(10-01-2015 01:28 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:41 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  Alright, but what does that have to do with the current invasion?

I don't know, I'm sort of getting convinced that this guy is deliberately trying to stir up trouble like that plant at Trump's rally last week.

Yeah, you absolutely need to stop letting the buzzwords cow you into submission, but Hitler apologia isn't going to help either and is going to give the enemy ammunition.

Meanwhile, I saw someone saying that Germany's constitution basically mandates that anyone who can claim refugee status will be given asylum, without regard to number.

Can any German members here validate this?

Some were saying that Merkel was very reluctant but her hands were tied legally as to what she could do.

Though I'm not sure I buy this because the answer is very simple - defend Europe's borders and stop the boats from coming.

I have no reason to doubt his sincerity but it's ultimately a waste of time and a distraction. Learn what caused the losers to lose and how the winners won and move on. I guess my point is that National Socialism is not going to come back with its name and its dead leaders and save the day. People need to stop looking to the past and lost causes and start forming something of our own to fight with in the present and for the future. The authentic old religions and the old nationalistic politics in much of the West are, for all intents and purposes, dead. We cannot go back. We must move the wheel forward in the direction we want it to go. We need our own traditions and our own identity with our own people. Our own clans, institutions, and networks so that when/if these houses of cards finally fall we'll have something to replace it with.

By the way, I'm sure most of us have noticed but it should be pointed out again that the centers of the three Abrahamic religions: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Vatican are all trying to push this invasion into Europe and America.

Bah, I just saw this come across on my facebook feed, with ofcourse many likes from my #lookatmeIlikerefugees 'friends'. The leftist propaganda continues; from 'Humans of New York', who now illogically will devote their time collecting stories from the immigrant crisis in Europe (added some characters to make it less findable):

“A friend called me at work and told me that a sniper had shot my youngest brother. I rushed to the clinic and he was lying there with a bandage on his head. I unwrapped the bandage to help treat the wound with alcohol, and small pieces of brain were stuck to it. The doctor told me: ‘Unless you get him to Damascus, he will die.’ I panicked. The road to Damascus went straight through Raqqa and was very dangerous. b It took ten hours, because we could only take back roads and we had to drive very far out of the way. My brother was in the back seat, and after a very short time a he started to vomit bile. Water was pouring from his eyes. d I didn’t know what to do. I was so scared. I thought for sure he was dying. But somehow I got him to the hospital. He’s paralyzed g now and his speech is slow. His memory is OK. f He can remember old things. He needs an z operation in his eye. We used to do everything together, and now he can’t do anything. He can only move his hand. I’m trying to get him to Germany because I hear that maybe the doctors there can help him.”
(Lesvos, Greece)

There's little love for the Catholic Church here but I would suggest reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church for better understanding of not only this issue but most points of religious contention. The book is an encyclopedia of sorts, compiling all key beliefs and traditions of the Church into a single resource acceptable for spiritual teaching and authority. The Pope's public messaging, from immigration to acceptance of gays, is meant to appeal to a broader secular audience without directly contradicting Church doctrine and theology. As I've said in other threads, it's PR symbolism and marketing; he hasn't changed any core belief.

Quote:The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

So where is the line drawn? What separates charity (which is a legitimate moral duty of Christians, whether they want to admit it or not) from protecting the common good? The notion that Christians must care for those in need is clear; the issue is then reduced to determining which of these people deserve help (a very small fraction of those entering, by most accounts), along with the best manner to help them. Regardless, the nation, its laws, and its spiritual traditions, are to be protected.

http://therightstuff.biz/2015/09/29/on-t...n-borders/

Further on this, you'll notice that the Pope speaks privately with individuals on key matters of faith. For example, the lady sentenced to jail for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses met with him privately. The Pope is changing the messaging of the Church and breathing fresh life into it from a purely marketing perspective, while remaining true to the original beliefs and addressing them one-on-one.

The lesson to be learned from Hitler is that he lost to the Talmuds and now they are taking revenge upon his people.

And what the Talmuds are doing to Europe can easily happen to any country, especially in the West, so if you don't act against these interests it is only a matter of time before you lose your culture to invaders too.

