Criticism of Jews as a Collective (Not Just as Individuals) is Ethical and Warranted

[Callafangers]

I'm starting this thread as another regarding Germar Rudolf has become derailed and this present topic, I think, should be more contained to a single location. It has inevitable overlap with discussions on the Holocaust (and its effect on our present-day), as seen repeatedly on this forum and elsewhere. I'm placing it here in the 'Debate' subforum as it can be somewhat contentious, but it's an important topic to understand and I hope we can achieve some reasonable consensus that can help assist further discussions on the Holocaust.

I want to preface this by making clear that this is not about promoting general animosity toward Jews, whatsoever. It is about prioritizing awareness of veritable patterns in history, setting aside any assumptions about what such knowledge might lead to in the public sphere. I firmly believe that sharing the truth about any harmful act (or pattern) is a necessity in and of itself, especially when it comes to abuses of power. If Jews oppose these abuses, and if these abuses are indeed factual, it should be Jews and their organizations which are the very first to speak out about them, given their greater ability to affect change within their own networks. Sadly, other than with rare exceptions like Ron Unz and his informative website, this is seldom the case.

My initial prompting to create this separate thread came from this comment:

I said it’s wrong to judge groups to which people belong involuntarily. That’s qualitatively different from noting that white people enjoy clear advantages over other people and have little to complain about.

Numar Patru suggests that white people have an unfair advantage (implying public opinion is justified to counter this 'privileged' condition) but that "it's wrong to judge groups" (he says this in response to criticism toward Jews as a collective, rather than as individuals). To this, I have some questions for Numar Patru, let's call it an exercise:

1. If you believe whites have committed a disproportionately greater amount of abuses of power, and Jews relatively few, could any of this stem from Jewish disproportionate institutional [e.g. media] control?
2. Is it acceptable that people may organize themselves not only by immediate family but also according to tribe, ethnicity, culture, religion, etc.?
3. Is it not justifiable that families or collectives along these lines should typically share the benefits of their collective achievements?
4. In your opinion, does the collective behavior of whites (historically into present-day) warrant them having any particular advantages? Any at all?
5. In your opinion, does the collective behavior of Jews warrant them losing any advantages of what they (Jews) currently enjoy? As in, some accountability?

Numar, I'd really like to know your answers to these but am doubtful you'll bite. I could simply point out the fact that you clearly seem to feel that whites should be more accountable for "what whites have done" but do not seem to apply the same standard toward Jews or any other group. So much for your claim of valuing individualism.

I do not want this thread to become a discussion about race in general however the political environment of the last few years has further entwined topics of power abuses, white people and their relationship to other groups, and [recently] some long-overdue attention toward Jewish networks. I hope this thread can focus on the question Numar highlights about criticism extending beyond an individual basis, to which my earlier justification was as follows:

When is it ever ok to criticize whole groups of people based on their involuntary group membership?

It's "ok" when the expectation is for political systems to be so perfectly efficient as to seamlessly differentiate one member of an extremely-problematic collective from another (this is impossible). The fact is that Jews - based on hyper-ethnocentric and entitled, vindictive ideology at the core and tribal motivations even on the periphery - consistently, repeatedly replicate the same behaviors in every single nation they come to occupy (but especially Western nations, where their similar appearance to European peoples enables them to easily infiltrate and occupy any position in that society with limited suspicions/attention raised).

The issue is not only that many (if not most) Jews overwhelmingly participate in subversive organizing and initiative at some capacity, but also the fact that there are zero comparable counter-initiatives by Jewish organizations on the areas of highest priority among Jews. There are no Jewish organizations specifically working against mass immigration into Western nations, for example, just like there are no major Jewish organizations heavily promoting the same third world mass immigration into Israel. This is just like how there are no major Jewish organizations which seek to work against Jewish over-representation (both in key position-holding and in initiatives and prioritization thereof) in sectors like media, finance, law, politics, elite academia, medicine, and any other area which is most critical and effective for subversive purposes aligning with the Jewish vision of a global future.

