Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[PointOfViewGun]

Nah, accounts of the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, or the Holodomor, for example, are pretty consistent across the board. The denials are all over the map (I.E. the aforementioned blaming of famine or claiming it was all for their own good concerning Armenians).
Empty statement is empty.

When you build your argumentation on denial of basic facts (some even demonstrable on this very page) on the matter to accuse someone else of denial there isn't much to discuss.

[Prodromos]

After saving 669 kids during the Holocaust, Nicholas Winton went nearly 50 years without anyone - not even his family - knowing or recognizing what he did. This show was his first public recognition.

[Gaius Baltar]

Biden has established a "Disinformation Governance Board", headed by Nina Jankowicz, a supposed "Russian disinformation" specialist. This appears to be a reaction to the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk.

A recent quote

I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms ...

[Cope]

Biden has established a "Disinformation Governance Board", headed by Nina Jankowicz, a supposed "Russian disinformation" specialist. This appears to be a reaction to the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk.

A recent quote

The White House's Ministry of Truth "shudders" at the thought of the 1st Amendment (the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights). Institutional liberals really have fallen off the deep end.

[Infidel144]

How long before they go full pathetic coward nazi and demand that people exercising their first amendment rights are to be summarily declared terrorists, stripped of any rights, seized and shipped off to Gitmo for re-education?

[Cyclops]

Vapours aside, why wouldn't the democrats set up a "department of truth"? US politics is a mess of propaganda, shibboleths and electorate blinding Trump shows.

The Clinton faction lost an unloseable election against a clown due to putting up a terrible candidate but still she wouldve won of it hadn't been for facebook. The RepublIcans benefitted from the new marketing tools (as Obama did to a lesser extent in his two smartly fought wins).

Now the Dems afjusted their media game and elected a corpse and rhey like to keep him elected thx.

This new media has made an impact as other new forms did when they first appeared eg pamphlets in the religious wars. They will be regulated in due course, hands will be wrung and vapours had, depending on the moment.

The clown revolt on Jan 6 shows how you can get some pretty anateurish elements a clown leader, Facebook theidiota data surrender tool repurposed for politics, and the paedo site Oz qanon, and get a coup attempt onto the senate floor.

Theres power in this new media, so the Dems want to harness it. Makes sense, the genie is not going back in the bottle.

[Sir Adrian]

A very good reason would be because they got into power through lies and censorship. For years twitter has been an extension of the democratic party, censoring any negative news about it and any positive news about the opposition, and now that the platform is becoming an even playing field they suddenly establish ministries of "truth". This is hypocrisy in its purest form.

And let's not even go into happened before. Between the attempts to censor the Hillary emails story, the fake Russian collusion and covid related stories, the persecution of the country's oldest and most respected publication over the laptop story, which was proven to be true btw, and many other instances of outright deceit and collusion, the democratic party has forfeited the right to even use the word truth.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Fair is fair. If a man would remove secretly the condome ("stealthing"), he would be punished too.

Germany: Woman sentenced for poking holes in partner's condoms

In what the judge described as a "historic" case, a woman has been found guilty of sexual assault after poking holes in her partner's condoms without his knowledge or consent.
A court in western Germany found a woman guilty of sexual assault and handed her a six-month suspended sentence for purposefully damaging her partner's condoms, German media reported.
In handing down the ruling, the judge said the unusual case was one for Germany's legal history books — representing an instance of criminal "stealthing," but this time carried out by a woman.
What happened in the case?
The ruling was handed down at a regional court in the western German city of Bielefeld, local newspaper Neue Westfälische and the mass-circulation Bild newspaper reported on Wednesday.
The case concerned a 39-year-old woman who was in a "friends with benefits" relationship with a 42-year-old man. The two met online at the beginning of 2021 and began a casual, sexual relationship.
According to the reports, the woman developed deeper feelings for her partner but knew that he didn't want to be in a committed relationship.
The 39-year-old woman then secretly poked holes in the package of condoms that her partner kept in his nightstand. She had hoped to get pregnant, but her efforts were reportedly unsuccessful.
espite this, she later wrote the 42-year-old man a message on WhatsApp, saying that she believed she was pregnant — and told him that she'd purposefully damaged the condoms.
The man then pressed criminal charges against her — and the woman later admitted to attempting to manipulate her partner.
Why is the case 'historic'?
While prosecutors and the court agreed that a crime had been committed in this case, they were initially unsure which specific charges to levy against the 39-year-old.
"We have written legal history here today," Judge Astrid Salewski reportedly told the court.
After first investigating whether the crime constituted rape, the judge decided a charge of sexual assault was fitting after reading about the crime of "stealthing" while reviewing case law.
"Stealthing" typically occurs when a man secretly removes his condom during sexual intercourse, unbeknownst to his partner.
"This provision also applies in the reverse case. The condoms were rendered unusable without the man's knowledge or his consent," Salewski said in her decision.
"No means no here as well," she added.