The discussion of nazis, fascism, racism ext reminded me of something I read on word origins (probably on heartiste) about how racism is a relatively new word that only entered our lexicon in the 1930s, and only really began being used in conversations regarding Nazis of the times. I can't find the original article I read, maybe it was on UNZ or something, but here's a similar take

http://www.heretical.com/miscella/racism.html
"But understanding the origins of the word “racism” in Hirschfeld’s polemic also makes clear the uselessness of the word for any other purpose. No one seems ever to have used the word to describe his own ideas or ideas with which he agrees; its only application has been by the enemies of the ideas it purports to describe, and hence it has no objective meaning apart from its polemical usage. If no one calls his own ideas “racism” and its only application is to a body of ideas considered to be untrue and evil, then it has no use other than as a kind of fancy curse word, the purpose of which is simply to demonize anyone who expresses the ideas it is supposed to describe."

http://national-socialist-worldview.blog...acist.html

Racism wasn't even a concept until less than a hundred years ago, it was just the way things were in the world. People were divided by race, creed, culture in natural segments of the population.

Now under the guise of racist speech everything that can be censored, will
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was caught discussing the censorship of anti-migrant posts at the United Nations development summit Saturday while speaking with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
http://www.infowars.com/mark-zuckerberg-...ant-posts/

(10-01-2015 02:20 PM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  The discussion of nazis, fascism, racism ext reminded me of something I read on word origins (probably on heartiste) about how racism is a relatively new word that only entered our lexicon in the 1930s, and only really began being used in conversations regarding Nazis of the times. I can't find the original article I read, maybe it was on UNZ or something, but here's a similar take

http://www.heretical.com/miscella/racism.html
"But understanding the origins of the word “racism” in Hirschfeld’s polemic also makes clear the uselessness of the word for any other purpose. No one seems ever to have used the word to describe his own ideas or ideas with which he agrees; its only application has been by the enemies of the ideas it purports to describe, and hence it has no objective meaning apart from its polemical usage. If no one calls his own ideas “racism” and its only application is to a body of ideas considered to be untrue and evil, then it has no use other than as a kind of fancy curse word, the purpose of which is simply to demonize anyone who expresses the ideas it is supposed to describe."

http://national-socialist-worldview.blog...acist.html

Racism wasn't even a concept until less than a hundred years ago, it was just the way things were in the world. People were divided by race, creed, culture in natural segments of the population.

Now under the guise of racist speech everything that can be censored, will
http://www.infowars.com/mark-zuckerberg-...ant-posts/

You can thank Trotsky for the popularization of its negative connotation. His fellow travelers took the ball and ran with it, to the point that it became a dirty word and a slur to be used by every other race and idiotic white people whose greatest joy is conformism, moral, and status signaling against other whites they feel are beneath them or whom they want to scam out of money.

Here we go

http://www.unz.com/pfrost/age-of-reason/
"First, the word “racism” scarcely existed in its current sense back then. Continuous use dates from the 1920s and was initially linked to the rise of Nazism, the word itself being perhaps a translation of the German Volkismus, i.e., blood and soil nationalism. Its use in a broader sense is largely postwar and has rarely been positive or even neutral. It’s an insult. The racist must be re-educated and, if necessary, eliminated"

"Of course, an ideology doesn’t need a name to exist. Many people engaged in racial thinking without bothering to label it. As Barkan (1992, p. xi) observes: “Prior to that time [the interwar years] social differentiation based upon real or assumed racial distinctions was thought to be part of the natural order.”

"Words like “racism,” “social Darwinism,” and “hereditarianism” create the impression that a single monolithic ideology prevailed before the triumph of antiracism. Actually, the truth was almost the reverse. There was initially a wide spectrum of beliefs, as is normally the case before one belief pushes out its rivals and imposes its vision of reality. Antiracism triumphed because it was more ideological than its rivals; it possessed a unity of purpose that enabled it to neutralize one potential opponent after another. Often, the latter were unaware of this adversarial relationship and assumed they were dealing with a friendly ally.

History could have played out differently. Initially a tool in the struggle against Nazi Germany, antiracism became critically dependent on a postwar context of decolonization and Cold War rivalry. Without this favorable context, it would have had much more trouble seizing the moral high ground and locking down normal discourse. Its revival would have likely stalled at some point.