If there are truly so many Jewish outliers who radically oppose these collective Jewish ambitions, why are they not utilizing their vast resources (given Jews have for many generations remained the wealthiest ethnic group) to counter these initiatives of the more corrupt, representative Jews?

The notion of "individualism-first" allows Jews to remain a strong collective while their 'enemies' (that is, their non-Jewish countrymen in any nation they occupy) open themselves up completely to subversion by seeing every person (and every Jew) solely as an individual and, thus, being entirely vulnerable to collective [covert, subversive] assaults upon the nation.

The truth is, I was a passionate advocate for individualism before I recognized this matter. Individualism only works if everybody agrees to it, sincerely. If this isn't the case, then the last remaining collectives become stronger than all of the rest.

I understand there may be questions I have missed or misunderstood on this matter, so I am open to challenges in this regard.

[Stubble]

Ever read 'The Culture of Critique'?

[Callafangers]

Ever read 'The Culture of Critique'?

It's on the shelf along with quite a few others I still need to get through. I read the first chapter or two when I first received it. Would love to hear any relevant insights you have gathered from it which might be helpful here.

[Stubble]

You need to read it. If I were to cite from it concerning our current topic, I would cite the whole work.

When I read your first post, it instantly came to mind.

'200 Years Together' is another that comes to mind.

[Callafangers]

You need to read it. If I were to cite from it concerning our current topic, I would cite the whole work.

When I read your first post, it instantly came to mind.

'200 Years Together' is another that comes to mind.

I've read that second one. Excellent context, almost like the 'prequel' to everything else that is being discussed.

I will definitely prioritize Culture of Critique on the reading list. Much appreciated.

[HansHill]

Some thoughts:

1) OP mentioned "involuntary" membership of a group, in a sort of sleight of hand. What he's forgetting to mention is that most Jews (i won't say all), are more than happy to voluntarily accept the privileges that come along with being Jewish. These include, but are not limited to - automatic right of return to Israel, state guaranteed refusal of extradition from Israel, ethnic support networks, private law enforcement that act parallel to (and sometimes supersedes) state law enforcement, political networks and lobby groups to protect and advance your ethnic identity and interests. So they can't have it both ways - are you voluntarily, or involuntarily part of this protected group?

2) The Culture of Critique was mentioned here, and is an excellent work. It's actually Vol 3 of a trilogy, and it is volume 2 that deals with Antisemitism, and as the title suggests, criticism of Jews as a collective. That work (Separation And Its Discontents) is recommended for this topic

3) Additionally i recommend Thomas Dalton - Eternal Strangers, as a collection of writings throughout history from great thinkers who have all criticised collective Jewry.

[HansHill]

Actually a 4th point to add.

Mr Rudolf is very smart to try avoid the Jewish element to his Holocaust research. While it is near impossible to detangle, he very rarely if ever criticizes Jews as such. The reasons for this should be obvious, but most importantly, Jews being Jews and acting in certain ways does little to affect the body of evidence as to whether the Holocaust happened or not.

It could act as an entry point (eg someone beginning to research Holocaust claims in the wake of Oct 7th) but is not the destination.

While Jews are most certainly the prime benefactors of the Holocaust in modern times, Rudolf has repeatedly omitted them from being the originators, and lays that firmly with the Poles, Soviets, and wider network of Allies. Aside from being honest, this is simply smart!

[Callafangers]

While Jews are most certainly the prime benefactors of the Holocaust in modern times, Rudolf has repeatedly omitted them from being the originators, and lays that firmly with the Poles, Soviets, and wider network of Allies. Aside from being honest, this is simply smart!

