What this has missed is the openly genocidal potential in the various Jihadist movements within Islam. Already the death tolls they have elicited far exceed their formal military power and social-economic-technological achievements. They are the new-old look genocidaires operating in coalitions of fanatical believers but adept at linking up with modern western social justice-victimhood narratives. They are currently focussed on the all-purpose scapegoat of aggressive malcontents, tyrants and sadists, namely the Jews. After that they will come for the soft targets in the West. They are and will continue to have Western supporters who may (or may not) like religion but will certainly be attracted to bullying and sadism.
You are right that I missed religious thinking, but that is because I was narrowly concerned with ideologies in the kind of Western sense. Islam is sort of a combination of religious views and politics in a single worldwide. While a lot of terrorism has been done in this name, the death count seems relatively small compared to the usual communist famines.
I take your point but I have a broader view of ideologies - something along the lines of mobilising/justifying narratives (a la Dan Williams). Jihadism in practice is a real hybrid of the worst of religious and secular. If one did a careful tally of the death, stunting and destruction in its name, I'm sure it's considerable. The question is whether one can strip it of its toxic elements so as to be compatible with a liveable world? I suspect Ayaan Hirsi Ali would say no. One other point. I wonder what living for say 1500 years in such cultures can do to the gene pool? See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513824000904 (...and others). And what implications that may have for the future?
That’s all fine and good but they’ve got nothing on the Jews, because they don’t control western media and finance. Jewish interests are able to motivate the west to war, as they did in 1939 and all out various gulf wars. Islam has a lot of emotion in it, but with little practical influence on the west. Personally I don’t care what happens in the Middle East, I care that my government and media is run by a small cadre from one specific religion.
As a non-European and non-Jew, I think of the Ashkenazi Jewish as simply a version of Northern Europeans if they had continued a bit more in the path towards greater intelligence and pro-sociality (at least, the kind of pro-sociality that leads to solidarity with social justice movements; it's not "scheming" either given that Jewish people intermarry at a very high rate). Just as with Northern Europeans, I view this tendency as naive, but quite literally the opposite of evil.
I believe that there are two main kinds of negative racial stereotypes (I don't have evidence for this so Emil could very well prove me wrong; in fact, he probably has already touched on this making this comment redundant lol): those made by people of "lower" social status about "higher" status people, and those made by people of "higher" social status about "lower" status people. The latter are usually unfortunately often true: People complain about crime, lack of pro-social values, lower intelligence, etc. I think that people have less motivation to lie/deceive themselves in that case (I don't think the pull from having someone to look down on is as strong as jealousy). On the contrary, the former often arises from jealousy. It is perfectly self-serving: you can insult/attack them and feel self-righteous about it.
Every time I see Anti-Semitic, Anti-Chinese, Anti-White comments I just imagine the poster with the word "seething" stamped on his head. I won't even debate with such commenters because I see them for what they are.
Successful minorities seem to be generally stereotyped as greedy, scheming etc., but rarely as just being smarter. Apparently, a case of stereotype accuracy failure.
Not sure about other cases, but in Poland this seems not to have been true - “mądry jak Żyd” vs. “goyische kop.” Donald Horowitz claims (Ethnic Groups in Conflict, The Deadly Ethnic Riot) that positive stereotypes about advanced groups are common, but I can’t vouch for his assessment outside of Poland.
Your analogy between northern Europeans and Jews is not entirely correct. Northern Europeans are much less ethnocentric than Jews.
In addition, Jews don't have that many interethnic marriages, considering their numbers. When you are a minority under 1% of the population and have a high IQ, it is not surprising that you have a high rate of interethnic marriages, even if in fact, as an ethnic group, you are quite clearly striving for endogamy.
They’re not pro-social. They’re incapable of getting along with anyone, ever. It’s not “all of us” that’s their problem, their problem is that they’ve never been able to play nicely with others. You don’t get kicked out of hundreds of countries because you’re good for society.
Hmmm, some rando antisemite and all of his fellow travelers, or, the Nobel Prize Committee? You believe whatever you want to. I've got a Mensa membership to renew.
You are wasting virtual ink debating that guy. Moreover, you are not offering him anything in return. For most people, the truth doesn't actually mean anything by itself. What does he gain by believing you? Most people will (unconsciously) believe things that help them feel better about the world, themselves, and/or fit in.
What I wrote above is actually terribly unconvincing to most people because it doesn't offer things most people would find comforting. I wrote it here because this is a pretty rational-centric blog. The only emotionally comforting thing someone could carry from what I said is probably feeling good about not being irrational.
I wasn't familiar with it. Yes, as I wrote, communism is more deadly, but usually from incompetence (the ideology does not work as an economic system) rather than direct motivations to kill large numbers of enemies (though communism requires a totalitarian system with severe oppression). Insofar as intent matters for moral evaluations, some deaths have to be discounted.
The main grudge the Nazis had with the Jews was that they were spreading communism, which in Germany was roughly the case. Around half of the November Revolution leadership was Jewish, and if I remember correctly more than half of the Frankfurt School. Although Germany likely would have lost the war regardless, the November Revolution probably made things much worse at the negotiating table. This was the reasoning behind the Holocaust as well. The Jews in Eastern Europe were killed because the Germans did not want to waste grain in them, and furthermore because they believed them to be a partisan threat. Which is reasonable, considering Nazi Germany was outspokenly antisemitic and Jews didn’t have much to lose. A better meme to blame for the Holocaust is the Nazi agnosticism of the civilian-soldier divide in war. They saw only a minor difference between killing a red army soldier, and killing a civilian. Perhaps even killing a soldier was worse, because being a soldier implied to them a sort of martial virtue.
I don’t think ideologies kill people, I think people kill people. Nothing about Tsarism screams genocide, but Tsarist generals oversaw one of the most successful genocides in recorded history because they thought Circassians were savages. No race scientist or theologian was needed to justify it with wordcel yappings.
The Circassian genocide was in fact justified by race-science and Russian Orthodox messianism, so your inference doesn't get off the ground. Late Tsarism, like the late Ottoman empire had, in fact, many of the qualities that 'scream genocide', notably being a large multi-racial empire in chronic decline desperate to do anything to stave it off and a hive of lunatic extremist ideologues promising to do just that.
The Frankfurt School wasn't formed until 1923, so probably didn't have much to do with the German defeat in WW1. If Nazis had wanted to simply kill communists, they probably could have just killed communists. My suggestion is that when Nazi ideologues constantly emphasized that their goal was a war of extermination against Jews that they meant it.
Jews are pretty much the only ethnicity without any serf or peasant blood in it. And therefore represent humanity’s most pure nobility. Hail, Judaea, hail!
The Jews of the Pale where immeasurably more literate, intelligent, and sophisticated than the other denizens of the Pale. I suppose being a Jew in Eastern Europe was very much like being an intelligent kid who has to dumb down among stupid normies. Pretending you care about Beyonce, etc.
Some. But to suggest there was no peasant blood among them is absurd. This even manifested in the U.S. as waves of shtetl Jews from the Pale migrated into the U.S. and caused major cringe among the Jewish elite who had migrated from Western Europe previously.
I'm not saying Pale Jews had great style and manners imparted upon them. But they were definitely devoid of peasant-culture features such as deep conformism, superstition, stupidity, etc.