A world without antiracism could have still brought in laws against discrimination, particularly for the basics of life like housing and employment. But such efforts would have been driven not by ideology but by a pragmatic wish to create a livable society, like modern-day Singapore. In this alternate world, rational people would act rationally. They would not, for instance, be blindly sticking to antiracist principles—and insisting that everyone else do likewise—in the face of the demographic tsunami now sweeping out of Africa."


How to escape the age of mass delusion
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/08/how-...-delusion/

Propaganda is directing us leftward
"Meanwhile, the Left has been employing social psychology and depth psychology on the masses for decades. President Obama’s campaign staff was filled with social psychologists. In this context, those who believe conservatives can subsist on reason and logic alone are kidding themselves. It’s no wonder GOP leaders are caving on so many principles, and being absorbed so easily into the Left’s machine."

"Meanwhile, the power elites who now control the media, academia, and Hollywood seem to understand social psychology well enough to exploit it on a massive scale. They have engaged in psychological warfare against the private mind by inducing “collective belief formation.” There’s really nothing new here. Conditioning and nudging the masses into groupthink is a very old trick of all wannabe dictators. The bloody twentieth century is filled to the gills with examples."
"Family breakdown led to community breakdown, which we can see in the decline of trust in society. Ignorance was cultivated in the schools through political correctness and squashing free debate. The academy’s disparaging of western civilization virtually wiped out respect for any serious study of history and civics, as well as for the Socratic method and the rules of civil discourse. Political correctness sewed confusion into the language, particularly regarding identity politics. Youth are now set to be programmed for conformity through the K-12 “Common Core” curriculum mandates."

Free Speech Is the Only Antidote to Mass Delusion
"Yet as our speech becomes more restricted, we end up more separated from one another and more susceptible to mass delusions. As Meerloo wrote: “Where thinking is isolated without free exchange with other minds, delusion may follow.” He added, chillingly, “Is this not what happened in Hitler Germany where free verification and self-correction were forbidden?”"

"When it comes to brainwashing, every one of us has our breaking point. But we absolutely must push back once we understand those tactics: “The totalitarian potentate, in order to break down the minds of men, first needs widespread mental chaos and verbal confusion, because both paralyze his opposition and cause the morale of the enemy to deteriorate – unless his adversaries are aware of the dictator’s real aim.”

“The totalitarian mind is like the schizophrenic individual; it has a contempt for reality. Think for a moment of Lysenko’s theory and its denial of the influence of heredity. The totalitarian mind does not observe and verify its impressions of reality; it dictates to reality how it shall behave, it compels reality to conform to its fantasies.”

Of course, it’s really hard for control freaks to do their work on us if we are speaking freely with one another in friendship, and especially if we all understand what they are up to and can call them on it in one voice. So their first order of business is to separate us. A sense of enforced isolation is a cruel and effective tool for instilling loneliness and then delusion in people."

"After all, political correctness is primarily a tool for crushing people’s ability to have open conversations in friendship and mutual respect. In this context, it seems very much like a tool to bring all personal relationships under state control. And it shouldn’t surprise us that this is being done today in the name of equality for certain kinds of personal relationships. Tyrannies always pretend to promote the very thing they seek to destroy."

(10-01-2015 12:00 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  The answer to this migrant crisis must come from below, because it will never come from the top controlled by the elites who profit off it. Commercialism, left-wing ideology and its guilt, left-wing obsession with destroying European nations with mass immigration and corrupt capitalism's love of cheap labor, have gone a long way in destroying our nations as well as our cultural consciousness and heritage. These are the evils that have led to where we are today and they're really the same as they were then, just in different forms with different names.

The nationalist parties of Europe are the only ones who can stop this and, in extreme cases, perhaps just nationalists in the militaries of these nations who would be willing to carry out their proper role in protecting their people.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/migrant-cap-...1443711430

Quote:Migrant Cap Would Violate International Law, Says EU Official
...

But Frans Timmermans, who is in charge of defending the rule of law and fundamental rights in the EU, said such a cap would violate the bloc’s and international law.