While I agree the Poles/Soviets/Allies more broadly may have played a substantial or even majority role in the formation of the narrative, I disagree with Germar's insistence (expressed or implied) that they are wholly exempt in this question, as do others including John Wear:

The Jewish organizations and [certain Jewish individuals] who have conspired to promote the myth of the so-called Holocaust include:

The World Jewish Congress (WJC), whose president, Nahum Goldmann, admitted that WJC officials originated and promoted the idea of the IMT and reparations from Germany. Only after persistent efforts by WJC officials were Allied leaders persuaded to accept the idea of the Nuremberg trials.
Two Jewish U.S. Army officers, Lt. Col. Murray Bernays and Col. David Marcus, who played prominent roles in implementing and staffing personnel for the Nuremberg trials.
Jewish Sgt. Bernard Clarke and other British officers, who tortured Rudolf Höss into making his famous confession at the IMT.
Jewish attorney Benjamin Ferencz, who acknowledges that he used torture and intimidation tactics to help convict German defendants at the Allied postwar trials.
Jewish attorney Robert Kempner, the chief prosecutor in the Ministries Trial at Nuremberg, who used bribes and threats to prosecute defendants.
The Jewish Israeli Mossad agents near Buenos Aires, who illegally captured Adolf Eichmann in May 1960.
Jewish “Holocaust” survivor Tuviah Friedman, who by his own admission beat up to 20 German prisoners a day to obtain confessions and weed out SS officers.
Jewish prosecutor Josef Kirschbaum, who brought former concentration-camp inmate Einstein into court to testify that the defendant, Menzel, had murdered Einstein’s brother. Menzel foiled Einstein’s testimony by pointing to Einstein’s brother sitting in the court room.
False Jewish eyewitness testimony at the trials of John Demjanjuk, Frank Walus and Feodor Fedorenko.
The Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, a Jewish group that claimed Ernst Zündel was spreading false information about the “Holocaust.” This group used Canadian taxpayer money to prosecute Zündel for the criminal offense of spreading false information.
The Jewish Defense League, which attacked David Cole and then threatened him into recanting his views on the “Holocaust”.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which has been looking to prosecute elderly Germans even though there is no proof that these Germans actually committed a crime. Just being at a German camp is considered to be a crime.
Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, who at the International Holocaust Remembrance Day at the European Parliament ceremony in Brussels on January 27, 2014 rejected free speech arguments regarding the so-called Holocaust. Kantor apparently wants to criminalize any speech, symbols or gestures that Jews consider to be anti-Semitic.

Other Jewish organizations are actively working to promote the official Holocaust narrative. For example, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) writes about its Holocaust education program:

“Since 2005, Echoes & Reflections has impacted more than 85,000 educators, reaching an estimated 8 million students across the United States—and at no cost. Through our Holocaust education programs and resources, educators gain the skills, knowledge, and confidence to teach this topic effectively.”

The ADL is also actively promoting “Holocaust” historian Deborah Lipstadt to be the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.[40]

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) also actively works to advance pro-Israel policies and support a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.[41] All American politicians are so aware of AIPAC’s power that they would never publicly question the official Holocaust narrative.[42]

The alleged genocide of European Jewry is extremely important in promoting Jewish interests. The “Holocaust” has been used to justify the Allied war effort, to establish the state of Israel, to justify Israel’s violence against its neighbors, to induce guilt in both Germans and the Allied nations, to cover up and ignore horrific Allied crimes against Germans, to allow Jews to receive massive reparations from Germany, and to create solidarity in the Jewish community. The extreme importance of the “Holocaust” in advancing Zionist/Jewish interests ensures that Jewish groups and individuals will continue to promote this falsification of history in the future.

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... holocaust/

I am confident that Germar sincerely believes and reports honestly that the Soviets, Poles, and Allies are the originators of defamatory "Holocaust" claims - and I leave open the possibility that he may be largely correct - but I think it remains indisputable to say Jews also played a major role. John Wear actually misses many other key instances in the article above, some of which I have only recently encountered in certain orthodox literature and have not yet seen discussed in-detail in revisionist works.

Some might suggest it is "bad optics" to call this matter out directly but I have a problem with modifying the truth in order to appease public opinion, if that is what is being suggested, whether for purposes of recruitment, accessibility, or otherwise. I find it manipulative and lacking the principles which I think should always guide efforts in revisionism.

I do want revisionism to be more inclusive all-around but I think that has to be centered first and foremost around a system of values which places truth and integrity at the highest level, rather than concessions toward "good PR strategy", etc.