Ashkenazi Jews are around 15% Eastern European, and I suspect this 15% corresponds to Polish-Lithuanian peasants who wanted to escape their abysmal condition. The Polish Gentry preferred Jews to their own serfs
There is a difference between Tsarism the ideology, and the Tsarist state as it existed. The Circassian Genocide was inspired by racial biases but not by some specific piece of race science that was novel. By this logic you could say the Romans killed 9/10ths of Carthage, or burned down Judea, due to “race science”. Orthodox Christianity does not promote genocide in ordinary circumstances, even though the genocide was partially sparked by religious differences
Frankfurt school had nothing to do with WWI but a lot to do with German leftism in the 20s, as well as other things the Nazis viewed as degenerate trends like certain art trends. My counter-argument is that Hitler’s continuous support for the Haavara Agreement and private memoirs discussing resettlement of the Jews well into the war and even past Wansee were not some sort of ruse
I think most Nazi supporters hated Jews because they accepted the charge that they were to blame for Communism, but the Nazi inner circle had the reverse view: Communism was bad because it came from Jews. This is why a pact with the Soviet Union became conceivable as Stalin gradually purged Jews from the Bolshevik party (even though over precisely that period, Communism got worse from the perspective of normal people who object to mass murder). Hitler himself was legitimately a nutjob and it's genuinely hard to know what he really thought.
It is a factual statement that the holocaust had a better communist/non-communist kill ratio than we achieved in viet nam.
And after you watched a majority-Jewish NKVD officer corps exterminate 20 million civilians right next door to you, and those people are now coming for you, the motivations are more justified
Going off the available math it appears that Jews exterminated more humans in the 20th century than they themselves were killed. They’re as much perpetrators of genocide as they are victims of it.
In the real world, it was watching Soviet atrocities against Ukrainians, which happened amidst a large, and partially deliberate, reduction in the number of Jews in the Communist Party and regime, that convinced Hitler that the Soviet Union wasn't so bad and he could work with it.
No doubt many ordinary Germans who supported Nazism genuinely believed in Nazi propaganda to the effect that Communism was a front for Jewry, and thus allowed themselves to descend to the level of beasts. So that's a good argument for not naively accepting propaganda.
The Nazis did kill a lot of communists, but being a communist is a transient state. One can leave communism and because much of the Bazi base had at some point been communists, rounding up all former communists was not feasible
That’s easy to say, until you’ve watched Jewish communists liquidate 20 million civilians next door and then turn their eyes to you.
From the German perspective you’re just exterminating the exterminators. The Soviet NKVD is who invented the death camp, the Nazis were being “reactionary”
Yes, because those Jews were less of a partisan threat. They weren’t afraid of some Jewish philologist lecturing them to death, they were afraid of Ghetto uprisings and shtetl peasants throwing Molotov cocktails at them from the bushes
I don't know what you mean by "main sources" and I suspect you don't either, but in any case, no, the Nazis didn't, to give an example, exterminate a couple hundred thousand semi-starving men, women, and children in the Lodz ghetto because one of them might throw a Molotov cocktail.
The vast majority of those killed were members of his own ethnic group. They were not targeted due to their ethnicity, thus not genocide. He was trying to remake the country in a kind of agrarian, return to nature communism (Unabomber meets communism?).
"The moral reckoning following Nazi atrocities causes so much revulsion that westerners seem hellbent on avoiding anything remotely associated with it, even to their own ruin."
I don't think Hitler has much to do with current western moral attitudes, and I don't think there was any great reckoning after the Nazis were defeated, though there have been reckonings enough since. Massive non-white immigration to white countries (importation of slaves excepted) didn't get underway until decades after World War II ended, and Western countries, especially the United States, were perfectly willing to ally with fascist and fascist-adjacent regimes to fight communism for decades after 1945.
Progressive westerners today seem to focus on the crimes or alleged crimes of their own countries (genocide of the Native Americans, slavery, British colonialism, racism etc.) rather than Hitler's. I think there has been a moral revolution of sorts in the West, and in many ways not a good one. But I think it has roots other than revulsion against Naziism, and I think it began to really flourish only in the 1960s and 1970s.
Its explained by generational lag. It took a while for the boomers to grow up and take the reigns. Thats why you still see some "based" behaviour here and there in the West for a few more decades. West Germany for example was rife with former Nazi bureaucrats all the way till the late 60s. But generational turnover was already waiting in the wings.
Nothing is explained by generational lag. Putting aside the idiocy of applying the concept of generations, which is meaningful only in the context of families, to countries where children are born continuously in large numbers, the American baby boom generation began in 1946. The first boomers accordingly reached the age of 18 in 1964. The formative experience of the first wave of boomers was not World War II. Their formative experiences were material abundance, more relaxed standards of child rearing, Vietnam, civil rights, urban disturbances, a tidal wave of crime, liberation, feminism, widespread drug and alcohol use, etc. Those experiences are quite sufficient to explain how boomers thought and acted.
I think Emil is understating the degree to which German Jews were a "subversive" element in German society while overstating the degree to which Nazis engaged in "completely irrational and mythological thinking", but he is definitely correct that the socio-cultural impact of the holocaust after the war was tremendous and ultimately a big reason why nativism, immigration restriction, and hereditarian ideas became so taboo.
Ideas take time to form, and take even more time to be popularized, so it's not surprising that the cultural revolutions you speak of really materialized a few decades after. There is also the fact that it also took time for Jews (particularly in the United States) to succesfully introduce the holocaust as an important historical event (in their eyes naturally the most important) in education and media.
The most common and most effective negative label in politics is still to be called a "nazi" and much of politics in the West can be distilled down to every political side trying to prove how "not like Hitler" they are.
Well yes, to the extent one believes that the Elders of Zion were infecting the otherwise healthy German body politic with the bacilli of Communism, socialism, lesbianism etc. then Nazi paranoid delusions will begin to make sense.
The Nazis' creation of large factories to exterminate millions of people on a racial basis was really quite remarkable. You don't have to be a Jew, or a victim of Jewish wiles, to think that the Holocaust is a very important historical development.
The influences on the generation of the 1960s go back well before World War II, of course. Boas is when, in the teens? By the 1930s millions of people in Britain thought British rule in India was an abomination and Gandhi was a hero. But non-white immigration to the west, which didn't begin in any numbers until the late 1960s, was not some form of reparations. It began because the West needed workers, and increasingly was not breeding its own, while the non-white world was finally ceasing to be underpopulated. And the decline in birthrates in the West was not new either -- it was a continuation of trends going back centuries, and those trends have now reached the entire world.
Well, I'm not going to debate whether the political influence of Jews in pre-war Germany was positive or not as that was not the point of my comment, and I'm definitely not going to engage with a snarky strawman about "the elders of Zion".
Regardless, your second paragraph confirms my assertion. If you think that the holocaust was "quite remarkable", then it makes sense that it would become a big item of discussion, especially among Jewish academics, historians, and filmmakers. How many Holocaust-related movies has Steven Spielberg produced? George Soros' primary motivation for funding liberal institutions and NGOs was that "nothing like the holocaust should ever happen again". Does the phrase "never again" sound familiar to you?
I did not say that events or people before WW2 did not influence the left-wing movements of the '60s, but merely that the events of WW2 gave more credence to left-wing concerns about racism and nationalism - which both Jews and non-Jewish leftists used very effectively, while also making nationalism, racialism or nativist sentiment more broadly taboo.
> I think Emil is understating the degree to which German Jews were a "subversive" element in German society while overstating the degree to which Nazis engaged in "completely irrational and mythological thinking",
The Soviet Union did commit genocide, see the national operations of the NKVD.
Anyway, the death toll of communism far exceeds those of nationalists and they were generally more cruel in their tortures and killings.