“It is clear to me that Europe is incapable of accepting all the refugees of the world. Having said that, our international obligations and laws are very clear: Refugees who apply for asylum have the right to have their applications reviewed. Those people who have the right to asylum will get asylum and there is no cap on that,” Mr. Timmermans, vice president of the European Commission, the EU’s executive, said in a news conference.
...

Many Germans are getting increasingly worried about how all these refugees will integrate into society. A survey published Thursday shows that 51% of respondents said that integration won’t work, while 43% said it would be a success. In eastern Germany, where anti-immigrant sentiment is more widespread, 68% were convinced that refugees can’t get integrated. The survey, conducted by TNS Emnid institute, asked 1,008 people between Sept. 26 and Sept. 28.

Timmermans exists in a vacuum where the laws of nature and logic are suspended.

At one time he fears that Jews are leaving Europe due to greater danger to their lives:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30924276

And another time he claims that millions of Muslim migrants must not be refused and Europe is forced to review their asylum claim. Fuck you really - that "review" is happening after the hordes have crossed the borders, so it's tantamount to a robber coming into your house and then asking for money. No problem - he will just wait until you go open your safe.


Above: migrants at München Hauptbahnhof:

Quote:All Men. Far and wide, no wife and no children to see. The Merkel administration has imported a deadly threat to Germany

Yup - Germany will indeed be safer although the stats are not really confirming that.

(10-01-2015 01:28 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Meanwhile, I saw someone saying that Germany's constitution basically mandates that anyone who can claim refugee status will be given asylum, without regard to number.

Can any German members here validate this?

There are criteria what make you a refugee. For example those ones from Serbia, Macedonia, Albania and so on get denied the status as refugee in 99,9% of cases.
Also when you are from a "save" country, its hard to get status as refugee. Thats why now so many claim to be syrians.

More an issue is that many of those that get denied are not get deported. Even the EU criticise Germany for that.
Well its an very unpopular decision and create a lot of left wing media attention when you deport someone. But the government pass a new law that should make it more ease to deport people.

Also in the last week the opinion to Merkels politic is changing fast. More and more Germans are concerned about all the violence in the refugee camps. And we get only a little of whats really going on.
Gang activities, rape of women and children, drugs and a lot more.

How's Durangotang not banned yet? He's literally glorifying Hitler.

(10-02-2015 03:00 AM)Saladin Wrote:  How's Durangotang not banned yet? He's literally glorifying Hitler.

Because we are all going to be glorifying Hitler in a few months if this migrant invasion continues like this.

(10-02-2015 03:37 AM)spalex Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 03:00 AM)Saladin Wrote:  How's Durangotang not banned yet? He's literally glorifying Hitler.

Because we are all going to be glorifying Hitler in a few months if this migrant invasion continues like this.

As Vox Day says, when 'respectable' politicians refuse to even acknowledge your issues, you turn towards 'unrespectable' ones.

(10-01-2015 01:28 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 09:41 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  Alright, but what does that have to do with the current invasion?

I don't know, I'm sort of getting convinced that this guy is deliberately trying to stir up trouble like that plant at Trump's rally last week.

Yeah, you absolutely need to stop letting the buzzwords cow you into submission, but Hitler apologia isn't going to help either and is going to give the enemy ammunition.

Meanwhile, I saw someone saying that Germany's constitution basically mandates that anyone who can claim refugee status will be given asylum, without regard to number.

Can any German members here validate this?

Some were saying that Merkel was very reluctant but her hands were tied legally as to what she could do.

Though I'm not sure I buy this because the answer is very simple - defend Europe's borders and stop the boats from coming.

I don't think that's true. The german constitution only defines the basic right of Political Asylum which is granted to about 1-2% of the asylum seekers.

The constitution even allows to send them back when they enter the country via save countries and EU member states.

The situation becomes a bit more complicated when it comes to people getting war refugee status. The forrest of legal regulations in Germany is very confusing. There are a lot of laws but as for now I couldn't find a hint that we inevitably have to take these people. Since Germany is surrounded by save countries and EU states we could theoretically send them back to where they came from.

It's all just a matter of political will and at the moment Merkel and her bunch are simply not willing to do what's necessary.

Quote:How's Durangotang not banned yet? He's literally glorifying Hitler.

