights Story to produce the expected results.
The south for a long time had the Glorious Cause Story but that has clearly died. It definitely feels like we are in a "things fall apart" moment where the existing "religion" is completely failing but the priests keep repeating the same old rituals and sermons while the pews are empty.
Thanks for the gentle correction. I don't think the Indians were considered an ultimate evil. The closest was probably the carpetbagger in the south. In fact the lack of such in the past either points to an inability to see them when not swept up in the narrative or that the "ultimate evil" is not a native cultural element.
I would have named Communists as the ultimate evil through the latter half of the twentieth century, as experienced in the western industrialised nations. Enough of the film and literature used them as antagonists to firmly implant that assessment.
"...the Jews killed in the Holocaust were a sacrifice, demanding a meaning, which prompts the invocation of a fear of a future sacrifice of like nature." Yep, isn't this the essence of mythology - sense-making epic stories?
It also speaks to modern, secular society's elephant in the room - without a divine spark, we are just mortal, imperfect flesh and bone. Death has no meaning. Perhaps, as you suggest, it explains the insane, panicked fear that gripped western society so violently during the pandemic.
Btw, I have just finished watching a new alt media German documentary about the pandemic and vaccine injuries or damage and I feel your piece stops short of connecting more dots of the pandemic puzzle...
If the mythologies that arise within a society (and which the society constantly affirms and retells itself) serve in large part to offer a narrative to sustain societal cohesion and make-sense of the incomprehensible, then there can be no largescale pandemic reckoning. Retrospectively questioning or accounting risks destroying the myth which society's conception of itself rests upon.
The myth sustains society's goodness and makes sense of the pandemic sacrifices. If the myth is wrong then why the hell did people do such dumb sh*t? If the the myth is right (vaccines, masks, lockdowns, school closures, etc, save lives and are harmless) then it was all worth it. Therefore the myth MUST be affirmed. (echoes of Trump Derangement Syndrome and the myth of Russian collusion).
I spoke at length at the weekend with an old acquaintance whom I hadn't seen since in 3 years. He'd taken a very cautious, government-informed approach, especially after his wife got long-Covid early on. He I sensed he simply couldn't accept society could have gotten it so wrong (he might possibly accept the narrative, mistakes were made, but in good faith as nobody could have known/foreseen with any certainty). The logical consequences (at the first sign of danger, society shat its pants and abdicated all responsibility for upholding it's defining constitutional principles) are almost too much to countenance. A lot of it is just telling ourselves soothing stories to avoid cognitive dissonance.
Which is why I've never been one to hype the anger / retribution tropes. Either there was going to be civil war / Pretorian revolt before it ended, which didn't happen, or the fact that we acted like buffoons following the daily commands of experts out of fear of being struck dead by lightning shot from heaven by the Tooth Fairy for three years will be unacknowledged until most of the adults alive today are dead, if even then. How can history books still present such a ridiculous interpretation of Pearl Harbor to this day?
And this is still the ongoing situation with the migrant crisis and American electoral system. People won't acknowledge the obvious if it implies that the world is senseless, and unfortunately, it is.
But on a deeper level, the moral relativism of the post modern woke and trans movements cannot sit easily with the 'following orders' pleas of the Holocaust trial defendents:
And worse still from a mainstream viewpoint, the hysteria and authoritarianism of the pandemic draws uncomfortable parallels with Nazi Germany; the fear propaganda, remote bureaucrats removing rights on the stroke of a pen, people snitching on neighbours, the dehumanisation and oppression of 'the unvaxxed'
So, while Holocaust denial is certainly a thing, Holocaust *amnesia* is a powerful but invisible force too, serving a purpose to protect todays post modern and mainstream ideologies from criticism by the lessons of the past.
That reddit link subjected me to a moderation announcement demanding germane responses, you have literally threatened my life and all life on earth (sarc).
As I see it, what distinguishes fascism from other forms of government is the recognition that democratic/republican manufactured consensus is never going to serve the popular will, and communism explicitly wants to destroy all values, so you might as well just structure the government to favor the "us" group, and this is going to upset and be attacked by all the supposed representatives-of-the-people in charge of producing unpopular policies as being simply the most awful, backwards thing in the world. When you really simplify the Madisonian ideal of republicanism, it's "manufactured consensus around unpopular policies," because there is a distrust of democratic tyranny, and you don't actually want the majority's preferred policies. This fits for a squirearchy where you have a few educated, elite landholders with incompatible economic priorities and a lot of rabble who shouldn't touch the polls. But it obviously didn't last more than a couple decades, after most states adopted universal male suffrage it was toast. Skipping all the intermediary stuff, I think since the 90s the media has been too powerful for a democratic republic to be much different than communism. You have this constant effort to destroy values, and so the manufactured consensus starts delivering unpopular policies that seek to annihilate those values and whoever defends them, with the media demonizing the targeted and valorizing the targeting state constantly. That's communism. It's manifest as early as Waco. So, maybe we might as well just fascism, really. Or try monarchy again. Or destroy the media. Something is needed.
What I currently believe is that elites are gonna elite whatever, so you want the best way to hold them to account through transparency and choice.
The trouble with the media is they protect power instead of holding them to account which works against transparency, they're effectively handmaidens to the elites. Worse still they use all kinds of polarising narratives
As an individual, consumption of media tends to polarise which for all its feeling of 'being right' counterintuitvely works against objective reasoning, which needs a good appreciation of nuance.
So the best option for most of us may be to largely reject media, possibly ALL media including social media; try and stick to objective data, then once it's possible to reason accordingly re-engage in a much more limited fashion being as selective as possible.
Even so it's good to take proper breaks here and there and get away from it all in some way. :-)
I agree with that 100% - you can't get fair outputs no matter how fair you design the system. It's going to be subverted the same way systems not even connected to government (eg phones) are subverted (telemarketing, scams).
The college admissions thing is a good example. It used to be overtly unfair, and WASPs were rulers of the roost, then it went to 'fair' and as Unz shows the non-Jewish white duped normies acceptance rate has become atrocious. The winning group in a fair system is just whoever understands it's still not fair and is willing to act on it (the normies who do make it in the system have caught on but just accept it without saying anything). So this is another way that I see the US as communist because this culture pervades in all corporations at least since I've been an adult. What's right, who's the most competent, doesn't matter.
(Sorry for the late reply on this, wanted to read around a bit first...)
The problem with affirmative action is it's effectively systemic racism against some nominally privileged group. It's ridiculous to insist that a middle class black person from an affluent city is justifiably less 'privileged' than a working class white person from a poor rural backwater, it can only work as some sort of ideological class war*.