[HansHill]

I am confident that Germar sincerely believes and reports honestly that the Soviets, Poles, and Allies are the originators of defamatory "Holocaust" claims - and I leave open the possibility that he may be largely correct - but I think it remains indisputable to say Jews also played a major role. John Wear actually misses many other key instances in the article above, some of which I have only recently encountered in certain orthodox literature and have not yet seen discussed in-detail in revisionist works.

Some might suggest it is "bad optics" to call this matter out directly but I have a problem with modifying the truth in order to appease public opinion, if that is what is being suggested, whether for purposes of recruitment, accessibility, or otherwise. I find it manipulative and lacking the principles which I think should always guide efforts in revisionism.

I do want revisionism to be more inclusive all-around but I think that has to be centered first and foremost around a system of values which places truth and integrity at the highest level, rather than concessions toward "good PR strategy", etc.

I agree with all of this. Two things can be true at once:

The Poles / Soviets / Allies were the primary originators and drivers of the Hoax, while networks of Jews co-ordinated in lockstep to offer up false eyewitness accounts, testimony and other "evidence", and to be the main focal point of "WW2 terror".

[Stubble]

Lest we forget, the media played a huge role in the setting of the narrative.

That's, the British media, the American media etc.

This conversation is incomplete without mentioning the media.

It is at the same time incomplete without mentioning the jewish members of the media.

It is also important to note that embellishment of testimony cannot be completely laid at the feet of the jewish community. Coercion doubt played a role as well as coaching and better treatment by for example Soviet authorities.

It started as simple atrocity propaganda and it grew into what we see today. Some of that growth was consciously guided and cultivated, some was natural and some was misconception.

It's not as simple as 'the jews all lied'.

[Numar Patru]

To this, I have some questions for Numar Patru, let's call it an exercise:

1. If you believe whites have committed a disproportionately greater amount of abuses of power, and Jews relatively few, could any of this stem from Jewish disproportionate institutional [e.g. media] control?

I don’t think I said Jews committed fewer abuses of power. I’m sure that, in certain situations, Jewish people have abused their power. The entire enterprise of the State of Israel is an example of Jewish people abusing their power.

Your questions seems to be predicated on a false impression of what I believe and/or said, so I’m not sure what else to say here.

[*] Is it acceptable that people may organize themselves not only by immediate family but also according to tribe, ethnicity, culture, religion, etc.?

Sure, people have the right to associate. I would question the extent to which that right is contingent upon the need to surrender one’s right to be considered primarily as an individual.

[*] Is it not justifiable that families or collectives along these lines should typically share the benefits of their collective achievements?

It depends, I think, on what achievements we’re talking about or the benefits therefrom. I wouldn’t be comfortable with a blanket statement that because (group x) did (accomplishment y), that (benefit z) should accrue primarily or exclusively to (group x).

[*] In your opinion, does the collective behavior of whites (historically into present-day) warrant them having any particular advantages? Any at all?

No. Nor should such a right accrue to any group primarily or exclusively.

[*] In your opinion, does the collective behavior of Jews warrant them losing any advantages of what they (Jews) currently enjoy? As in, some accountability?

No to that also, though I do think certain advantages enjoyed by Jews in certain places by virtue of being considered white should be lost or at least spread around outside the white group. Here, I’m thinking of things like college admissions, which have been apportioned to some extent in the past on the basis of group membership (SCOTUS seems to have stopped this).

Numar, I'd really like to know your answers to these but am doubtful you'll bite. I could simply point out the fact that you clearly seem to feel that whites should be more accountable for "what whites have done" but do not seem to apply the same standard toward Jews or any other group. So much for your claim of valuing individualism.

I’m hard pressed to think of anything I’ve said that indicates that whites should be judged as a group. That said, I do believe that affirmative action programs in the US are wholly warranted because of historical white advantage. This doesn’t mean grouping, e.g., of job applications, in buckets based on “race,” but it does mean taking race into consideration at some point in the process.

In the US context, Jews would be considered white in the vast majority of cases.

[Hektor]

This thread may belong into another subjection of the forum....