The entire anti-White leftist worldview is hinged on the rejection of National Socialist principles. I can see from your profile you would have a (naturally understandable) gut reaction to opinions that don't directly condemn these viewpoints.

It's fair to reconsider what narratives of the time period were legitimately wrong, or merely distorted and exploited to suit the political interests of Allied victors. For example, Holocaust guilt was leveraged to justify the creation of Israel by Zionists that exerted great influence in global affairs long before the Nazis came to power. Following the social movements of the 1960's, terms like "racism" and "xenophobia" were created to demonize self-advocacy by Whites, and weaken their countries through mass immigration.

Step out of your comfort zone. Ask uncomfortable questions even if they lead to uncomfortable truths.

(10-02-2015 03:37 AM)spalex Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 03:00 AM)Saladin Wrote:  How's Durangotang not banned yet? He's literally glorifying Hitler.

Because we are all going to be glorifying Hitler in a few months if this migrant invasion continues like this.

Also he brings interesting and intelligent content and isn't some kind of Nazi pinhead who rides on the moronic "Jewish question" and race issue non-stop like some broken plate.

Truth is not afraid of examining the data of even extreme fellows. We don't have to agree with his opinion on Hitler to examine his claims. That is how the brilliant historian Irwing got burned - simply because he found out during 10 years of research that a lot of the historical so-called fact on the Nazis and the Holocoust were false and that you could easily verify it by going through the concentration camp records, eyewitness accounts etc. The Germans were minute in their documentations. He uncovered the good and the bad - he saw the mass killings of entire Jewish villages by the German army in countries like the Ukraine or Russia, but he also saw that almost all of the claims about the concentration camps were lies. And the funny thing is that there were Jewish researchers who came to the same conclusions. His research literally destroyed his career and that's why it took him 10 years to publish his findings, because he knew that he would turn from world-acclaimed historian to a quack on the day of the publication. He did it nonetheless and his findings were not as terrible frankly - he still stated clearly that 3-4 mio. Jews died in the war in various circumstances and that the Germans did terrible things often enough. But no - that was not a sufficiently terrible Holocoust - you have to stick to the official narrative of 6 mio., mass gas chambers, lamp shades out of human skin and all Germans being terrible Nazis back then.

Honestly guys here will have a harder time defending the mainstream media opinion - be it for the "refugees" - while others find plenty of credible data that this does not work out. I would rather accept the 1.5 million Ukrainian refugees who are currently displaced in the Ukraine than those male hordes. Also those are real refugees with the majority being women and children. I could virtually guarantee you that those people would integrate well in Europe (aside from the fact that you would decrease the sausage fest that way instead of increasing it in the current invasion).

That is why the elite loves to use words like Nazi or racist - it essentially shuts you down and you are not even to examine the evidence. They use words like misogynist for men like Roosh or Rollo Tomassi, so that other men should not even take a look at their stuff when gender relations are concerned. And it works! Most men still reject the Red Pill and even more reject Game. So I would say that the feminine imperative and the feminism is effective at brainwashing men.

The very same tricks are being used by the media now to shut down any debate on the immigrants:

"Aren't you a good Christian?" As a matter of fact I am no longer Christian, left the faith, but was raised Catholic.
"Where is your compassion?" Excellent, thank you. I have compassion when it feels right and the sword when that feels right too - like a Zen monk.
"Why do you side with the Nazis? Are you one of them?" No and no - we share some opinions, but if the Nazis believe in gravity I am not going to stop believing in it just because they do.
"Are you a racist or an islamophobe?" No and no - I barely point out the weaknesses in Islam, but I do so too in the Christian faith as well as Judaism. That is just common sense frankly.
"Are you an anti-semite as well like some of the men demonstrating against it?" No. I like the character and resilience of the Jewish faith and respect their achievements and discipline - also am in favor of their k-selected, intellectual breeding approach. Would not even mind converting if a cute Jewish girl strikes my fancy. Still won't accept mindless dogma as my mental point of origin.
"Are going vote for the "Neonazis" now?" Yes - if I have to, because no one else seems to be willing to stop some of the madness.

(10-02-2015 06:50 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 03:37 AM)spalex Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 03:00 AM)Saladin Wrote:  How's Durangotang not banned yet? He's literally glorifying Hitler.