I'd be much happier to see talented students in deprived areas being given extra resources to develop their ability regardless of their race, and it's dead easy to target this fairly and effectively.
As for the ivy league unversities, it's an accountability problem in that they can and do obscure the true workings of their admissions policies. I get that a completely objective admissions tests may play to applicants who aggressively optimise for them, but what's better? Maybe see if subjective assessment can do a better job at predicting final grades?
It does show that credentialism is even more of a fiction if there's no effective meritocracy in aquiring the credentials. I guess a side effect of all this is that the elites from the Ivy Leagues are going to become more and more mediocore, paving the way for more populism in democracy, though the elites are going to fight it tooth and nail while portraying it being for the 'best' reasons.
Witness the covid pandemic, there was considerable underperfomance in the west, yet in the US it became was acceptable to exclude students from education and employees from jobs who did not wish to take completely unneccessary injections pushed by the elites. This effectively excludes from the 'meritocracy' anyone who can reason objectively and stands behind their principles.
*Edit: To be totally fair I should compare a black student from a poor inner city area to a white student from a poor rural backwater, though in both scenarios they may have similar academic ability.
I'm a late 50's white male and the holocaust was rarely spoken about in school and almost never spoken about in the Baptist and non-denominational churches I attended. It was, more or less, similar to a constant in an algebraic equation. Just kinda there.
Yes - The trouble with any critique of late-20th American suburban monoculture, e.g. broadcast news and the sets of Family Ties or whatever, is that it really wasn't pervasive. I grew up outside of it until high school, by which point I was finally all of in US, in suburb, in sports. By that time (late-90s, well after Seinfeld Schindler's List episode), you could joke about it, but the joke worked because it was transgressive and universal, and for transgressive it was maybe past rape jokes and anti-Christian jokes. If not in a suburbs, probably the jokes would have been less edgy.
The Soviet NKVD archives would be an interesting read on this. Presumably they documented what they actually found, but it's also interesting that none of the information from those archives has leaked.
Were things so chaotic at the end of the war that they didn't write things down? Were some of the Jewish deaths attributed to the Nazis actually killed by the Soviets?
If such files do exist what would happen if Russia were to release irrefutable evidence that some of the Soviet claims were lies?
I'm not very historically familiar with Russia after 1917, I literally couldn't guess how bureaucratically competent they would have been at that time and context. But even if they were competent the numbers would be at least skepticism-worthy. What we should really expect historians serious about the question to be doing is estimating how many Jews left their homes, and how many ended up somewhere else alive, the difference is the deaths from the Holocaust, it's a pretty obvious approach. As I've said, 7 figures is plausible, but that's a pretty transparent way of saying I don't consider it the obvious outcome. And any outcome is going to still be subject to a lot of uncertainty in Soviet lands and figures. C'est la vie.
not to divert from your post, but have you seen fauci's latest videos? now, he is playing historian and claiming US is where europe was in 1930s ... predicting civil unrest i suppose ... wonder why they use this buffoon for ... yeah well ...
btw, here is smt on how it really works, and how trump was made the trump. my bet he will be back at white house again for the finals ... lots at stake.
You have missed the point of the Holocaust completely just by your opening threat : "Series notes
Comments on this series will be occasionally pruned for uninterestingness or evident failure to read and reply to the thesis itself. (Anything heavily centered on Jewish “machinations” in modern cultural and political affairs will probably merit removal on those grounds.)
This series begins with part 1, which clarifies my position on Holocaust “Denialism” (I do not deny the Holocaust, but I insist that my understanding of what it was be based on normal historiographical standards, grounded in evidence and open to revisionism; anyone should do the same, the Holocaust should not be understood with a “special kind of history” the way children are given special scissors lest they harm themselves):"
This is censorship. You don't seem to understand what free speech is about - it is about anyone being able to say anything they wish without threat of being shut down or silenced. Sometimes you will hear things you don't want to hear - scroll by. Or debate it. But to shut someone down just because they may not perceive the Holocause in the same way you do, is supremacist and what the Nazis stood for. It's happening all over again, funny you can't see that. Our only salvation is free speech. How can speech hurt us? Whereas shutting anyone down hurts all of humanity immensely because it buys into censorship. If you do it, that means you consent to censorship and to yourself being censored too. We must stand for free speech AT ALL TIMES and deal with what people say wither with more free speech or with scrolling by....
My comment sections are for discussion, a type of speech, not amorphous "speech," and so no, it's not a place for "free speech." The speech needs to be of the correct type (discussion). This isn't possible if someone just sees a topic and posts a "reply" that is just their opinion on the topic, when that opinion doesn't deal with the topic in the context of what is being replied to. This is very obvious in the "threat" and you have to either contort your understanding or not have read the post to think that what I have a problem with is disagreement (it's that people are disagreeing with something my series isn't even about). Commenting to posts you haven't read is a nuisance.
Yes yes there are many justifications for censorship - we hear it all the time - not just from government but even from our own peers. And yet free speech is our ONLY salvation but I know you can't see that at this point. Free speech is more powerful than armies - that's why governments and ruling powers always always always are on the side of censorship. With free speech we are free, but with censorship we are not. So you want to stifle free speech in case someone goes off topic, is that it? Why not just ignore it and scroll down? You're rather threaten our only safeguard against armies, governments, billionaires, the media because you cannot stomach to scroll past a silly comment? That threatens my life and actually life on earth and just hands over our freedom to the powers to satisfy some trifle that happens to irk you. One is either for free speech or one is not. One cannot be half pregnant. Therefore you are not for free speech, that's good to know about everybody as soon that will be the only thing that can tell us who is legit and who is a possible set-up. As long as we know who is who. So it's good to know that you are on the side of censorship , you have that in common with the Nazis, what an irony hey!
I said it. The Nazis were for censorship remember? If people can speak their minds, fascist regimes would have no standing - people would get the word out and the horrors of the holocaust would not have happened and all those lives lost. That's what I submit would occur. Why did you leave that part out - that the Nazis imposed censorship? That is the most important part. But most people miss it because they want to impose it themselves. Like you just did in your opening diktat.
I just explained it - you're on the side of censorship, the Nazis were on the side of censorship and you talk about the Holocaust and can't see we are moving on the same stepping stones.
Are you not free to write your thoughts (unrelated to Brian's posts) elsewhere?
If you are invited to a party or, say, a book launch and you spend the whole time talking about your own book idea, that's just rude and inappropriate. Or do you consider that censorship?