Genghis Khan was not a nationalist, no one was in the thirteenth century. What the mongols did was extremely brutal but it was in accord with the customs of steppe warfare at the time. The Holocaust and communist mass killings were understood by most contemporaries including by the perpetrators as immoral and were usually done in secrecy.
They certainly weren't communists, though their degree of conservatism can be debated. A true German conservative at the time would probably be trying to restore the German kaiser to power instead of trying a new ideology.
Only in the sense that rather than the government confiscating the means of production, they merely regulated them to the point they may as well have been confiscated.
Indeed the Nazis were not communists, but neither were they conservative in most important respects. They were in fact mostly a party of the Left, having more in common with Communists than with right wing regimes, including policies and actions toward religion, labor, taxation, family and values.
Modern American liberals desperately want us to believe the Nazis were conservative, but history says otherwise.
I'm not a liberal, but I think your post is retarded. The guy linked below, who is much smarter than either of us, would also say your post was retarded, if he bothered to read it.
Pseudoerasmus would not say my post is retarded, because he is not an asshole.
He makes several good points, but on the whole, John Holbo and Jonah Goldberg - who are referenced/linked in his blog and believe German fascism was largely of the Left - have the better of the argument. None of the three would say this is a simple question with a definitive answer, nor would I. But an asshole would.
Here's another smart blogger with a different but equally interesting perspective on the issue:
You are 100% wrong about Holbo; he is clear that the Nazis were right-wing. You need to read the whole thing, again and evidently much more carefully, but the quote below should be sufficient.
"It’s impossible to narrate the ins-and-outs of the story of how the Nazis came to power without regarding them as, basically, an extreme right-wing party. There are features of Weimar politics that complicated the left-right binary. There are ways in which the Nazis defy our left-right preconceptions. But basically we can tell left from right. We know which side the Nazis were on. Basically, the Nazis were a right-wing party that tried, and failed, to sell its brand of ‘socialism’ to the working-classes, which preferred left-wing versions courtesy of the Social Democrats or Communists."
It perplexes me that the writer makes no mention of eugenics as a central tenet of Nazism. Eugenics justified mass murder and the promotion of Aryan national supremacy over other European ethnicities, such as the Slavic nations. Blood and soil. Concepts of eugenics were not explanatory afterthoughts but a fundamental pseudo-scientific effort to advance a “master race.” You need to believe them when they tell who they are. Hitler learned of eugenics from… Americans, that hotbed of racial/ethic mixing. The “mixing of races”, called “miscegenation,” was treated as a scientific justification for segregation and racial cleansing. These ideas still hold currency among some groups, and are worth examining.
The Holodomor was also not an ethnic genocide. This strange opinion is widespread in the West due to ideologically biased historians such as Timothy Snyder or Ann Applebaum. It is also partly just a way of manifesting the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.: Ukrainians like to accuse Russians of subjecting them to genocide.
There were two major famines in the USSR - under Lenin and under Stalin. Under Lenin, it affected mainly Russians living in southern Russia, and under Stalin, it affected Ukrainians, Russians, and Kazakhs.
If you don't believe me, you can read what historian Terry Martin wrote about this in his book Empire of Positive Action. Ukrainians lived on fertile lands, which is why Stalin's famine hit them so hard.
There is also an article by the Russian historian Kirill Alexandrov (but it is in Russian).:
The problem is that the famine affected the southern and eastern regions of Ukraine, where there were traditionally more Russians, as well as the regions of southern Russia where Russians lived.
In fact, the most logical conclusion that can be drawn is that the only and most successful "undemocratic" regimes are right-wing dictatorships and traditional monarchies.:
And if we talk about Russia, Ukraine, etc., it would be interesting to look at an alternative history where tsarist Russia would have survived or the Russian White Guards would have won (before 1917, tsarist Russia was similar to Japan or Spain):
Any definition that leaves out the Soviet Unions "unique" ethnic composition and policies towards the Slavic majority, but counts the Holocaust as fair, is decidedly imbalanced.
The most over-represented group in the Bolshevik party was Latvians. If, instead, of over-representation, you prefer absolute numbers, then the 72% were Russians.
In any case, the fact is that Hitler didn't attack Jews because he thought they were Bolsheviks. If he did he wouldn't have made a military pact with the Soviet Union. This was PR slop for the chuds.
I didn't think there was anyone who didn't believe the Hitler-Stalin pact was simply a matter of realpolitik. Most scholars seem to believe the Table Talk is authentic. In it AH describes Jews as "a reservoir of Bolshevism." The latest scholarship states AH showed no sign of overt anti-Semitism until 1918/1919. He reguarly sold his paintings to Jewish dealers (But were there any non-Jewish art dealers?) and he liked the Jewish doctor who cared for his mother when she was dying. of cancer. The doctor emigrated with assisted ease and went on to lead a good ife in the US. I remember reading that US intel agents inteviewed the doctor and burst out laughing after they left his residence because of the basically benign picture he presented of Adolf. But then, few people go around ranting and raving at their mother's doctor when she is dying of cancer. At least I hope not.
I stopped reading this sort of material 10-12 years ago, so I may have missed some recenr developments.
Yes, it was certainly a matter of realpolitik, but if you are genuinely engaged in a world historical struggle with X, you don't make a pact with X because of realpolitik considerations.
In Mein Kampf, he tells a story about being disgusted by the appearance of a (presumably Eastern European) Jew while in Vienna. There were many such immigrants at the time, and they were often disliked. Of course one might secretly hate Jewish art dealers and still do business to them. I have observed racial hatred of this kind in our age.
You know he wrote that book during his stint in prison in 1924. It’s said that most autiobiographies include at least a bit of historical revisionism, you’d have to be born yesterday to think otherwise.
"Of course, Mein Kampf must not be read as an autobiography in the sense of its author dealing with his own past, or as a confession in which he worked through his experiences.The book is clearly a work of political propaganda, in which a power-hungry politician on the rise buttresses his political slogans and builds them up through a fitting life story to form a weltanschauung. In Mein Kampf Hitler created an organically grown anti-Semitic career for himself with politically convenient anti-Semitic images in its key scenes. Thus the book must also be read as the developmental history of a Germanic leader who found the right when he was young.
However, reality, as it emerges from the reports of Viennese eye witnesses, has little to do with the myths Mein Kampf purports. Apart from the special case of August Kubizek, no anti-Semitic remark by the young Hitler has been documented. Reinhold Hanisch, clearly an anti-Semite, was incredulous when he heard that Hitler, of all people, was an extreme, anti-Semitic politician in the thirties. After all, Hanisch and Hitler had their falling out in the men’s hostel in 1910 because Hitler turned entirely to his Jewish friends Josef Neumann and Siegfried Löffner. In the thirties, in his anger Hanisch revealed Hitler’s youth as anything but anti-Semitic in order to discredit Hitler as a politician.
Hanisch is by no means alone in his assertions. Anonymous from Brünn also wrote, in 1912:”Hitler got along extremely well with Jews. He once said they were an intelligent people that stuck together more than the Germans.” Rudolf Häusler, the colleague in the men’s hostel, was at a loss when his daughter questioned him about the anti-Semitism of his then twenty-three- to twenty-four-year-old friend Adolf. Häusler told her that he had not noticed anything of the kind in Vienna. Yet he knew that in Munich, Hitler had thought he had been cheated by a Jewish junk dealer, which might have been a reason for Hitler’s subsequent anti-Semitism-surely no conclusive proof.