Because we are all going to be glorifying Hitler in a few months if this migrant invasion continues like this.

Also he brings interesting and intelligent content and isn't some kind of Nazi pinhead who rides on the moronic "Jewish question" and race issue non-stop like some broken plate.

The problem with his "interesting and intelligent" content is that it's completely off-topic. It's not reasonable to expect people to take the time and effort it requires to debunk holocaust denial, Hitler cock-sucking, and conspiracy theories about all-powerful Jewish cabal that's mind-controlling all the politicians in Europe in the midst of a discussion that isn't supposed to be about any of those things.

It's perfectly possible to discuss Jewish and Zionist influence on government and media without Holocaust denial, without sucking Hitler's cock, and without using 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon logic to justify its relevance to the migration crisis.

Just to be clear, I am not arguing for ban, just that we not crud up the thread with anti-semitism and flamebait topics unless there's a clear and straightforward connection to be demonstrated.

(10-02-2015 06:50 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  That is how the brilliant historian Irwing got burned - simply because he found out during 10 years of research that a lot of the historical so-called fact on the Nazis and the Holocoust were false and that you could easily verify it by going through the concentration camp records, eyewitness accounts etc. His research literally destroyed his career and that's why it took him 10 years to publish his findings, because he knew that he would turn from world-acclaimed historian to a quack on the day of the publication.

What's the title of the book?

This thread has probably revealed more uncomfortable truths than any other.

This whole event, the news surrounding it, and my own personal research as well as the contributions of others here has made me understand many different things that I was too brainwashed to understand before.

That is exactly why I don't want to censor it, it shouldn't just be focused on what's happening but what has caused it.
Also people should stop using words like 'racism' and 'anti semitism' to encourage censorship.
Read just two posts above you, "Following the social movements of the 1960's, terms like "racism" and "xenophobia" were created to demonize self-advocacy by Whites, and weaken their countries through mass immigration".

I think it's time more people understood the true meaning behind these words.

(10-02-2015 04:33 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  The entire anti-White leftist worldview is hinged on the rejection of National Socialist principles. I can see from your profile you would have a (naturally understandable) gut reaction to opinions that don't directly condemn these viewpoints.

Perhaps, but that argument can be made without directly defending the Nazis or Hitler. The policies that made Nazi Fascism what it was, were specific to that era and those circumstances. While interesting to study from an intellectual perspective, for the purposes of a discussion like this it would make far more sense to argue those principles in abstract. Directly injecting Nazis into the discussion is a huge distraction at best. Nobody here was name-calling, nobody here was trying to use guilt-by-association to discredit arguments. There's no need to provoke those "gut reactions" by tossing in pro-Hitler and pro-Nazi rhetoric into the discussion

I also disagree with the premise-- that the entire anti-White leftist worldview hinges on rejection of National Socialist principles. Current anti-white narratives get ammunition from as far back as the colonial period or the crusades. In my experience Western Imperialism is a far more common guilt-bludgeon used against Whites than anything related to the Nazis.

Quote:It's fair to reconsider what narratives of the time period were legitimately wrong, or merely distorted and exploited to suit the political interests of Allied victors. For example, Holocaust guilt was leveraged to justify the creation of Israel by Zionists that exerted great influence in global affairs long before the Nazis came to power.

Again that is a whole separate topic. Barging into a discussion about the current migrant crisis and throwing down an "everything you ever knew about the Holocaust is wrong!" is not the best way to bring this up. I followed one of durangotang's links about the Leuchter report. What a waste of time. It's about a guy who was perhaps unjustly persecuted for publishing holocaust denial books. The Leuchter report was researched and created specifically to defend this guy in court. Maybe it's useful for arguing that Ernst Zündel maybe shouldn't be sent to prison for his book. As an argument that actually debunks the commonly accepted truths about the Nazi extermination camps, it is laughable.

And the relevant point is that diving into the minutiae of holocaust denial propaganda to defend commonly accepted truths is a losing battle. Deniers have been at it for years, there's no way anyone here will have time to address and debunk everything that needs to be debunked. There's virtually no relevance between Zündel and the migrant crisis. None. At best, it is evidence supporting the idea that Western countries are overly sensitive about the Holocaust, and speech protections in Germany and Canada aren't very strong. And that is something you can just say. I certainly wouldn't question that.