I didn't think it was censorship. He's just saying stick to the topic. It's his substack, his rules here. He's not the Federal gov't, just an author. If you're a guest in my house, and you want to swear and use profanity, or even worse call Biden and his flunkies "allies of the light" (yes, I have seen that one out there), is it censorship for me to ask you to stop it in front of the children?
Your point about childishness is very salient to me. It really seems that an overall childishness, and pettiness has infected our current echelons of society. I'd argue all the way to Leadership and beyond.
I think I get the basic ideas you're writing about, though you would seem to assume a lot about certain groupings, religions and reasons for the ways in which these aforementioned acted, reacted and chose to view their lives and as such formed their beliefs and associations, but so much is written in such a way as to make it unclear as to what you're really trying to say and about what and/or who, specifically. I gained more understanding from your replies to comments and, if understood correctly, your opening in which you seem to want only a specific sort of comment or reply. To me this appears to be yet another revisionist crazy re-characterization of unrelated anti-facts in a long and tiresome deluge of such intentionally confusing bs, which has already been shown many times to have it's roots in foreign meddling of those who seek to control all at any cost, viewing themselves as superior thus immune. You bounce from topic to topic with no real sense of continuity or offering of any real connections other than within your own wants and needs, of which also isn't entirely clear or forthcoming at any particular point.
Again, I hate to be so redundant, but it's somewhat necessary to address the points I'm attempting to make without appearing to simply dump everything into a pile, give it a name and continue from there, it would seem as if you're "requesting" specific replies from specific individuals who would already have the prerequisite knowledge and awareness of the particular reality to which you speak of and to. It does appear there is a sizable and growing interest in reviving much from this particular era of history and to having the many accept it as viable and attention-worthy, yet don't understand the need of anyone to relate what happened then to what is happening now, as it is only those who perceive history as repeatable and would strive to use this perceived "insider-information" to manipulate that repetition to their own ends who attempt such folly. Regardless of the total number, and the accepted numbers of "how" they specifically departed, it can and should be seen as a lesson in how desperation caused by others can effect many and give rise to opportunistic potentials to appear to have more authority than they should ever be assumed to have. The "winner writes the history" is a given and so should preclude any serious thought or comment on such subjects as it has been manipulated and so no actual "anything" can come from it's study or discussion, other than attempting to define a way in which to prevent such initial manipulation, and so have meaningful and productive discussion on said topics.
The fact and irrefutable truth that "things" are manipulated, and continue to be so, is all one needs to move forward. All else is simply guessing at and reaching for straws, or trying to steer such, and adding to the already perilous confusion present today. I would assume anyone wanting their discussions to be taken seriously would present them in a suitable fashion and at a time they would be reasonably understood and conscientiously accepted, not lobbed into the fray as might a "Potato-Masher" to see what might become of it's effects and if these might be useful to the "lobbying"! (Pun intended)
Sounds like you just have thought allergies and can't read things without being worried about what someone is trying to pull over on you. My words are just what they are dude. My introductory moderation announcement isn't being coy about what I will delete, and I defy anyone to justify why the delineated content could have anything to say other than "stop looking at it that way, that's not the real issue." Well so what then. Don't comment at all if that's what you think.
You see what I mean, right? You open an account at a blogging site where discussion is the coin of the realm and I come along and find your topic very interesting, so offer my thoughts and opinions and looking forward to your reply. It's as if you want insincere adoration and not absolute honesty and personal opinion. You seem to take great offense from the latter with the typical attitude and passive aggressive cowardice in much the same contradictory style as your conditional access being imposed upon an open forum environmental space. Your shock and confusion seem genuine, but I can't imagine anyone being so oblivious to their surroundings. Perhaps if you practiced having a backbone, being more situationally aware and not being frightened to discuss your work, you might actually come across the way you perceive yourself to. I've a good sense that what you really wanted to say to me was quite hostile and, at least in thought, potentially violent, or more likely, you completely misjudged my character and thought a few impatiently hissed dismissals would intimidate me intellectually and, as I scurried away in ignorant terror, so stroke your unbelievably effeminate and fragile ego. Likely why you chose the latter. If you meant, "Fuck Off, Asshole!" you should have had the guts to say so and saved us both the time and effort. I'm not a hater or bully by nature. Just the opposite, really, and so hope there is something useful for you in this. Per my own thoughts on my responsibilities as a human being: You have a good natural talent in writing. You should openly invite critique, good and bad, it forges your skills as a writer. I'm just an old man who hasn't come to terms with what life has chosen to put in front of him, as such my view's delivery could well be more harsh than intended, but that in no way detracts from the content which I stand by and do hope you find some usefulness in. Oh... punctuation! Embrace it, it's empowering! Sincerely, One wanna-be writer to another writer!
You're somewhat right about that, but I don't call them thought allergies. They're too disturbingly real. I call them diagnosis, and because of such I do not trust anyone anymore. It's too easy to be perfectly clear! Moderna in mid-2021. It's hard to when you're so busy trying to outrun a bio-weapon with no documented regimen to do so. I can tell you this, when people laugh and call you names and generally show their true colors because you trusted what you've trusted you entire life and they've done you no real personal harm prior, it's not ignorant, or dumb or a thousand other things I've heard, it's just being trusting that you're own people of your own country you were born into are the same people as you are, with the same beliefs and the same agenda who subscribe to the same ideals represented in the founding principles of your same founders. You don't ever imagine the highest authority of your country will turn on you, will sell you out to the enemy in such a pathetically mundane way, for money!
So, yes, you're correct I read and listen to every nuance and look thoroughly for this same treachery, because it's all I've got to do for the short time I've left. It's all I want to do, to bring as much out in the open and to cause as much difficulty for the people who have sold out this country and murdered it's people. To expose and bring into the light as much as I possibly can before my family name is erased from this world. You wouldn't believe the clarity that comes with the extermination of hope. It's a bit naive to think that there is only one way of looking at anything, and so we should only look at everything in one possible way, with each author dictating this way to all and so closing off any real "discussion" and so asserting in such your view and opinions are absolutely correct and any other inter-related issues are unnecessary, but those you select. I don't want to seem argumentative, because that's the other alternative to open discussion, but our country is not based on those principles and what's taken place recently, and not just in our country, is more in line with the same thing you're promoting and that is, well, I think it's pretty clear now that governments, corporations and medical professionals are being made to openly discuss all the issues about their heretofore unwillingness and specifically why. I read a lot of different sub-stack's, everyday, and yours is the only one here, and in other similar sites' forums, that places conditions as a prerequisite to discussing it's content, that requires everyone to "see" it a certain way, and to accept it has within it only certain issues. The truth of anything is something that humans are specially adapted to instinctively knowing, feeling and applying intuitively their senses to and so questioning that which just doesn't "seem" right for some reason that defies reasonable explanation when first encountered and so the drilling-down begins and in this "discovery" mode we come across that which rings true and satisfies these intuitive uncertainties. It's why an unrelenting barrage of contradictory and belief-undermining information has been and is still being dumped upon everything that is American and so makes us all question ourselves continually in an ever-morphing circle of doubt and confusion, many times latching onto enemy-provided resolutions that are singularly meant to do more damage and insure America's destruction.