The Viennese eyewitnesses remembered unanimously that Hitler’s dealings with Jews had been quite natural. For example, Jakob Wasserberg from Galicia, who ran a small brandy store at 20 Webgasse, close to Stumpergasse, related that the young man had frequently had breakfast with him: “Mr. Wasserberg, a tea and a Laberl.” (A Laberl is a cookie.)"
Latvians have it coming to, but Jews and Mischelings stack all the leadership positions, especially the Politburo.
Even the most demented, Slav-hating genocidal state around is gonna have to hire local bureaucrats at somepoint, but the head of execution is always a Heeb.
And yet the vast majority of Jews out in the Pale had nothing to do with Bolshevism.
The majority of slave owners in the U.S. were white. Would blacks then or now have been justified in killing innocent white civilians over slavery? Let’s do Native Americans next. Be ideologically consistent please.
And no, I’m not Jewish. Just don’t wish to live by the sword you’re wielding here in the U.S.
Oh, in defense of killing Indians: it was a direct war of conquest between a settled people and largely nomadic peoples. There wasn't subversion.
The Jewish conquest of the USSR was a foreign funded coup that outwardly posed mass genocide as "liberating" and "constructive", and then *changed their fucking names to seem more Russian.* What the fuck is up with that?
Your comment is irrelevant. The majority of every population is uninvolved with their leaderships massacre in the physical sense.
I agree that a Jew with no political, economic, social or religious (i.e., that its host country is not an Abrahamic faith) power has any influence and is thus not a threat.
We are not discussing that. We are discussing what the world happily discusses. German leadership determined Jews an issue. The American leadership determined Indians a problem. Jewish leadership determined Slavs a problem. Ergo, Jews are bad for Slavs because Jewish leadership will genocide them and mid-ranked Jews will *defend their fucking actions*. Look at the Jew above. Do you see any contrition? Even acknowledgement?
I'm racist. I'm a White, Folk Nationalist. Even I accept my people wiped out the Indians. The Jews, however, only lie and deny. "It was never us!" Are you supporting that attitude?
I never advocated genocide against the Balts. It's a tragedy what happened to the entire Balto-Slavic group the last millenia. Really, they got their comeuppance a few times. Re-education and De-germanization (Americanization?) Is all that is needed.
Look, man, people don't get to act like an entire country couped by a minority and ran by that specific ethnic group for nearly the entirety of the existence of said state, who adopted *explicity* Anti-Russian campaigns (literally, "Anti Russian Supremacy), and then bragged about killing tens of millions of Russians (Slavs) of every single class *because they were Slavs*, while staffing the Commissariat *with their specific ethno religious group*. They might have hired Latvian rifleman, but go find how many heads of the KGB or NKVD or Cheka or any other elite Soviet Government and tell me how many weren't Jewish, part-Jewish, or married to a Jew.
If you call that shit pilpul then nothing counts as genocide. Just fucking own it and smile. The Turks did.
Did this son of a bitch say I was evading? You fucker. You didn't address anything I said about the upper leadership of the Soviet Union for its entire existence. As if anyone gives a shit if a Slav is staffing some paper-pusher positing at the Omsk bureau of mail. They care that Latvians are firing the rifles and Bronstein and Co. run the entire Communist Party.
It's not like a Jew would have away someone offing Jews just because they were called "Rootless Cosmopolitans" instead of "Jews", so excusing the ethnic Bolsheviks is unjust.
Genocides are mostly due to totalitarian government. In the UK we have several areas where William the Conqueror entirely depopulated the countryside - they became hunting reserves then parks.
There is only one lesson from the Holocaust and Holodomor: Totalitarianism Kills.
What is the author’s evidence for 20000 Australian aboriginals killed in a planned genocide in the nineteenth century. There were many violent confrontations and some massacres but the main cause of death was disease just as it was in the Americas.
Has anyone tested the IQs of Hutus and Tutsis? I wonder if there is a difference. I seem to recall hearing at one point that the Belgians thought the Tutsis were more intelligent and that is why they left them in charge. I'm not positive if that was their impression, though, and if it is, it wouldn't necessarily make it true. But it seems like a number of genocides and other backlash against high-status minorities tend to come against a more intelligent group that therefore ends up with a disproportionate amount of political and economic power, so that could be the case there.
The 'stereotype' that Tutsis are smarter that Hutus was ubiquitous during he colonial era. In modern times, there has been a determined effort to claim that this was all a fake colonial imposition, sometimes for quite good reasons (the current Rwandan regime is formally race-neutral, but in fact Tutsi-run, and Hutus who notice this too vociferously get arrested and never seen again). However, the reality is that any non-retarded person can tell Tutsis and Hutus apart by sight, and, yes, Tutsis are markedly more intelligent.
Interesting. I was taught in school that the Belgians arbitrarily assigned group membership and created the distinction like some kind of real life version of the Star-Bellied Sneetches. But when I years later looked up pictures of them, I realized the Tutsis very plainly look more similar to certain Ethiopian ethnic groups and the Hutus more typical of other parts of sub-Saharan Africa. Do you have any sources on the intelligence difference, even indirect stuff like educational attainment? Or on the Hutus getting vanished for noticing the Tutsi-led government?
What this has missed is the openly genocidal potential in the various Jihadist movements within Islam. Already the death tolls they have elicited far exceed their formal military power and social-economic-technological achievements. They are the new-old look genocidaires operating in coalitions of fanatical believers but adept at linking up with modern western social justice-victimhood narratives. They are currently focussed on the all-purpose scapegoat of aggressive malcontents, tyrants and sadists, namely the Jews. After that they will come for the soft targets in the West. They are and will continue to have Western supporters who may (or may not) like religion but will certainly be attracted to bullying and sadism.
You are right that I missed religious thinking, but that is because I was narrowly concerned with ideologies in the kind of Western sense. Islam is sort of a combination of religious views and politics in a single worldwide. While a lot of terrorism has been done in this name, the death count seems relatively small compared to the usual communist famines.
I take your point but I have a broader view of ideologies - something along the lines of mobilising/justifying narratives (a la Dan Williams). Jihadism in practice is a real hybrid of the worst of religious and secular. If one did a careful tally of the death, stunting and destruction in its name, I'm sure it's considerable. The question is whether one can strip it of its toxic elements so as to be compatible with a liveable world? I suspect Ayaan Hirsi Ali would say no. One other point. I wonder what living for say 1500 years in such cultures can do to the gene pool? See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513824000904 (...and others). And what implications that may have for the future?
Islam's death toll is ~270 million according to Bill Warner
http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/tears_of_jihhad.html
Give Islamic fundamentalists some nuclear weapons and you'll see just how deadly they can become very quickly.
That’s all fine and good but they’ve got nothing on the Jews, because they don’t control western media and finance. Jewish interests are able to motivate the west to war, as they did in 1939 and all out various gulf wars. Islam has a lot of emotion in it, but with little practical influence on the west. Personally I don’t care what happens in the Middle East, I care that my government and media is run by a small cadre from one specific religion.
As a non-European and non-Jew, I think of the Ashkenazi Jewish as simply a version of Northern Europeans if they had continued a bit more in the path towards greater intelligence and pro-sociality (at least, the kind of pro-sociality that leads to solidarity with social justice movements; it's not "scheming" either given that Jewish people intermarry at a very high rate). Just as with Northern Europeans, I view this tendency as naive, but quite literally the opposite of evil.