Germany: Woman sentenced for poking holes in partner′s condoms | News | DW | 05.05.2022

[Sir Adrian]

Alexandria Occasional Cortex going absolutely mad on twitter attacking everyone she can over the leak.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

An 18 year old white racist drove 300 miles from New York to Buffalo, entered a supermarket, which is visited mostly by black people, and started shooting with an assault rifle. 10 black people killed. He left a manifesto babbling about the great "white replacement theory".

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/u...f248b4574.html

But i guess its only a lunatic as always, it has nothing to do with far right, trumpist hate speech.

[irontaino]

An 18 year old white racist drove 300 miles from New York to Buffalo, entered a supermarket, which is visited mostly by black people, and started shooting with an assault rifle. 10 black people killed. He left a manifesto babbling about the great "white replacement theory".

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/u...f248b4574.html

But i guess its only a lunatic as always, it has nothing to do with far right, trumpist hate speech.

Only thing to be said at this point.

[alhoon]

About the Twitter bot discussion between Musk and the company, with Musk saying that he will make his own checks: https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk...202605987.html

A simple sample of 100 accounts is very small to determine if 5% are bots. Let's break down the numbers:


> If 5% are bot accounts and we pick a sample of 100:
There's a 13% for that sample to show 7+% as bots and there's 30% to show 0-3% while it is 5%.


> If the bots are 7%, there's a 30% chance such a sample to show "5% or less". There's also a 16% chance that it will show "10% or more as bots"


What I am getting at is that there's a reasonable chance that such a small sample would show "less than 5%" while a similar sized sample will show 10% as bots. I don't know why they do such crappy sample sizes.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Some Minority Workers, Tired of Workplace Slights, Say They Prefer Staying Remote. They say it’s less painful to deal with ‘microaggressions’ at home.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/minorit...ns-11652452865

How to blackmail your boss to let you stay home: 2022 edition.

[sumskilz]

How to blackmail your boss to let you stay home: 2022 edition.

You should try it. Tell your boss that as a Polynesian-American you no longer feel safe after someone mentioned the violent and racist Spongebob SquarePants at work.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You should try it. Tell your boss that as a Polynesian-American you no longer feel safe after someone mentioned the violent and racist Spongebob SquarePants at work.

I had a former coworker run out the clock on the “I’m sick today and my dog died” reasons to stay home and was eventually told to resign or start coming in (he chose the former). He’s Jewish and has family in Ukraine. If only he knew he had so much more to work with. As for me I hope this stuff starts catching on. It’s nice to be able to write “showing up to work” as an example of going above and beyond on my performance reviews and there’s job security in being one of the few people who can be counted on to be consistent.

[mishkin]

10 people killed in a racially motivated mass shooting at a Buffalo supermarket, police say. The 18-year-old suspect is in custody

[Prodromos]

Have you guys read Jean-Paul Sartre's "Anti-Semite and Jew" (1946)? It's a little too materialistic for my taste, but it's still a brilliant analysis of the psychology of anti-Semitism.

Here's a few notable excerpts from the book. ~3900 words in total, which according to wordcounter.net should take around 15 minutes to read.