Just my opinions as relates to the tactics which "are" being wielded against my country. Having fell for them once with unavoidable consequence, I'll question every single anything I come across, because as cowardly as the enemy is, to not declare a war yet launch one against us in such an insidiously deadly way, I would in fact be those things I've been called should I not respond exactly as I am. To not comment at all would be to lie down and accept defeat and mean nothing to anyone, myself especially! I'm just not that kind of person. My dying gasp will be used in exposing, retaliating and should I be fortunate enough, beating them at their own game. As is evidenced by their own handiwork, they are fantastic copy-cats, but not so great at invention, innovation or adaptation. Again, just my opinions and being said, concluded. They are offered for what you might see fit to do with them, or nothing at all. They aren't offered to change you or your work, but just to add to the thought processes and resources you have to draw upon in creating your work, if you so choose, and maybe - maybe not, making it that much better. I believe all writers have a passion to create the best, most emotionally moving and/or factually unassailable works possible. A lot of years past I wanted to be such a writer, but could hardly afford it and so pursued a job instead. I remember it, and what it took. I don't mean to be offensive, just provocative. I have noticed lately my memory is getting raggedy and I'm straining to pull things from memory rather than simply access them at will. I keep a log so I'll hopefully notice when the time arrives that I'm no longer able to trust myself and might be more hindrance than help. I don't think I'm there yet, but this is all uncharted territory, too! I've always been tell it as I see it and kind of blunt in that, so again just my opinion and a little background to maybe offer some knowledge of why. Best to you and yours...
The Holocasst, the contention that Hitler and the Nazis were responsible for mass genocide by gas chamber has no evidence to support it. Zero, nada, none. Accept we have been lied to and let's move on to the next lie. All your analysis of psychology and other various details are a distraction. Focus should be where we are today as a result of being lied to. Where do we go from here?
The porn friendly Berlin in the 20s till 1933 created a family unfriendly environment, just like we have today. Who owns the businesses and corporations that promote sick behavior? Who owns Hollywood? Can you guess who owns the porn businesses? The child sacrafice and organ harvesting business? I can only make assumptions based on Talmudic morality. My other assumption is high level bankers are familiar with Talmudic morality. Christians; probably not.
Who is it that are paying to see the trash pumped out by Hollywood? Who are the porn consumers? Who are traveling to China to get Uighur kidneys? Do you have demographic info?
I am familiar with the Talmud. What I don't agree with is that the consumers are all hapless victims who don't realize that they are consuming trash. I reject the victim depiction of a nation of free people who really are capable of better.
I don't watch movies much anymore. Mostly trash, right? I don't consume TV either.
Hitler kicked the pornographers out of Berlin along with the parasitic banks. He created a family friendly environment and the Germans flourished as a result of his efforts. The pornographers are back in spades and the US is declining morally. They are pushing gay story time on children. Disgusting end of empire kind of stuff.
If you are familiar with the Talmud, then you are aware of the Talmud's position on goyim. It is fine to lie, cheat, steal, whatever you wish as long as a goyim is the victim. A fellow Jew is taboo. I look forward to Mel Gibson's movie exposing human trafficking in Ukraine.
This video is a good summary of what is going on today and who is behind it.
Thanks for this well-researched series!
A while back on John Michael Greer's forums we were discussing "The Holocaust Story" - essentially the unassailable comic book version that Must Not Be Questioned In Any Way. I appreciate your unpacking of that and describing the rapid transition from forgetting to remembering to believing.
I must say that I find it hard to agree with your claim that "Holocaustianity" constitutes a religion. I simply don't see it as playing that central a role in the identities and cosmologies of a significant number of people.
I think it would be fairer to say that the comic-book Holocaust Story constitutes a religious narrative, a myth in the sense that you describe, but that in this regard it is just one among many such stories that collectively make up a modern secular religion - one that might be called "Progress" or "Globalism" or something like that.
As you note, there are other comic-book stories - or modern myths - and from where I stand they appear to be on equal ground with, not subservient to, the Holocaust Story.
The Vaccination Story says that we have collectively achieved victory over the dirty, disease-ridden past in which life was nasty, brutish, and short, and that all must partake of the sacrament, the sacred elixir to ward off evil, as soon as we are born and as often as our priests recommend throughout life.
The Climate Change Story says that we are faced with great suffering on account of our collective sin, and that we may be absolved by way of surrender to a higher authority - namely the WEF-aligned governments and bureaucracies that offer austerity and electric cars and artificial meat and other supposed solutions.
The Green Energy Story says that we are on the verge of a great breakthrough that will allow technological progress and economic growth to continue, that our present troubles are a minor and temporary setback caused largely by backwards thinking and an obsolete addiction to fossil fuels, and that thanks to wind, solar, and ultimately fusion we will have abundant energy too cheap to meter for an ever-growing population.
As for the Holocaust Story...
As I see it, on the one hand it fills a role that must be filled by some myth in every religion: that of the ultimate human evil. For much of early Christianity, this role was filled by a fanciful idea of paganism, then later (during the Crusades) by Islam. Probably the nastier versions of antisemitism represent a myth that casts Jews into this role. A better student of history could say what myth filled this role prior to the 1970s; I might argue that in large part the declining relevance of the Holocaust Story is due to the ascendance of a new Racism Story - a similar comic-book history that brooks no dissent and posits our racist and slave-owning ancestors as perpetrators of the ultimate human evil.
On the other hand the Holocaust Story teaches a particular set of moral lessons important to the Progress/Globalist religion: Nationalism - solidarity with one's country or one's "people" - is a dangerous impulse that leads to genocide. And the modern West - a diverse and global coalition, reigns victorious after World War II and this victory represents an unquestionable moral triumph over the evil Nazis. The resurgence of nationalism on the political right represents a break from the Progress/Globalist religion and so renders the Holocaust Story "narratio non grata" in one political tribe while in the other it has been supplanted by a new Story of Human Evil with its own distortions of history and its own agenda.
It was very fun research.