Quote:Following the social movements of the 1960's, terms like "racism" and "xenophobia" were created to demonize self-advocacy by Whites, and weaken their countries through mass immigration.

Regardless, both terms have clear and useful definitions. Racism is simply defined as persecution of someone based on preconceived opinions about their race not based on actual experience. Xenophobia is intense dislike of foreigners. That's also a word for a real phenomenon.

What they were "created for" is not particularly relevant. What's relevant is the dissonance between what those words convey how people actually use them. The problem is people calling things racism that aren't. The problem is people calling out xenophobia that isn't. The problem is inability of people to understand qualitative and subtle definitions in favor of extreme, black-and-white judgements.

Quote:Step out of your comfort zone. Ask uncomfortable questions even if they lead to uncomfortable truths.

I don't mind stepping outside the conform zone, but there's a time and a place. I am following this thread to keep up on news of the European Migrant crisis, not to see how it's all the fault of the Jews and the holocaust didn't happen.

What do forum members think is the best way to enlighten friends or colleagues about this, as a counter to the manipulative emotional propaganda on the media?
Almost everything I've tried so far hasn't worked and has left me deflated and frustrated, having to bite my lip/stop from typing on occasions, so as not to 'offend' people with some hard facts.

Social media:
Forget it, I've tried and failed, 90% of people either prefer holiday/baby pics or are quite(sometimes very) negative about anything which isn't completely pro-migration/invasion.

Blog:
Again, anyone who's interested enough in blogging or online stuff is nearly always coming from the liberal side, and so react negatively to anything I say that questions the narrative.

Email contact with friends/colleagues:
Can be time consuming and can also be met with opposition, but does appear to meet with a better reception than going online.

Face to face:
I've had limited success with this, but some failures too, but at least nobody seems to be hostile when you bring it up in person, to me this appears to be the best way to engage peoples' minds about this, with little chance of people flying off the handle and becoming antagonistic like is wont to happen online.

Amity, you are too benelovent and good-hearted. You are coming into the discussion with a rational point of view - that these people are just misinformed and will improve once they see the facts for themselves. But they won't. They have already made an emotional decision based on an overwhelming amount of propaganda, and their reaction to facts is visceral disgust, not curiosity and openness towards changing their minds.

The correct approach is not to lay out the facts for them to pick up, but to mock and ridicule anyone spreading the bullshit. Point out their hypocrisy, highlight their lack of logic. Use their own catchphrases and motivations against them. They won't be convinced personally, but reading your discussion, a hundred others will. Someone being shamed leads to a far larger loss of face than someone being proven wrong. Use it to your advantage.

As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Here are a few useful ripostes to common propaganda:

"Angela Merkel is doing her best to help refugees and should be admired."
"Then why does this same Angela Merkel have 13 USA bases in her country?"

"Viktor Orban is intimidating people with barbed wire."
"Since when is politely asking people to use legal border crossings intimidating?"

"Germany has an aging population and a low unemployment rate and needs more workers and young people."
"Why doesn't it invite poor Greeks or Spaniards to come over? Are you saying they're not human beings too? You racist!"

etc etc

(10-02-2015 07:37 AM)Blaster Wrote:  Just to be clear, I am not arguing for ban, just that we not crud up the thread with anti-semitism and flamebait topics unless there's a clear and straightforward connection to be demonstrated.

What exactly is the anti-semitism in the thread?

Not trying to be snarky - just want to better understand.

Is it Durongatang's posts? Is it the content of those posts? Is the content of some of them?

Secondly - here's some thought crime for you. Why is it called Anti-Semitism instead of Anti-Jewish?

Seems like a redundantly complicated word.

G

Quote:What exactly is the anti-semitism in the thread?

Here's one example: https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-50253...pid1122576

Blaming, stereotyping, derogatory labeling.

But seriously, I'm not going to go through durangotang's posts to explain each aspect of Jew-bashing present. The whole point is that it's not important and not relevant. He has not included any but the flimsiest logic to convince me otherwise, so I have no intention to waste any more time trying to consume all the material he's spammed into the thread.