Excerpt #1

If a man attributes all or part of his own misfortunes and those of his country to the presence of Jewish elements in the community, if he proposes to remedy this state of affairs by depriving the Jews of certain of their rights, by keeping them out of certain economic and social activities, by expelling them from the country, by exterminating all of them, we say that he has anti‐Semitic opinions. This word opinion makes us stop and think. It is the word a hostess uses to bring to an end a discussion that threatens to become acrimonious. It suggests that all points of view are equal; it reassures us, for it gives an inoffensive appearance to ideas by reducing them to the level of tastes. All tastes are natural; all opinions are permitted. Tastes, colours, and opinions are not open to discussion. In the name of democratic institutions, in the name of freedom of opinion, the anti‐Semite asserts the right to preach the anti‐Jewish crusade everywhere. ... I would admit, if necessary, that one may have an opinion on the government's policy in regard to the wine industry, that is, that one may decide, for certain reasons, either to approve or condemn the free importation of wine from Algeria: here we have a case of holding an opinion on the administration of things. But I refuse to characterize as opinion a doctrine that is aimed directly at particular persons and that seeks to suppress their rights or to exterminate them. ... Indeed, [anti-Semitism] is something quite other than an idea. It is first of all a passion. No doubt it can be set forth in the form of a theoretical proposition. The "moderate" anti‐Semite is a courteous man who will tell you quietly: "Personally, I do not detest the Jews. I simply find it preferable, for various reasons, that they should play a lesser part in the activity of the nation." But a moment later, if you have gained his confidence, he will add with more abandon: "You see, there must be something about the Jews; they upset me physically."

Excerpt #2

I have questioned a hundred people on the reasons for their anti‐Semitism. Most of them have confined themselves to enumerating the defects with which tradition has endowed the Jews. "I detest them because they are selfish, intriguing, persistent, oily, tactless, etc” – “But, at any rate, you associate with some of them?” – “Not if I can help it!" A painter said to me: "I am hostile to the Jews because, with their critical habits, they encourage our servants to insubordination." Here are examples a little more precise. A young actor without talent insisted that the Jews had kept him from a successful career in the theatre by confining him to subordinate roles. A young woman said to me: "I have had the most horrible experiences with furriers; they robbed me, they burned the fur I entrusted to them. Well, they were all Jews." But why did she choose to hate Jews rather than furriers? Why Jews or furriers rather than such and such a Jew or such and such a furrier? Because she had in her a predisposition toward anti‐Semitism. A classmate of mine at the lycée told me that Jews "annoy" him because of the thousands of injustices that "Jew‐ridden" social organizations commit in their favour. "A Jew passed his agrégation the year I was failed, and you can't make me believe that that fellow, whose father came from Cracow or Lemberg, understood a poem by Ronsard or an eclogue by Virgil better than I." But he admitted that he disdained the agrégation as a mere academic exercise, and that he didn't study for it. Thus, to explain his failure, he made use of two systems of interpretation, like those madmen who, when they are far gone in their madness, pretend to be the King of Hungary but, if questioned sharply, admit to being shoemakers. His thoughts moved on two planes without his being in the least embarrassed by it. As a matter of fact, he will in time manage to justify his past laziness on the grounds that it really would be too stupid to prepare for an examination in which Jews are passed in preference to good Frenchmen. Actually he ranked twenty‐seventh on the official list. There were twenty‐six ahead of him, twelve who passed and fourteen who failed. Suppose Jews had been excluded from the competition; would that have done him any good? And even if he had been at the top of the list of unsuccessful candidates, even if by eliminating one of the successful candidates he would have had a chance to pass, why should the Jew Weil have been eliminated rather than the Norman Mathieu or the Breton Arzell? To understand my classmate's indignation we must recognize that he had adopted in advance a certain idea of the Jew, of his nature and of his role in society. And to be able to decide that among twenty‐six competitors who were more successful than himself, it was the Jew who robbed him of his place, he must a priori have given preference in the conduct of his life to reasoning based on passion. Far from experience producing his idea of the Jew, it was the latter which explained his experience. If the Jew did not exist, the anti‐Semite would invent him.

Excerpt #3

It has become evident that no external factor can induce anti‐Semitism in the anti‐Semite. Anti‐Semitism is a free and total choice of oneself, a comprehensive attitude that one adopts not only toward Jews, but toward men in general, toward history and society; it is at one and the same time a passion and a conception of the world. ... The anti‐Semite has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions about the rights of the Jew appear to him. He has placed himself on other ground from the beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse. I mentioned awhile back some remarks by anti‐Semites, all of them absurd: "I hate Jews because they make servants insubordinate, because a Jewish furrier robbed me, etc." Never believe that anti‐Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.