Certainly equal ground after 2008, but that's built into my argument. So to whatever extent I portrayed the Holocaust as being of a different intrinsic nature than post-Greta doom contagion, etc., I was probably being too enamored of my own words. Which is hard to avoid when discussing cultures and behaviors, to distinguish metaphorical from literal. If I say, "It's a secular religion but it's not like people were going to churches for it every week (but they did make pilgrimages)," it's a hit on paper, but have I really made an actual point?
It was different from the new cults in being good (on paper) at the work a religion needs to do, which is sustain the status quo by explaining it, and these new cults can't do that even on paper.
Of course, it can't even do that anymore if (per my thesis) the key part was belief in redemption and that has been renounced. So we could ask of the French woman pleading with the camera whether she was imagining herself living up to the parables of Holocaust indifference. This is why I say it also built in the problem. And this exactly extends to nationalism, which could only be sustained in an explicitly anti-right global order by the loose idea that certain nations are anti-right as part of national identity, and so crushing Germany was the US's bona fides. But I haven't offered any real argument for this part, it's just something I tend to believe partially based on my own evolution of thinking.
I imagine there was no one ultimate before the 1970s, maybe some people had one from religion or instinct, for everybody else, nothing there. And now we're in a "everything is the ultimate evil so nothing is" period of total chaos.
Prior to the 1970s one of the largest film genres was Westerns. So it was probably the Wild West Story that filled this role (in the US, I assume other cultures are playing out their own stories for the most part). The Racism Story can be seen as an expansion of the Civil Rights Story to explain the failure of the sacrifices made to the Civil Rights Story to produce the expected results.
The south for a long time had the Glorious Cause Story but that has clearly died. It definitely feels like we are in a "things fall apart" moment where the existing "religion" is completely failing but the priests keep repeating the same old rituals and sermons while the pews are empty.
Cowboys, robots, astronauts. None of these narratives seem to identify an "ultimate evil" except perhaps for being alien. Must have been nice, haha
Thanks for the gentle correction. I don't think the Indians were considered an ultimate evil. The closest was probably the carpetbagger in the south. In fact the lack of such in the past either points to an inability to see them when not swept up in the narrative or that the "ultimate evil" is not a native cultural element.
I would have named Communists as the ultimate evil through the latter half of the twentieth century, as experienced in the western industrialised nations. Enough of the film and literature used them as antagonists to firmly implant that assessment.
"...the Jews killed in the Holocaust were a sacrifice, demanding a meaning, which prompts the invocation of a fear of a future sacrifice of like nature." Yep, isn't this the essence of mythology - sense-making epic stories?
It also speaks to modern, secular society's elephant in the room - without a divine spark, we are just mortal, imperfect flesh and bone. Death has no meaning. Perhaps, as you suggest, it explains the insane, panicked fear that gripped western society so violently during the pandemic.
Btw, I have just finished watching a new alt media German documentary about the pandemic and vaccine injuries or damage and I feel your piece stops short of connecting more dots of the pandemic puzzle...
If the mythologies that arise within a society (and which the society constantly affirms and retells itself) serve in large part to offer a narrative to sustain societal cohesion and make-sense of the incomprehensible, then there can be no largescale pandemic reckoning. Retrospectively questioning or accounting risks destroying the myth which society's conception of itself rests upon.
The myth sustains society's goodness and makes sense of the pandemic sacrifices. If the myth is wrong then why the hell did people do such dumb sh*t? If the the myth is right (vaccines, masks, lockdowns, school closures, etc, save lives and are harmless) then it was all worth it. Therefore the myth MUST be affirmed. (echoes of Trump Derangement Syndrome and the myth of Russian collusion).
I spoke at length at the weekend with an old acquaintance whom I hadn't seen since in 3 years. He'd taken a very cautious, government-informed approach, especially after his wife got long-Covid early on. He I sensed he simply couldn't accept society could have gotten it so wrong (he might possibly accept the narrative, mistakes were made, but in good faith as nobody could have known/foreseen with any certainty). The logical consequences (at the first sign of danger, society shat its pants and abdicated all responsibility for upholding it's defining constitutional principles) are almost too much to countenance. A lot of it is just telling ourselves soothing stories to avoid cognitive dissonance.
Which is why I've never been one to hype the anger / retribution tropes. Either there was going to be civil war / Pretorian revolt before it ended, which didn't happen, or the fact that we acted like buffoons following the daily commands of experts out of fear of being struck dead by lightning shot from heaven by the Tooth Fairy for three years will be unacknowledged until most of the adults alive today are dead, if even then. How can history books still present such a ridiculous interpretation of Pearl Harbor to this day?
And this is still the ongoing situation with the migrant crisis and American electoral system. People won't acknowledge the obvious if it implies that the world is senseless, and unfortunately, it is.
On the face of it, it seems that the Holocaust has been crowded out by more recent themes:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=genocide,%22mass%20shooting%22,%22fake%20news%22
But on a deeper level, the moral relativism of the post modern woke and trans movements cannot sit easily with the 'following orders' pleas of the Holocaust trial defendents:
https://old.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/lg57qi/moral_relativism_and_the_holocaust/
And worse still from a mainstream viewpoint, the hysteria and authoritarianism of the pandemic draws uncomfortable parallels with Nazi Germany; the fear propaganda, remote bureaucrats removing rights on the stroke of a pen, people snitching on neighbours, the dehumanisation and oppression of 'the unvaxxed'
https://charleseisenstein.substack.com/p/mob-morality-and-the-unvaxxed
So, while Holocaust denial is certainly a thing, Holocaust *amnesia* is a powerful but invisible force too, serving a purpose to protect todays post modern and mainstream ideologies from criticism by the lessons of the past.
That reddit link subjected me to a moderation announcement demanding germane responses, you have literally threatened my life and all life on earth (sarc).
As I see it, what distinguishes fascism from other forms of government is the recognition that democratic/republican manufactured consensus is never going to serve the popular will, and communism explicitly wants to destroy all values, so you might as well just structure the government to favor the "us" group, and this is going to upset and be attacked by all the supposed representatives-of-the-people in charge of producing unpopular policies as being simply the most awful, backwards thing in the world. When you really simplify the Madisonian ideal of republicanism, it's "manufactured consensus around unpopular policies," because there is a distrust of democratic tyranny, and you don't actually want the majority's preferred policies. This fits for a squirearchy where you have a few educated, elite landholders with incompatible economic priorities and a lot of rabble who shouldn't touch the polls. But it obviously didn't last more than a couple decades, after most states adopted universal male suffrage it was toast. Skipping all the intermediary stuff, I think since the 90s the media has been too powerful for a democratic republic to be much different than communism. You have this constant effort to destroy values, and so the manufactured consensus starts delivering unpopular policies that seek to annihilate those values and whoever defends them, with the media demonizing the targeted and valorizing the targeting state constantly. That's communism. It's manifest as early as Waco. So, maybe we might as well just fascism, really. Or try monarchy again. Or destroy the media. Something is needed.