....

I said it’s wrong to judge groups to which people belong involuntarily. That’s qualitatively different from noting that white people enjoy clear advantages over other people and have little to complain about.

Numar Patru suggests that white people have an unfair advantage (implying public opinion is justified to counter this 'privileged' condition) but that "it's wrong to judge groups" (he says this in response to criticism toward Jews as a collective, rather than as individuals). To this, I have some questions for Numar Patru, let's call it an exercise:

1. If you believe whites have committed a disproportionately greater amount of abuses of power, and Jews relatively few, could any of this stem from Jewish disproportionate institutional [e.g. media] control?
2. Is it acceptable that people may organize themselves not only by immediate family but also according to tribe, ethnicity, culture, religion, etc.?
3. Is it not justifiable that families or collectives along these lines should typically share the benefits of their collective achievements?
4. In your opinion, does the collective behavior of whites (historically into present-day) warrant them having any particular advantages? Any at all?
5. In your opinion, does the collective behavior of Jews warrant them losing any advantages of what they (Jews) currently enjoy? As in, some accountability?

....

Whites tend to do better, because their culture is more conducive to them to succeed and more productive than other cultures. They did/do best on their own. So naturally they also tend to do well in societies that they have established. To imply that this is some sort of 'unfair advantage' that needs rectification is ludicrous.

With Jews it was/is a bit different. They tend to do well in other societies that allowed them to live in them. And this is due to a number of factors. E.g. them engaging in lucrative businesses. Their mutual support through their community structures and organizations... But also their engagement in practices that are considered immoral by the host population.

And the latter is what fuels resentment and conflict between Jews and other groups.


Bear in mind that the 'white privilege' canard proposes that Whites should have disadvantages for being Whites in societies they and their ancestors had build. And this despite them already disproportionately advantaging non-Whites. The justification is that they supposedly 'oppressed' non-Whites through 'Colonialism' and 'Slavery'... That ignores that the extra-European in summary had great advantageous through Colonialism, that a lot of allegations against Colonial Powers are simply 'atrocity propaganda'. and that naturally the more advanced group would also be the more dominant group within a society... And White Colonial powers tried to advance those groups in the Colonies that were less advanced as well...

While there was slavery in some of the earlier colonies. It where the White Colonial Powers as well as the US that did end slavery. Apparently the former slavers and slave traders haven't forgiven Whites for this, yet.

[Numar Patru]

And the latter is what fuels resentment and conflict between Jews and other groups.

Thanks for the insight, Herr Minister Goebbels.

Jfc, you people used to at least try not to sound like Nazis. What happened to you?

[Archie]

The issue is conflicts of interest.

Going back many centuries, diaspora Jews have been a small but consequential minority population in European societies. If they just made their money and kept to themselves there wouldn't be too much of an issue. But their tendency is to become dominate in media, academia, law, finance, etc. And when this is pointed out they LIE about it.

There are levels of Jewish apologetics on this. The first stage is to lie and deny and accuse the noticer of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. In mainstream media that is usually as far as the discussion goes if the issue is brought up at all. If they are cornered and can't lie about the overrepresentation, then the second stage is to dishonestly deconstruct basic concepts like "group" and "interests." They might acknowledge some of the overrepresentation but say all these people are only incidentally or coincidentally Jewish. It's all meritocratic and there are no "Jewish" interests involved. In some cases they will deny that there are Jewish interests because Jews do not agree 100% on everything. (By this logic, supporting Israel is not a Jewish interest because some Jews claim not to support it.)

There are Jews and they do have group interests. The reason they lie about this is that they know their interests conflict with those of the broad majority. Hence they have to conceal their activities and promote what they want from the shadows or under false pretenses. The drawback of this strategy their power, based primarily on financial and media power, is very fragile and leads to catastrophic reactions against them once a critical mass of people become aware.

I am okay with Jews existing and having interests, but they need to be upfront. They need to own what they do.

[Numar Patru]

I must once against ask that a neural moderator be appointed here — one who does not demonstrably believe nonsense about Jews.