Excerpt #4

The anti‐Semite readily admits that the Jew is intelligent and hard‐working; he will even confess himself inferior in these respects. This concession costs him nothing, for he has, as it were, put those qualities in parentheses. Or rather they derive their value from the one who possesses them: the more virtues the Jew has the more dangerous he will be. The anti-Semite has no illusions about what he is. He considers himself an average man, modestly average, basically mediocre. There is no example of an anti‐Semite's claiming individual superiority over the Jews. But you must not think that he is ashamed of his mediocrity; he takes pleasure in it; I will even assert that he has chosen it. This man fears every kind of solitariness, that of the genius as much as that of the murderer; he is the man of the crowd. However small his stature, he takes every precaution to make it smaller, lest he stand out from the herd and find himself face to face with himself. He has made himself an anti‐Semite because that is something one cannot be alone. The phrase, "I hate the Jews," is one that is uttered in chorus; in pronouncing it, one attaches himself to a tradition and to a community — the tradition and community of the mediocre. We must remember that a man is not necessarily humble or even modest because he has consented to mediocrity. On the contrary, there is a passionate pride among the mediocre, and anti‐Semitism is an attempt to give value to mediocrity as such, to create an elite of the ordinary. To the anti‐Semite, intelligence is Jewish; he can thus disdain it in all tranquillity, like all the other virtues which the Jew possesses. They are so many ersatz attributes that the Jew cultivates in place of that balanced mediocrity which he will never have. The true Frenchman, rooted in his province, in his country, borne along by a tradition twenty centuries old, benefiting from ancestral wisdom, guided by tried customs, does not need intelligence. His virtue depends upon the assimilation of the qualities which the work of a hundred generations has lent to the objects which surround him; it depends on property. It goes without saying that this is a matter of inherited property, not property one buys. The anti‐Semite has a fundamental incomprehension of the various forms of modern property: money, securities, etc. These are abstractions, entities of reason related to the abstract intelligence of the Semite. A security belongs to no one because it can belong to everyone; moreover, it is a sign of wealth, not a concrete possession. The anti‐Semite can conceive only of a type of primitive ownership of land based on a veritable magical rapport, in which the thing possessed and its possessor are united by a bond of mystical participation; he is the poet of real property. It transfigures the proprietor and endows him with a special and concrete sensibility. To be sure, this sensibility ignores eternal truths or universal values: the universal is Jewish, since it is an object of intelligence.

Excerpt #5

Besides this, many anti‐Semites — the majority, perhaps — belong to the lower middle class of the towns; they are functionaries, office workers, small businessmen, who possess nothing. It is in opposing themselves to the Jew that they suddenly become conscious of being proprietors: in representing the Jew as a robber, they put themselves in the enviable position of people who could be robbed. Since the Jew wishes to take France from them, it follows that France must belong to them. Thus they have chosen anti‐Semitism as a means of establishing their status as possessors. The Jew has more money than they? So much the better: money is Jewish, and they can despise it as they despise intelligence. They own less than the gentleman‐farmer of Périgord or the large‐scale farmer of the Beauce? That doesn't matter. All they have to do is nourish a vengeful anger against the robbers of Israel and they feel at once in possession of the entire country. True Frenchmen, good Frenchmen are all equal, for each of them posseses for himself alone France whole and indivisible. Thus I would call anti‐Semitism a poor man's snobbery.

Excerpt #6

Anti‐Semitism is not merely the joy of hating; it brings positive pleasures too. By treating the Jew as an inferior and pernicious being, I affirm at the same time that I belong to the elite. This elite, in contrast to those of modern times which are based on merit or labour, closely resembles an aristocracy of birth. There is nothing I have to do to merit my superiority, and neither can I lose it. It is given once and for all. It is a thing. ... We begin to perceive the meaning of the anti‐Semite's choice of himself. He chooses the irremediable out of fear of being free; he chooses mediocrity out of fear of being alone, and out of pride he makes of this irremediable mediocrity a rigid aristocracy. To this end he finds the existence of the Jew absolutely necessary. Otherwise to whom would he be superior? Indeed, it is vis‐à‐vis the Jew and the Jew alone that the anti‐Semite realizes that he has rights. If by some miracle all the Jews were exterminated as he wishes, he would find himself nothing but a concierge or a shopkeeper in a strongly hierarchical society in which the quality of "true Frenchman" would be at a low valuation, because everyone would possess it. He would lose his sense of rights over the country because no one would any longer contest them, and that profound equality which brings him close to the nobleman and the man of wealth would disappear all of a sudden, for it is primarily negative. His frustrations, which he has attributed to the disloyal competition of the Jew, would have to be imputed to some other cause, lest he be forced to look within himself. He would run the risk of falling into bitterness, into a melancholy hatred of the privileged classes. Thus the anti‐Semite is in the unhappy position of having a vital need for the very enemy he wishes to destroy.