What I currently believe is that elites are gonna elite whatever, so you want the best way to hold them to account through transparency and choice.
The trouble with the media is they protect power instead of holding them to account which works against transparency, they're effectively handmaidens to the elites. Worse still they use all kinds of polarising narratives
As an individual, consumption of media tends to polarise which for all its feeling of 'being right' counterintuitvely works against objective reasoning, which needs a good appreciation of nuance.
So the best option for most of us may be to largely reject media, possibly ALL media including social media; try and stick to objective data, then once it's possible to reason accordingly re-engage in a much more limited fashion being as selective as possible.
Even so it's good to take proper breaks here and there and get away from it all in some way. :-)
I agree with that 100% - you can't get fair outputs no matter how fair you design the system. It's going to be subverted the same way systems not even connected to government (eg phones) are subverted (telemarketing, scams).
The college admissions thing is a good example. It used to be overtly unfair, and WASPs were rulers of the roost, then it went to 'fair' and as Unz shows the non-Jewish white duped normies acceptance rate has become atrocious. The winning group in a fair system is just whoever understands it's still not fair and is willing to act on it (the normies who do make it in the system have caught on but just accept it without saying anything). So this is another way that I see the US as communist because this culture pervades in all corporations at least since I've been an adult. What's right, who's the most competent, doesn't matter.
This is the reference for the Unz college stats, I wish he would present these findings without a lot of diarizing about the ADL though https://www.unz.com/runz/affirmative-action-and-the-jewish-elephant-in-the-room/
(Sorry for the late reply on this, wanted to read around a bit first...)
The problem with affirmative action is it's effectively systemic racism against some nominally privileged group. It's ridiculous to insist that a middle class black person from an affluent city is justifiably less 'privileged' than a working class white person from a poor rural backwater, it can only work as some sort of ideological class war*.
I'd be much happier to see talented students in deprived areas being given extra resources to develop their ability regardless of their race, and it's dead easy to target this fairly and effectively.
As for the ivy league unversities, it's an accountability problem in that they can and do obscure the true workings of their admissions policies. I get that a completely objective admissions tests may play to applicants who aggressively optimise for them, but what's better? Maybe see if subjective assessment can do a better job at predicting final grades?
It does show that credentialism is even more of a fiction if there's no effective meritocracy in aquiring the credentials. I guess a side effect of all this is that the elites from the Ivy Leagues are going to become more and more mediocore, paving the way for more populism in democracy, though the elites are going to fight it tooth and nail while portraying it being for the 'best' reasons.
Witness the covid pandemic, there was considerable underperfomance in the west, yet in the US it became was acceptable to exclude students from education and employees from jobs who did not wish to take completely unneccessary injections pushed by the elites. This effectively excludes from the 'meritocracy' anyone who can reason objectively and stands behind their principles.
*Edit: To be totally fair I should compare a black student from a poor inner city area to a white student from a poor rural backwater, though in both scenarios they may have similar academic ability.
I'm a late 50's white male and the holocaust was rarely spoken about in school and almost never spoken about in the Baptist and non-denominational churches I attended. It was, more or less, similar to a constant in an algebraic equation. Just kinda there.
Yes - The trouble with any critique of late-20th American suburban monoculture, e.g. broadcast news and the sets of Family Ties or whatever, is that it really wasn't pervasive. I grew up outside of it until high school, by which point I was finally all of in US, in suburb, in sports. By that time (late-90s, well after Seinfeld Schindler's List episode), you could joke about it, but the joke worked because it was transgressive and universal, and for transgressive it was maybe past rape jokes and anti-Christian jokes. If not in a suburbs, probably the jokes would have been less edgy.
Excellent series, Brian! Well done.
Thanks!
The Soviet NKVD archives would be an interesting read on this. Presumably they documented what they actually found, but it's also interesting that none of the information from those archives has leaked.
Were things so chaotic at the end of the war that they didn't write things down? Were some of the Jewish deaths attributed to the Nazis actually killed by the Soviets?
If such files do exist what would happen if Russia were to release irrefutable evidence that some of the Soviet claims were lies?
I'm not very historically familiar with Russia after 1917, I literally couldn't guess how bureaucratically competent they would have been at that time and context. But even if they were competent the numbers would be at least skepticism-worthy. What we should really expect historians serious about the question to be doing is estimating how many Jews left their homes, and how many ended up somewhere else alive, the difference is the deaths from the Holocaust, it's a pretty obvious approach. As I've said, 7 figures is plausible, but that's a pretty transparent way of saying I don't consider it the obvious outcome. And any outcome is going to still be subject to a lot of uncertainty in Soviet lands and figures. C'est la vie.
not to divert from your post, but have you seen fauci's latest videos? now, he is playing historian and claiming US is where europe was in 1930s ... predicting civil unrest i suppose ... wonder why they use this buffoon for ... yeah well ...
btw, here is smt on how it really works, and how trump was made the trump. my bet he will be back at white house again for the finals ... lots at stake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9IHCyoW2Ek
I think I deleted a substack email about it, just because I don't usually want to read about Fauci...
You have missed the point of the Holocaust completely just by your opening threat : "Series notes
Comments on this series will be occasionally pruned for uninterestingness or evident failure to read and reply to the thesis itself. (Anything heavily centered on Jewish “machinations” in modern cultural and political affairs will probably merit removal on those grounds.)
This series begins with part 1, which clarifies my position on Holocaust “Denialism” (I do not deny the Holocaust, but I insist that my understanding of what it was be based on normal historiographical standards, grounded in evidence and open to revisionism; anyone should do the same, the Holocaust should not be understood with a “special kind of history” the way children are given special scissors lest they harm themselves):"
This is censorship. You don't seem to understand what free speech is about - it is about anyone being able to say anything they wish without threat of being shut down or silenced. Sometimes you will hear things you don't want to hear - scroll by. Or debate it. But to shut someone down just because they may not perceive the Holocause in the same way you do, is supremacist and what the Nazis stood for. It's happening all over again, funny you can't see that. Our only salvation is free speech. How can speech hurt us? Whereas shutting anyone down hurts all of humanity immensely because it buys into censorship. If you do it, that means you consent to censorship and to yourself being censored too. We must stand for free speech AT ALL TIMES and deal with what people say wither with more free speech or with scrolling by....