I believe that there are two main kinds of negative racial stereotypes (I don't have evidence for this so Emil could very well prove me wrong; in fact, he probably has already touched on this making this comment redundant lol): those made by people of "lower" social status about "higher" status people, and those made by people of "higher" social status about "lower" status people. The latter are usually unfortunately often true: People complain about crime, lack of pro-social values, lower intelligence, etc. I think that people have less motivation to lie/deceive themselves in that case (I don't think the pull from having someone to look down on is as strong as jealousy). On the contrary, the former often arises from jealousy. It is perfectly self-serving: you can insult/attack them and feel self-righteous about it.
Every time I see Anti-Semitic, Anti-Chinese, Anti-White comments I just imagine the poster with the word "seething" stamped on his head. I won't even debate with such commenters because I see them for what they are.
A relevant article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_content_model?oldformat=true
Successful minorities seem to be generally stereotyped as greedy, scheming etc., but rarely as just being smarter. Apparently, a case of stereotype accuracy failure.
Yes. Thomas Sowell calls them “model minorities.”
Not sure about other cases, but in Poland this seems not to have been true - “mądry jak Żyd” vs. “goyische kop.” Donald Horowitz claims (Ethnic Groups in Conflict, The Deadly Ethnic Riot) that positive stereotypes about advanced groups are common, but I can’t vouch for his assessment outside of Poland.
Your analogy between northern Europeans and Jews is not entirely correct. Northern Europeans are much less ethnocentric than Jews.
In addition, Jews don't have that many interethnic marriages, considering their numbers. When you are a minority under 1% of the population and have a high IQ, it is not surprising that you have a high rate of interethnic marriages, even if in fact, as an ethnic group, you are quite clearly striving for endogamy.
They’re not pro-social. They’re incapable of getting along with anyone, ever. It’s not “all of us” that’s their problem, their problem is that they’ve never been able to play nicely with others. You don’t get kicked out of hundreds of countries because you’re good for society.
It’s a fallacy that Ashkenazi Jews have higher average intelligence than Europeans.
The Nobel Prize Committee and the book, The Bell Curve, disagree with you.
https://youtu.be/stLCurXu0fc?si=nEgT26GuHr8WW4yY
Hmmm, some rando antisemite and all of his fellow travelers, or, the Nobel Prize Committee? You believe whatever you want to. I've got a Mensa membership to renew.
You are wasting virtual ink debating that guy. Moreover, you are not offering him anything in return. For most people, the truth doesn't actually mean anything by itself. What does he gain by believing you? Most people will (unconsciously) believe things that help them feel better about the world, themselves, and/or fit in.
What I wrote above is actually terribly unconvincing to most people because it doesn't offer things most people would find comforting. I wrote it here because this is a pretty rational-centric blog. The only emotionally comforting thing someone could carry from what I said is probably feeling good about not being irrational.
Also, are you jewish by chance? :)
No, just sound reasoning. I bet you didn't even watch the video. One word: nepotism.
In re communism
The theory is great, comrade, but the famines are to die for
https://meme.aho.st/communism/
I think there is really no doubt that in terms of 20th century ideologies communism has killed more than anything else.
BTW one genocide that seems to be omitted from the list is the Russia genocide of the Circassians in the 19th century
I wasn't familiar with it. Yes, as I wrote, communism is more deadly, but usually from incompetence (the ideology does not work as an economic system) rather than direct motivations to kill large numbers of enemies (though communism requires a totalitarian system with severe oppression). Insofar as intent matters for moral evaluations, some deaths have to be discounted.
It’s hard to justify the Ukranian terror-famine as “incompetence”.
The best piece of yours I’ve read, thank you for publishing this
The main grudge the Nazis had with the Jews was that they were spreading communism, which in Germany was roughly the case. Around half of the November Revolution leadership was Jewish, and if I remember correctly more than half of the Frankfurt School. Although Germany likely would have lost the war regardless, the November Revolution probably made things much worse at the negotiating table. This was the reasoning behind the Holocaust as well. The Jews in Eastern Europe were killed because the Germans did not want to waste grain in them, and furthermore because they believed them to be a partisan threat. Which is reasonable, considering Nazi Germany was outspokenly antisemitic and Jews didn’t have much to lose. A better meme to blame for the Holocaust is the Nazi agnosticism of the civilian-soldier divide in war. They saw only a minor difference between killing a red army soldier, and killing a civilian. Perhaps even killing a soldier was worse, because being a soldier implied to them a sort of martial virtue.
I don’t think ideologies kill people, I think people kill people. Nothing about Tsarism screams genocide, but Tsarist generals oversaw one of the most successful genocides in recorded history because they thought Circassians were savages. No race scientist or theologian was needed to justify it with wordcel yappings.
The Circassian genocide was in fact justified by race-science and Russian Orthodox messianism, so your inference doesn't get off the ground. Late Tsarism, like the late Ottoman empire had, in fact, many of the qualities that 'scream genocide', notably being a large multi-racial empire in chronic decline desperate to do anything to stave it off and a hive of lunatic extremist ideologues promising to do just that.
The Frankfurt School wasn't formed until 1923, so probably didn't have much to do with the German defeat in WW1. If Nazis had wanted to simply kill communists, they probably could have just killed communists. My suggestion is that when Nazi ideologues constantly emphasized that their goal was a war of extermination against Jews that they meant it.
Jews are pretty much the only ethnicity without any serf or peasant blood in it. And therefore represent humanity’s most pure nobility. Hail, Judaea, hail!
Someone is unfamiliar with the Jews of the Pale who bore the brunt of the Holocaust, I see.
The Jews of the Pale where immeasurably more literate, intelligent, and sophisticated than the other denizens of the Pale. I suppose being a Jew in Eastern Europe was very much like being an intelligent kid who has to dumb down among stupid normies. Pretending you care about Beyonce, etc.
Some. But to suggest there was no peasant blood among them is absurd. This even manifested in the U.S. as waves of shtetl Jews from the Pale migrated into the U.S. and caused major cringe among the Jewish elite who had migrated from Western Europe previously.
I'm not saying Pale Jews had great style and manners imparted upon them. But they were definitely devoid of peasant-culture features such as deep conformism, superstition, stupidity, etc.
Ashkenazi Jews are around 15% Eastern European, and I suspect this 15% corresponds to Polish-Lithuanian peasants who wanted to escape their abysmal condition. The Polish Gentry preferred Jews to their own serfs
There is a difference between Tsarism the ideology, and the Tsarist state as it existed. The Circassian Genocide was inspired by racial biases but not by some specific piece of race science that was novel. By this logic you could say the Romans killed 9/10ths of Carthage, or burned down Judea, due to “race science”. Orthodox Christianity does not promote genocide in ordinary circumstances, even though the genocide was partially sparked by religious differences
Frankfurt school had nothing to do with WWI but a lot to do with German leftism in the 20s, as well as other things the Nazis viewed as degenerate trends like certain art trends. My counter-argument is that Hitler’s continuous support for the Haavara Agreement and private memoirs discussing resettlement of the Jews well into the war and even past Wansee were not some sort of ruse
I think most Nazi supporters hated Jews because they accepted the charge that they were to blame for Communism, but the Nazi inner circle had the reverse view: Communism was bad because it came from Jews. This is why a pact with the Soviet Union became conceivable as Stalin gradually purged Jews from the Bolshevik party (even though over precisely that period, Communism got worse from the perspective of normal people who object to mass murder). Hitler himself was legitimately a nutjob and it's genuinely hard to know what he really thought.
The fundamental reason Nazis hated Jews is that Jews had a higher average IQ than "Aryan Germans" and thus ended up overrepresented in high positions.
It is a factual statement that the holocaust had a better communist/non-communist kill ratio than we achieved in viet nam.