Excerpt #7

Since anti‐Semitism survives the great crises of Jew‐hatred, the society which the anti‐Semites form remains in a latent state during normal periods, with every anti‐Semite celebrating its existence. Incapable of understanding modern social organization, he has a nostalgia for periods of crisis in which the primitive community will suddenly reappear and attain its temperature of fusion. He wants his personality to melt suddenly into the group and be carried away by the collective torrent. He has this atmosphere of the pogrom in mind when he asserts "the union of all Frenchmen." In this sense anti‐Semitism is, in a democracy, a covert form of what is called the struggle of the citizen against authority. Question any one of those turbulent young men who placidly break the law and band together to beat up a Jew in a deserted street: He will tell you that he wants a strong authority to take from him the crushing responsibility of thinking for himself. Since the Republic is weak, he is led to break the law out of love of obedience. But is it really strong authority that he wishes? In reality he demands rigorous order for others, and for himself disorder without responsibility. He wishes to place himself above the law, at the same time escaping from the consciousness of his liberty and his isolation. He therefore makes use of a subterfuge: The Jews take part in elections; there are Jews in the government; therefore the legal power is vitiated at its base. As a matter of fact, it no longer exists, so it is legitimate to ignore its decrees. Consequently there is no disobedience‐one cannot disobey what does not exist. Thus for the anti‐Semite there is a real France with a government real but diffused and without special organs, and an abstract France, official, Jew‐ridden, against which it is proper to rebel. ... Any anti‐Semite is therefore, in varying degree, the enemy of constituted authority. He wishes to be the disciplined member of an undisciplined group; he adores order, but a social order. We might say that he wishes to provoke political disorder in order to restore social order, the social order in his eyes being a society that, by virtue of juxtaposition, is egalitarian and primitive, one with a heightened temperature, one from which Jews are excluded. These principles enable him to enjoy a strange sort of independence, which I shall call an inverted liberty. Authentic liberty assumes responsibilities, and the liberty of the anti‐Semite comes from the fact that he escapes all of his. Floating between an authoritarian society which has not yet come into existence and an official and tolerant society which he disavows, he can do anything he pleases without appearing to be an anarchist, which would horrify him. The profound seriousness of his aims — which no word, no statement, no act can express — permits him a certain frivolity. He is a hooligan, he beats people up, he urges, he robs; it is all in a good cause. If the government is strong, anti‐Semitism withers, unless it be a part of the program of the government itself, in which case it changes its nature. Enemy of the Jews, the anti‐Semite has need of them. Anti‐democratic, he is a natural product of democracies and can only manifest himself within the framework of the Republic.

Excerpt #8

We are now in a position to understand the anti‐Semite. He is a man who is afraid. Not of the Jews, to be sure, but of himself, of his own consciousness, of his liberty, of his instincts, of his responsibilities, of solitariness, of change, of society, and of the world — of everything except the Jews. He is a coward who does not want to admit his cowardice to himself; a murderer who represses and censures his tendency to murder without being able to hold it back, yet who dares to kill only in effigy or protected by the anonymity of the mob; a malcontent who dares not revolt from fear of the consequences of his rebellion. In espousing anti‐Semitism, he does not simply adopt an opinion, he chooses himself as a person. He chooses the permanence and impenetrability of stone, the total irresponsibility of the warrior who obeys his leaders — and he has no leader. He chooses to acquire nothing, to deserve nothing; be assumes that everything is given him as his birthright‐and he is not noble. He chooses finally a Good that is fixed once and for all, beyond question, out of reach; he dares not examine it for fear of being led to challenge it and having to seek it in another form. The Jew only serves him as a pretext; elsewhere his counterpart will make use of the Negro or the man of yellow skin. The existence of the Jew merely permits the anti‐Semite to stifle his anxieties at their inception by persuading himself that his place in the world has been marked out in advance, that it awaits him, and that tradition gives him the right to occupy it. Anti‐Semitism, in short, is fear of the human condition. The anti‐Semite is a man who wishes to be pitiless stone, a furious torrent, a devastating thunderbolt‐anything except a man.