My comment sections are for discussion, a type of speech, not amorphous "speech," and so no, it's not a place for "free speech." The speech needs to be of the correct type (discussion). This isn't possible if someone just sees a topic and posts a "reply" that is just their opinion on the topic, when that opinion doesn't deal with the topic in the context of what is being replied to. This is very obvious in the "threat" and you have to either contort your understanding or not have read the post to think that what I have a problem with is disagreement (it's that people are disagreeing with something my series isn't even about). Commenting to posts you haven't read is a nuisance.
Yes yes there are many justifications for censorship - we hear it all the time - not just from government but even from our own peers. And yet free speech is our ONLY salvation but I know you can't see that at this point. Free speech is more powerful than armies - that's why governments and ruling powers always always always are on the side of censorship. With free speech we are free, but with censorship we are not. So you want to stifle free speech in case someone goes off topic, is that it? Why not just ignore it and scroll down? You're rather threaten our only safeguard against armies, governments, billionaires, the media because you cannot stomach to scroll past a silly comment? That threatens my life and actually life on earth and just hands over our freedom to the powers to satisfy some trifle that happens to irk you. One is either for free speech or one is not. One cannot be half pregnant. Therefore you are not for free speech, that's good to know about everybody as soon that will be the only thing that can tell us who is legit and who is a possible set-up. As long as we know who is who. So it's good to know that you are on the side of censorship , you have that in common with the Nazis, what an irony hey!
Who says it's an irony.
I said it. The Nazis were for censorship remember? If people can speak their minds, fascist regimes would have no standing - people would get the word out and the horrors of the holocaust would not have happened and all those lives lost. That's what I submit would occur. Why did you leave that part out - that the Nazis imposed censorship? That is the most important part. But most people miss it because they want to impose it themselves. Like you just did in your opening diktat.
Who says that makes it ironic that "*I* am on the side of censorship"? For someone so ardent about speech you might learn how to read it.
I just explained it - you're on the side of censorship, the Nazis were on the side of censorship and you talk about the Holocaust and can't see we are moving on the same stepping stones.
"That threatens my life and actually life on earth "? Oh now you've gone too far.
Are you not free to write your thoughts (unrelated to Brian's posts) elsewhere?
If you are invited to a party or, say, a book launch and you spend the whole time talking about your own book idea, that's just rude and inappropriate. Or do you consider that censorship?
I didn't think it was censorship. He's just saying stick to the topic. It's his substack, his rules here. He's not the Federal gov't, just an author. If you're a guest in my house, and you want to swear and use profanity, or even worse call Biden and his flunkies "allies of the light" (yes, I have seen that one out there), is it censorship for me to ask you to stop it in front of the children?
Your point about childishness is very salient to me. It really seems that an overall childishness, and pettiness has infected our current echelons of society. I'd argue all the way to Leadership and beyond.
Great series. Double-plus good.
.
The Greatest "Achievement" Of The Internet
Is To Disconnect Us From One Another
And To Keep Us Tethered To It [ IT ]
"Injected Code" Serves The Same End.
Congraulations To You If You Knew Not To Be Injected.
And Thank You For That.
You Have Made Many Friends. As Is Your Due.
Find Them Where You Are.
.
I think I get the basic ideas you're writing about, though you would seem to assume a lot about certain groupings, religions and reasons for the ways in which these aforementioned acted, reacted and chose to view their lives and as such formed their beliefs and associations, but so much is written in such a way as to make it unclear as to what you're really trying to say and about what and/or who, specifically. I gained more understanding from your replies to comments and, if understood correctly, your opening in which you seem to want only a specific sort of comment or reply. To me this appears to be yet another revisionist crazy re-characterization of unrelated anti-facts in a long and tiresome deluge of such intentionally confusing bs, which has already been shown many times to have it's roots in foreign meddling of those who seek to control all at any cost, viewing themselves as superior thus immune. You bounce from topic to topic with no real sense of continuity or offering of any real connections other than within your own wants and needs, of which also isn't entirely clear or forthcoming at any particular point.
Again, I hate to be so redundant, but it's somewhat necessary to address the points I'm attempting to make without appearing to simply dump everything into a pile, give it a name and continue from there, it would seem as if you're "requesting" specific replies from specific individuals who would already have the prerequisite knowledge and awareness of the particular reality to which you speak of and to. It does appear there is a sizable and growing interest in reviving much from this particular era of history and to having the many accept it as viable and attention-worthy, yet don't understand the need of anyone to relate what happened then to what is happening now, as it is only those who perceive history as repeatable and would strive to use this perceived "insider-information" to manipulate that repetition to their own ends who attempt such folly. Regardless of the total number, and the accepted numbers of "how" they specifically departed, it can and should be seen as a lesson in how desperation caused by others can effect many and give rise to opportunistic potentials to appear to have more authority than they should ever be assumed to have. The "winner writes the history" is a given and so should preclude any serious thought or comment on such subjects as it has been manipulated and so no actual "anything" can come from it's study or discussion, other than attempting to define a way in which to prevent such initial manipulation, and so have meaningful and productive discussion on said topics.
The fact and irrefutable truth that "things" are manipulated, and continue to be so, is all one needs to move forward. All else is simply guessing at and reaching for straws, or trying to steer such, and adding to the already perilous confusion present today. I would assume anyone wanting their discussions to be taken seriously would present them in a suitable fashion and at a time they would be reasonably understood and conscientiously accepted, not lobbed into the fray as might a "Potato-Masher" to see what might become of it's effects and if these might be useful to the "lobbying"! (Pun intended)
Sounds like you just have thought allergies and can't read things without being worried about what someone is trying to pull over on you. My words are just what they are dude. My introductory moderation announcement isn't being coy about what I will delete, and I defy anyone to justify why the delineated content could have anything to say other than "stop looking at it that way, that's not the real issue." Well so what then. Don't comment at all if that's what you think.
You see what I mean, right? You open an account at a blogging site where discussion is the coin of the realm and I come along and find your topic very interesting, so offer my thoughts and opinions and looking forward to your reply. It's as if you want insincere adoration and not absolute honesty and personal opinion. You seem to take great offense from the latter with the typical attitude and passive aggressive cowardice in much the same contradictory style as your conditional access being imposed upon an open forum environmental space. Your shock and confusion seem genuine, but I can't imagine anyone being so oblivious to their surroundings. Perhaps if you practiced having a backbone, being more situationally aware and not being frightened to discuss your work, you might actually come across the way you perceive yourself to. I've a good sense that what you really wanted to say to me was quite hostile and, at least in thought, potentially violent, or more likely, you completely misjudged my character and thought a few impatiently hissed dismissals would intimidate me intellectually and, as I scurried away in ignorant terror, so stroke your unbelievably effeminate and fragile ego. Likely why you chose the latter. If you meant, "Fuck Off, Asshole!" you should have had the guts to say so and saved us both the time and effort. I'm not a hater or bully by nature. Just the opposite, really, and so hope there is something useful for you in this. Per my own thoughts on my responsibilities as a human being: You have a good natural talent in writing. You should openly invite critique, good and bad, it forges your skills as a writer. I'm just an old man who hasn't come to terms with what life has chosen to put in front of him, as such my view's delivery could well be more harsh than intended, but that in no way detracts from the content which I stand by and do hope you find some usefulness in. Oh... punctuation! Embrace it, it's empowering! Sincerely, One wanna-be writer to another writer!