And after you watched a majority-Jewish NKVD officer corps exterminate 20 million civilians right next door to you, and those people are now coming for you, the motivations are more justified
Going off the available math it appears that Jews exterminated more humans in the 20th century than they themselves were killed. They’re as much perpetrators of genocide as they are victims of it.
In the real world, it was watching Soviet atrocities against Ukrainians, which happened amidst a large, and partially deliberate, reduction in the number of Jews in the Communist Party and regime, that convinced Hitler that the Soviet Union wasn't so bad and he could work with it.
No doubt many ordinary Germans who supported Nazism genuinely believed in Nazi propaganda to the effect that Communism was a front for Jewry, and thus allowed themselves to descend to the level of beasts. So that's a good argument for not naively accepting propaganda.
The Nazis did kill a lot of communists, but being a communist is a transient state. One can leave communism and because much of the Bazi base had at some point been communists, rounding up all former communists was not feasible
That’s easy to say, until you’ve watched Jewish communists liquidate 20 million civilians next door and then turn their eyes to you.
From the German perspective you’re just exterminating the exterminators. The Soviet NKVD is who invented the death camp, the Nazis were being “reactionary”
Yes but ironically the Germans spared those Jews and instead exterminated Jews in the Pale who were barely literate.
Yes, because those Jews were less of a partisan threat. They weren’t afraid of some Jewish philologist lecturing them to death, they were afraid of Ghetto uprisings and shtetl peasants throwing Molotov cocktails at them from the bushes
Nazis didn't exterminate the Jews of Poland because they thought they were a partisan threat. They exterminated them because they were Jews.
The main sources that people use for demonstrating the Holocaust also give the reasons.
I don't know what you mean by "main sources" and I suspect you don't either, but in any case, no, the Nazis didn't, to give an example, exterminate a couple hundred thousand semi-starving men, women, and children in the Lodz ghetto because one of them might throw a Molotov cocktail.
I was talking about the Posen Speeches and Wansee
Not because one of them might throw a Molotov cocktail, but because all of them might do it at once, as happened in Warschau
Pol Pot's mass killings did have an ethnic element, Cham people and the Vietnamese minority were much more likely to be killed
The vast majority of those killed were members of his own ethnic group. They were not targeted due to their ethnicity, thus not genocide. He was trying to remake the country in a kind of agrarian, return to nature communism (Unabomber meets communism?).
This was a small minority of those killed.
"The moral reckoning following Nazi atrocities causes so much revulsion that westerners seem hellbent on avoiding anything remotely associated with it, even to their own ruin."
I don't think Hitler has much to do with current western moral attitudes, and I don't think there was any great reckoning after the Nazis were defeated, though there have been reckonings enough since. Massive non-white immigration to white countries (importation of slaves excepted) didn't get underway until decades after World War II ended, and Western countries, especially the United States, were perfectly willing to ally with fascist and fascist-adjacent regimes to fight communism for decades after 1945.
Progressive westerners today seem to focus on the crimes or alleged crimes of their own countries (genocide of the Native Americans, slavery, British colonialism, racism etc.) rather than Hitler's. I think there has been a moral revolution of sorts in the West, and in many ways not a good one. But I think it has roots other than revulsion against Naziism, and I think it began to really flourish only in the 1960s and 1970s.
Its explained by generational lag. It took a while for the boomers to grow up and take the reigns. Thats why you still see some "based" behaviour here and there in the West for a few more decades. West Germany for example was rife with former Nazi bureaucrats all the way till the late 60s. But generational turnover was already waiting in the wings.
Nothing is explained by generational lag. Putting aside the idiocy of applying the concept of generations, which is meaningful only in the context of families, to countries where children are born continuously in large numbers, the American baby boom generation began in 1946. The first boomers accordingly reached the age of 18 in 1964. The formative experience of the first wave of boomers was not World War II. Their formative experiences were material abundance, more relaxed standards of child rearing, Vietnam, civil rights, urban disturbances, a tidal wave of crime, liberation, feminism, widespread drug and alcohol use, etc. Those experiences are quite sufficient to explain how boomers thought and acted.
I'd argue the boomers' most important formative experience was the technocratic systems set up by the previous generations.
Sounds interesting, but can you elaborate?
This blog post has a good summary.
https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/american-genesis-part-2-technocracy-to-counterculture
Thanks, very interesting. Hughes' book sounds like quite a read.
I think Emil is understating the degree to which German Jews were a "subversive" element in German society while overstating the degree to which Nazis engaged in "completely irrational and mythological thinking", but he is definitely correct that the socio-cultural impact of the holocaust after the war was tremendous and ultimately a big reason why nativism, immigration restriction, and hereditarian ideas became so taboo.
Ideas take time to form, and take even more time to be popularized, so it's not surprising that the cultural revolutions you speak of really materialized a few decades after. There is also the fact that it also took time for Jews (particularly in the United States) to succesfully introduce the holocaust as an important historical event (in their eyes naturally the most important) in education and media.
The most common and most effective negative label in politics is still to be called a "nazi" and much of politics in the West can be distilled down to every political side trying to prove how "not like Hitler" they are.
Well yes, to the extent one believes that the Elders of Zion were infecting the otherwise healthy German body politic with the bacilli of Communism, socialism, lesbianism etc. then Nazi paranoid delusions will begin to make sense.
The Nazis' creation of large factories to exterminate millions of people on a racial basis was really quite remarkable. You don't have to be a Jew, or a victim of Jewish wiles, to think that the Holocaust is a very important historical development.
The influences on the generation of the 1960s go back well before World War II, of course. Boas is when, in the teens? By the 1930s millions of people in Britain thought British rule in India was an abomination and Gandhi was a hero. But non-white immigration to the west, which didn't begin in any numbers until the late 1960s, was not some form of reparations. It began because the West needed workers, and increasingly was not breeding its own, while the non-white world was finally ceasing to be underpopulated. And the decline in birthrates in the West was not new either -- it was a continuation of trends going back centuries, and those trends have now reached the entire world.
Well, I'm not going to debate whether the political influence of Jews in pre-war Germany was positive or not as that was not the point of my comment, and I'm definitely not going to engage with a snarky strawman about "the elders of Zion".
Regardless, your second paragraph confirms my assertion. If you think that the holocaust was "quite remarkable", then it makes sense that it would become a big item of discussion, especially among Jewish academics, historians, and filmmakers. How many Holocaust-related movies has Steven Spielberg produced? George Soros' primary motivation for funding liberal institutions and NGOs was that "nothing like the holocaust should ever happen again". Does the phrase "never again" sound familiar to you?
I did not say that events or people before WW2 did not influence the left-wing movements of the '60s, but merely that the events of WW2 gave more credence to left-wing concerns about racism and nationalism - which both Jews and non-Jewish leftists used very effectively, while also making nationalism, racialism or nativist sentiment more broadly taboo.
> I think Emil is understating the degree to which German Jews were a "subversive" element in German society while overstating the degree to which Nazis engaged in "completely irrational and mythological thinking",
Care to present evidence of your claim.
The Soviet Union did commit genocide, see the national operations of the NKVD.
Anyway, the death toll of communism far exceeds those of nationalists and they were generally more cruel in their tortures and killings.
Genghis Khan was not a nationalist, no one was in the thirteenth century. What the mongols did was extremely brutal but it was in accord with the customs of steppe warfare at the time. The Holocaust and communist mass killings were understood by most contemporaries including by the perpetrators as immoral and were usually done in secrecy.
This is not "contrarian science", this is slop.
Do you have a specific flaw in this logic you wish to object to?
Do you think this is "contrarian science", and not slop?