Excerpt #9

The Jews have one friend, however, the democrat. But he is a feeble protector. No doubt he proclaims that all men have equal rights; no doubt he has founded the League for the Rights of Man; but his own declarations show the weakness of his position. In the eighteenth century, once and for all, he made his choice: the analytic spirit. He has no eyes for the concrete syntheses with which history confronts him. He recognizes neither Jew, nor Arab, nor Negro, nor bourgeois, nor worker, but only man‐man always the same in all times and all places. He resolves all collectivities into individual elements. To him a physical body is a collection of molecules; a social body, a collection of individuals. And by individual he means the incarnation in a single example of the universal traits which make up human nature. Thus the anti‐Semite and the democrat tirelessly carry on their dialogue without ever understanding one another or realizing that they are not talking about the same things. If the anti‐Semite reproaches the Jew for his avarice, the democrat will reply that he knows Jews who are not avaricious and Christians who are. But the anti‐Semite is not moved. What he meant was that there is a "Jewish" avarice, an avarice determined by that synthetic whole, the Jewish person. He can agree without embarrassment that it is possible for certain Christians to be avaricious, for to him Christian avarice and Jewish avarice are not the same. To the democrat, on the contrary, avarice has a certain universal and invariable nature that can be added to the ensemble of the traits which make up an individual and still remain the same under all circumstances. There are not two ways of being avaricious: one is or one is not.

Excerpt #10

The Jew no doubt sets a proper value on the sympathy shown him, but it cannot prevent his seeing anti‐Semitism as a permanent structure of the community in which he lives. He knows, moreover, that the democrats and all those who defend him have a tendency to treat anti‐Semitism rather leniently. First of all, we live in a republic, where all opinions are free. In addition, the myth of national unity still exerts such an influence over the French that they are ready for the greatest compromises in order to avoid internal conflict, especially in periods of international tension — which are, of course, precisely those when anti‐Semitism is the most violent. Naive and full of good will, it is inevitably the democrat who makes all the concessions; the anti‐Semite doesn't make any. He has the advantage of his anger. People say, "Don't irritate him." They speak softly in his presence.

Excerpt #11

Anti‐Semitism is a problem that affects us all directly; we are all bound to the Jew, because anti‐Semitism leads straight to National Socialism. And if we do not respect the person of the Israelite, who will respect us? If we are conscious of these dangers, if we have lived in shame because of our involuntary complicity with the anti‐Semites, who have made hangmen of us all, perhaps we shall begin to understand that we must fight for the Jew, no more and no less than for ourselves. ... Richard Wright, the Negro writer, said recently: "There is no Negro problem in the United States, there is a White problem." In the same way, we must say that anti‐Semitism is not a Jewish problem; it is our problem. Since we are not guilty and yet run the risk of being its victims — yes, we too — we must be very blind indeed not to see that it is our concern in the highest degree. It is not up to the Jews first of all to form a militant league against anti-Semitism; it is up to us. ... The cause of the Jews would be half won if only their friends brought to their defence a little of the passion and the perseverance their enemies use to bring them down. In order to awaken this passion, what is needed is not to appeal to the generosity of the Aryans — with even the best of them, that virtue is in eclipse. What must be done is to point out to each one that the fate of the Jews is his fate. Not one Frenchman will be free so long as the Jews do not enjoy the fullness of their rights. Not one Frenchman will be secure so long as a single Jew — in France or in the world at large — can fear for his life.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Quick as she came, the Mary Poppins of Disinformation unfurled her umbrella and floated away to her next job, nannying another nation of children who had the wrong ideas. Nina Jankowicz, age 33, was supposed to lead the Department of Homeland Security’s new Disinformation Governance Board.

Only three weeks after that announcement, media reports say the board is being “paused” and Ms. Jankowicz has resigned

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dis...ns-11652910532

Btfo. Luv us. They’ll be back. Eyes up.

Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! Receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.

[Cyclops]

Have you guys read Jean-Paul Sartre's "Anti-Semite and Jew" (1946)? It's a little too materialistic for my taste, but it's still a brilliant analysis of the psychology of anti-Semitism.

Some interesting points there, France has a history of hating Jews and hating women that made it a fertile ground for theoretical thought about language.

Thx for posting these, I've browsed a few snippets and I will read more. Is the book overall worth a read?

[Prodromos]

Some interesting points there, France has a history of hating Jews and hating women that made it a fertile ground for theoretical thought about language.

Thx for posting these, I've browsed a few snippets and I will read more. Is the book overall worth a read?

It's fundamentally a Marxist work, so it has its faults. The book's major strength is its analysis of the anti-Semite. Sartre's analysis of the Jew and to a lesser extent the democrat is considerably weaker and might even be offensive to some.

You can read the whole book for free here.