You're somewhat right about that, but I don't call them thought allergies. They're too disturbingly real. I call them diagnosis, and because of such I do not trust anyone anymore. It's too easy to be perfectly clear! Moderna in mid-2021. It's hard to when you're so busy trying to outrun a bio-weapon with no documented regimen to do so. I can tell you this, when people laugh and call you names and generally show their true colors because you trusted what you've trusted you entire life and they've done you no real personal harm prior, it's not ignorant, or dumb or a thousand other things I've heard, it's just being trusting that you're own people of your own country you were born into are the same people as you are, with the same beliefs and the same agenda who subscribe to the same ideals represented in the founding principles of your same founders. You don't ever imagine the highest authority of your country will turn on you, will sell you out to the enemy in such a pathetically mundane way, for money!
So, yes, you're correct I read and listen to every nuance and look thoroughly for this same treachery, because it's all I've got to do for the short time I've left. It's all I want to do, to bring as much out in the open and to cause as much difficulty for the people who have sold out this country and murdered it's people. To expose and bring into the light as much as I possibly can before my family name is erased from this world. You wouldn't believe the clarity that comes with the extermination of hope. It's a bit naive to think that there is only one way of looking at anything, and so we should only look at everything in one possible way, with each author dictating this way to all and so closing off any real "discussion" and so asserting in such your view and opinions are absolutely correct and any other inter-related issues are unnecessary, but those you select. I don't want to seem argumentative, because that's the other alternative to open discussion, but our country is not based on those principles and what's taken place recently, and not just in our country, is more in line with the same thing you're promoting and that is, well, I think it's pretty clear now that governments, corporations and medical professionals are being made to openly discuss all the issues about their heretofore unwillingness and specifically why. I read a lot of different sub-stack's, everyday, and yours is the only one here, and in other similar sites' forums, that places conditions as a prerequisite to discussing it's content, that requires everyone to "see" it a certain way, and to accept it has within it only certain issues. The truth of anything is something that humans are specially adapted to instinctively knowing, feeling and applying intuitively their senses to and so questioning that which just doesn't "seem" right for some reason that defies reasonable explanation when first encountered and so the drilling-down begins and in this "discovery" mode we come across that which rings true and satisfies these intuitive uncertainties. It's why an unrelenting barrage of contradictory and belief-undermining information has been and is still being dumped upon everything that is American and so makes us all question ourselves continually in an ever-morphing circle of doubt and confusion, many times latching onto enemy-provided resolutions that are singularly meant to do more damage and insure America's destruction.
Just my opinions as relates to the tactics which "are" being wielded against my country. Having fell for them once with unavoidable consequence, I'll question every single anything I come across, because as cowardly as the enemy is, to not declare a war yet launch one against us in such an insidiously deadly way, I would in fact be those things I've been called should I not respond exactly as I am. To not comment at all would be to lie down and accept defeat and mean nothing to anyone, myself especially! I'm just not that kind of person. My dying gasp will be used in exposing, retaliating and should I be fortunate enough, beating them at their own game. As is evidenced by their own handiwork, they are fantastic copy-cats, but not so great at invention, innovation or adaptation. Again, just my opinions and being said, concluded. They are offered for what you might see fit to do with them, or nothing at all. They aren't offered to change you or your work, but just to add to the thought processes and resources you have to draw upon in creating your work, if you so choose, and maybe - maybe not, making it that much better. I believe all writers have a passion to create the best, most emotionally moving and/or factually unassailable works possible. A lot of years past I wanted to be such a writer, but could hardly afford it and so pursued a job instead. I remember it, and what it took. I don't mean to be offensive, just provocative. I have noticed lately my memory is getting raggedy and I'm straining to pull things from memory rather than simply access them at will. I keep a log so I'll hopefully notice when the time arrives that I'm no longer able to trust myself and might be more hindrance than help. I don't think I'm there yet, but this is all uncharted territory, too! I've always been tell it as I see it and kind of blunt in that, so again just my opinion and a little background to maybe offer some knowledge of why. Best to you and yours...
The Holocasst, the contention that Hitler and the Nazis were responsible for mass genocide by gas chamber has no evidence to support it. Zero, nada, none. Accept we have been lied to and let's move on to the next lie. All your analysis of psychology and other various details are a distraction. Focus should be where we are today as a result of being lied to. Where do we go from here?
The porn friendly Berlin in the 20s till 1933 created a family unfriendly environment, just like we have today. Who owns the businesses and corporations that promote sick behavior? Who owns Hollywood? Can you guess who owns the porn businesses? The child sacrafice and organ harvesting business? I can only make assumptions based on Talmudic morality. My other assumption is high level bankers are familiar with Talmudic morality. Christians; probably not.
Who is it that are paying to see the trash pumped out by Hollywood? Who are the porn consumers? Who are traveling to China to get Uighur kidneys? Do you have demographic info?
I only speculate on the producers. The consumers are another issue. They are social engineering victims.
Are you a Talmud consumer? Do you know what it is about?
I am familiar with the Talmud. What I don't agree with is that the consumers are all hapless victims who don't realize that they are consuming trash. I reject the victim depiction of a nation of free people who really are capable of better.
Are you familiar with "Idiocracy"?
I don't watch movies much anymore. Mostly trash, right? I don't consume TV either.
Hitler kicked the pornographers out of Berlin along with the parasitic banks. He created a family friendly environment and the Germans flourished as a result of his efforts. The pornographers are back in spades and the US is declining morally. They are pushing gay story time on children. Disgusting end of empire kind of stuff.
If you are familiar with the Talmud, then you are aware of the Talmud's position on goyim. It is fine to lie, cheat, steal, whatever you wish as long as a goyim is the victim. A fellow Jew is taboo. I look forward to Mel Gibson's movie exposing human trafficking in Ukraine.
This video is a good summary of what is going on today and who is behind it.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/x0p12VOJudQw/