I see you still haven't presented an actual flaw.
I see you concede this article is actual slop.
Are you suggesting that Hitler and Mussolini were conservative?
I would not agree.
They certainly weren't communists, though their degree of conservatism can be debated. A true German conservative at the time would probably be trying to restore the German kaiser to power instead of trying a new ideology.
> They certainly weren't communists
Only in the sense that rather than the government confiscating the means of production, they merely regulated them to the point they may as well have been confiscated.
Indeed the Nazis were not communists, but neither were they conservative in most important respects. They were in fact mostly a party of the Left, having more in common with Communists than with right wing regimes, including policies and actions toward religion, labor, taxation, family and values.
Modern American liberals desperately want us to believe the Nazis were conservative, but history says otherwise.
I'm not a liberal, but I think your post is retarded. The guy linked below, who is much smarter than either of us, would also say your post was retarded, if he bothered to read it.
https://pseudoerasmus.com/2015/05/03/fascism-left-or-right/
Pseudoerasmus would not say my post is retarded, because he is not an asshole.
He makes several good points, but on the whole, John Holbo and Jonah Goldberg - who are referenced/linked in his blog and believe German fascism was largely of the Left - have the better of the argument. None of the three would say this is a simple question with a definitive answer, nor would I. But an asshole would.
Here's another smart blogger with a different but equally interesting perspective on the issue:
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2023/04/for-the-dogged-and-determined-only-i-reply-to-professor-ben-burgis-on-were-the-nazis-left-wing-.html
You are 100% wrong about Holbo; he is clear that the Nazis were right-wing. You need to read the whole thing, again and evidently much more carefully, but the quote below should be sufficient.
"It’s impossible to narrate the ins-and-outs of the story of how the Nazis came to power without regarding them as, basically, an extreme right-wing party. There are features of Weimar politics that complicated the left-right binary. There are ways in which the Nazis defy our left-right preconceptions. But basically we can tell left from right. We know which side the Nazis were on. Basically, the Nazis were a right-wing party that tried, and failed, to sell its brand of ‘socialism’ to the working-classes, which preferred left-wing versions courtesy of the Social Democrats or Communists."
It perplexes me that the writer makes no mention of eugenics as a central tenet of Nazism. Eugenics justified mass murder and the promotion of Aryan national supremacy over other European ethnicities, such as the Slavic nations. Blood and soil. Concepts of eugenics were not explanatory afterthoughts but a fundamental pseudo-scientific effort to advance a “master race.” You need to believe them when they tell who they are. Hitler learned of eugenics from… Americans, that hotbed of racial/ethic mixing. The “mixing of races”, called “miscegenation,” was treated as a scientific justification for segregation and racial cleansing. These ideas still hold currency among some groups, and are worth examining.
The Holodomor was also not an ethnic genocide. This strange opinion is widespread in the West due to ideologically biased historians such as Timothy Snyder or Ann Applebaum. It is also partly just a way of manifesting the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.: Ukrainians like to accuse Russians of subjecting them to genocide.
There were two major famines in the USSR - under Lenin and under Stalin. Under Lenin, it affected mainly Russians living in southern Russia, and under Stalin, it affected Ukrainians, Russians, and Kazakhs.
If you don't believe me, you can read what historian Terry Martin wrote about this in his book Empire of Positive Action. Ukrainians lived on fertile lands, which is why Stalin's famine hit them so hard.
There is also an article by the Russian historian Kirill Alexandrov (but it is in Russian).:
https://telegra.ph/Golodomor-1933-goda--prestuplenie-stalinskoj-nomenklatury-05-21
You can also take a look at the geography of famine:
"Map of regional famine losses of 1932-1933 in the USSR - Cambridge University Press"
https://t.me/art_Insides0/2242
The problem is that the famine affected the southern and eastern regions of Ukraine, where there were traditionally more Russians, as well as the regions of southern Russia where Russians lived.
In fact, the most logical conclusion that can be drawn is that the only and most successful "undemocratic" regimes are right-wing dictatorships and traditional monarchies.:
https://x.com/CEBKCEBKCEBK/status/1878489436612173915
There are various studies on this.
First, "democracy" itself has little effect on economic growth.:
https://telegra.ph/The-Economists-Case-for-Reaction-is-Democracy-Good-for-Growth-01-07
https://x.com/arctotherium42/status/1853924754404635071
https://x.com/arctotherium42/status/1841592745615364313
We also know from scientific research that right-wing governments are more conducive to technological innovation, economic freedoms, and investment.:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733319300125
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324215154_Shades_of_red_and_blue_government_ideology_and_sustainable_development
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0147596720300457
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354446937_Economic_liberalization_political_regimes_and_ideology
It is also known that monarchies are more conducive to protecting property rights.:
https://x.com/lefineder/status/1711808241670173110
And if we talk about Russia, Ukraine, etc., it would be interesting to look at an alternative history where tsarist Russia would have survived or the Russian White Guards would have won (before 1917, tsarist Russia was similar to Japan or Spain):
https://x.com/arctotherium42/status/1870850326322196604
https://x.com/arctotherium42/status/1807404126315131122
https://x.com/arctotherium42/status/1807404126315131122
https://twitter.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1701083174774714728
https://x.com/haravayin_hogh/status/1868476924592619609
Have you heard of Hoppe? He's a a libertarian who makes similar points
Any definition that leaves out the Soviet Unions "unique" ethnic composition and policies towards the Slavic majority, but counts the Holocaust as fair, is decidedly imbalanced.
https://mischrev.substack.com/p/judeo-bolshevism
The most over-represented group in the Bolshevik party was Latvians. If, instead, of over-representation, you prefer absolute numbers, then the 72% were Russians.
In any case, the fact is that Hitler didn't attack Jews because he thought they were Bolsheviks. If he did he wouldn't have made a military pact with the Soviet Union. This was PR slop for the chuds.
I didn't think there was anyone who didn't believe the Hitler-Stalin pact was simply a matter of realpolitik. Most scholars seem to believe the Table Talk is authentic. In it AH describes Jews as "a reservoir of Bolshevism." The latest scholarship states AH showed no sign of overt anti-Semitism until 1918/1919. He reguarly sold his paintings to Jewish dealers (But were there any non-Jewish art dealers?) and he liked the Jewish doctor who cared for his mother when she was dying. of cancer. The doctor emigrated with assisted ease and went on to lead a good ife in the US. I remember reading that US intel agents inteviewed the doctor and burst out laughing after they left his residence because of the basically benign picture he presented of Adolf. But then, few people go around ranting and raving at their mother's doctor when she is dying of cancer. At least I hope not.
I stopped reading this sort of material 10-12 years ago, so I may have missed some recenr developments.
Yes, it was certainly a matter of realpolitik, but if you are genuinely engaged in a world historical struggle with X, you don't make a pact with X because of realpolitik considerations.
In Mein Kampf, he tells a story about being disgusted by the appearance of a (presumably Eastern European) Jew while in Vienna. There were many such immigrants at the time, and they were often disliked. Of course one might secretly hate Jewish art dealers and still do business to them. I have observed racial hatred of this kind in our age.
"The latest scholarship states AH showed no sign of overt anti-Semitism until 1918/1919."
I guess the latest scholarship has never read Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf. https://mondopolitico.com/library/meinkampf/v1c2.htm
You know he wrote that book during his stint in prison in 1924. It’s said that most autiobiographies include at least a bit of historical revisionism, you’d have to be born yesterday to think otherwise.
You said something quite stupid, and now you’re quibbling. Just take the L and move on.
No, you're wrong. The definitive biograpy of AH's early years is "Hitler's Vienna: A Dictator's Apprenticeship" by Brigitte Hamann
From p. 348 at Archive.org:
"Of course, Mein Kampf must not be read as an autobiography in the sense of its author dealing with his own past, or as a confession in which he worked through his experiences.The book is clearly a work of political propaganda, in which a power-hungry politician on the rise buttresses his political slogans and builds them up through a fitting life story to form a weltanschauung. In Mein Kampf Hitler created an organically grown anti-Semitic career for himself with politically convenient anti-Semitic images in its key scenes. Thus the book must also be read as the developmental history of a Germanic leader who found the right when he was young.
However, reality, as it emerges from the reports of Viennese eye witnesses, has little to do with the myths Mein Kampf purports. Apart from the special case of August Kubizek, no anti-Semitic remark by the young Hitler has been documented. Reinhold Hanisch, clearly an anti-Semite, was incredulous when he heard that Hitler, of all people, was an extreme, anti-Semitic politician in the thirties. After all, Hanisch and Hitler had their falling out in the men’s hostel in 1910 because Hitler turned entirely to his Jewish friends Josef Neumann and Siegfried Löffner. In the thirties, in his anger Hanisch revealed Hitler’s youth as anything but anti-Semitic in order to discredit Hitler as a politician.
Hanisch is by no means alone in his assertions. Anonymous from Brünn also wrote, in 1912:”Hitler got along extremely well with Jews. He once said they were an intelligent people that stuck together more than the Germans.” Rudolf Häusler, the colleague in the men’s hostel, was at a loss when his daughter questioned him about the anti-Semitism of his then twenty-three- to twenty-four-year-old friend Adolf. Häusler told her that he had not noticed anything of the kind in Vienna. Yet he knew that in Munich, Hitler had thought he had been cheated by a Jewish junk dealer, which might have been a reason for Hitler’s subsequent anti-Semitism-surely no conclusive proof.
The Viennese eyewitnesses remembered unanimously that Hitler’s dealings with Jews had been quite natural. For example, Jakob Wasserberg from Galicia, who ran a small brandy store at 20 Webgasse, close to Stumpergasse, related that the young man had frequently had breakfast with him: “Mr. Wasserberg, a tea and a Laberl.” (A Laberl is a cookie.)"
The most over-represented group in the NKVD was not Latvians.
No doubt you will now provide me with data to back up whatever assertion you are making.
Latvians have it coming to, but Jews and Mischelings stack all the leadership positions, especially the Politburo.
Even the most demented, Slav-hating genocidal state around is gonna have to hire local bureaucrats at somepoint, but the head of execution is always a Heeb.
And yet the vast majority of Jews out in the Pale had nothing to do with Bolshevism.
The majority of slave owners in the U.S. were white. Would blacks then or now have been justified in killing innocent white civilians over slavery? Let’s do Native Americans next. Be ideologically consistent please.
And no, I’m not Jewish. Just don’t wish to live by the sword you’re wielding here in the U.S.
Oh, in defense of killing Indians: it was a direct war of conquest between a settled people and largely nomadic peoples. There wasn't subversion.
The Jewish conquest of the USSR was a foreign funded coup that outwardly posed mass genocide as "liberating" and "constructive", and then *changed their fucking names to seem more Russian.* What the fuck is up with that?
Your comment is irrelevant. The majority of every population is uninvolved with their leaderships massacre in the physical sense.
I agree that a Jew with no political, economic, social or religious (i.e., that its host country is not an Abrahamic faith) power has any influence and is thus not a threat.
We are not discussing that. We are discussing what the world happily discusses. German leadership determined Jews an issue. The American leadership determined Indians a problem. Jewish leadership determined Slavs a problem. Ergo, Jews are bad for Slavs because Jewish leadership will genocide them and mid-ranked Jews will *defend their fucking actions*. Look at the Jew above. Do you see any contrition? Even acknowledgement?
I'm racist. I'm a White, Folk Nationalist. Even I accept my people wiped out the Indians. The Jews, however, only lie and deny. "It was never us!" Are you supporting that attitude?
Typical boring antisemite pilpul and evasion, but your advocacy of genocide against Latvians is at least novel.
I never advocated genocide against the Balts. It's a tragedy what happened to the entire Balto-Slavic group the last millenia. Really, they got their comeuppance a few times. Re-education and De-germanization (Americanization?) Is all that is needed.
Look, man, people don't get to act like an entire country couped by a minority and ran by that specific ethnic group for nearly the entirety of the existence of said state, who adopted *explicity* Anti-Russian campaigns (literally, "Anti Russian Supremacy), and then bragged about killing tens of millions of Russians (Slavs) of every single class *because they were Slavs*, while staffing the Commissariat *with their specific ethno religious group*. They might have hired Latvian rifleman, but go find how many heads of the KGB or NKVD or Cheka or any other elite Soviet Government and tell me how many weren't Jewish, part-Jewish, or married to a Jew.
If you call that shit pilpul then nothing counts as genocide. Just fucking own it and smile. The Turks did.
I have just shared with you a long article showing that every statement you have just made is categorically false. You are a lying ignoramus.
Did this son of a bitch say I was evading? You fucker. You didn't address anything I said about the upper leadership of the Soviet Union for its entire existence. As if anyone gives a shit if a Slav is staffing some paper-pusher positing at the Omsk bureau of mail. They care that Latvians are firing the rifles and Bronstein and Co. run the entire Communist Party.
I did address it by sharing an article that demonstrates it is not true.
It's not like a Jew would have away someone offing Jews just because they were called "Rootless Cosmopolitans" instead of "Jews", so excusing the ethnic Bolsheviks is unjust.
Genocides are mostly due to totalitarian government. In the UK we have several areas where William the Conqueror entirely depopulated the countryside - they became hunting reserves then parks.
There is only one lesson from the Holocaust and Holodomor: Totalitarianism Kills.
See https://therenwhere.substack.com/p/holocaust-holodomor-why
What is the author’s evidence for 20000 Australian aboriginals killed in a planned genocide in the nineteenth century. There were many violent confrontations and some massacres but the main cause of death was disease just as it was in the Americas.
Has anyone tested the IQs of Hutus and Tutsis? I wonder if there is a difference. I seem to recall hearing at one point that the Belgians thought the Tutsis were more intelligent and that is why they left them in charge. I'm not positive if that was their impression, though, and if it is, it wouldn't necessarily make it true. But it seems like a number of genocides and other backlash against high-status minorities tend to come against a more intelligent group that therefore ends up with a disproportionate amount of political and economic power, so that could be the case there.
The 'stereotype' that Tutsis are smarter that Hutus was ubiquitous during he colonial era. In modern times, there has been a determined effort to claim that this was all a fake colonial imposition, sometimes for quite good reasons (the current Rwandan regime is formally race-neutral, but in fact Tutsi-run, and Hutus who notice this too vociferously get arrested and never seen again). However, the reality is that any non-retarded person can tell Tutsis and Hutus apart by sight, and, yes, Tutsis are markedly more intelligent.
Interesting. I was taught in school that the Belgians arbitrarily assigned group membership and created the distinction like some kind of real life version of the Star-Bellied Sneetches. But when I years later looked up pictures of them, I realized the Tutsis very plainly look more similar to certain Ethiopian ethnic groups and the Hutus more typical of other parts of sub-Saharan Africa. Do you have any sources on the intelligence difference, even indirect stuff like educational attainment? Or on the Hutus getting vanished for noticing the Tutsi-led government?