Ryan Faulk on the Existence of Genocide

[fireofice]

Exchange on Twitter after an explanation from Ryan Faulk on why he believes Leopold's Congo genocide didn't happen:

Commenter: Seems like every genocide is a myth

RF: Every genocide occurs where you have crappy population estimates.

Commenter: Do you know of any genocides that actually happened?

RF: Ancient ones that I can't decisively disconfirm.

I suspect that Russians, in the early stages of their reconquest of tatar lands, butchered cities they took. Timur claims to have slaughtered entire cities, but that was from a time when such claims were actually encouraged by the supposed perpetrators to instill fear.

To engage in genocide, rulers have to be very far-sighted, because it's an intergenerational strategy. It's almost always more immediately efficient to enslave the existing population than kill them, so you have to be thinking a lot further down the line to when the virgin land can be resettled by your own ethnic group.

I.e. genocide, unless done for the purpose of instilling fear, requires a leader who is an ethnonationalist (which most ancient rulers were not) and is thinking that far ahead. So, pretty rare.

Maybe the cambodian genocides? I haven't looked into that, but I suspect that's gonna end up being another mostly-hoax.

The period in which you get ethnonationalist PEOPLE is actually fairly narrow, and even then the rulers tend to be less ethnically-oriented than those they rule over.

There's a better case for sporadic "atrocities", but if you're talking about wholesale extermination programs of entire ethnic groups, that's first off a lot harder to do, and usually has very little support among the ruling class at the time since it's not something that's ever profitable in the time horizons that heads of state tend to have.

And by the time you get to Hitler, who was an ethnonationalist and did have the time horizon to potentially carry out a mass-extermination, then you have a bunch more direct evidence saying that even he, one of the few leaders with the potential to do it, didn't actually do it.

https://archive.is/zjMaU
https://archive.is/S8ln5

Ryan seems to be saying that genocides, if they exist, are extremely rare to non-existent. At first this sounded crazy to me, and it's still hard to wrap my head around. But the more I think about it, I realize what he is saying makes some sense. Of course, violent atrocities exist throughout human history, but how often do actual attempts to exterminate whole groups come about? How many successful genocides have happened? If you take the "Armenian genocide", if they really were trying to wipe out a whole group, they failed as the Armenians are still around. So that begs the question, was that really their goal? Should we be throwing out accusations of genocide, attempting to exterminate a whole people, without sufficient proof?

I'm not saying for sure that Ryan is right, it's something I'll have to think about more. But if he is, then this has direct implications on the Nazi holocaust. If the Nazis really are being accused of something so rare, even potentially non-existent in the modern era, then that should form our view of the prior probability (the probability that we assign to this event before looking at the evidence) that these accusations are true.

[hermod]

A genocide doesn't need to be successful (i.e. complete) or violent (i.e. perpetrated through a mass murder) to be a genocide. Any policy intentionally aiming at the extinction of a specific group of people is a genocide, according to Raphael Lemkin (the Zionist Jew who coined that word during WWII as a legal tool for the postwar Jewish seizure of Palestine).

on why he believes Leopold's Congo genocide didn't happen:

https://postimg.cc/d7T926yJ

[Hektor]

A genocide doesn't need to be successful (i.e. complete) or violent (i.e. perpetrated through a mass murder) to be a genocide. Any policy intentionally aiming at the extinction of a specific group of people is a genocide, according to Raphael Lemkin (the Zionist Jew who coined that word during WWII as a legal tool for the postwar Jewish seizure of Palestine).

on why he believes Leopold's Congo genocide didn't happen:

https://postimg.cc/d7T926yJ

Not sure whether Lemkin was (or became) actually a Zionist. But he got e.g. an award from the American Jewish Congress. So apparently they found his work useful. There is some anti-German bias with him that would be older than world war two, perhaps stemming from world war one. He of course alleged that stacks of his family were "killed in the Holocaust", which we must believe on face value and it was never tested.

It must be killing members, because they are members of the targeted group. But often this isn't the primary reason, of course. E.g. that group may be prone to crime and hence people target members of the group.

Nevertheless Raphael Lemkin provide a comprehensive definition of Genocide:


And isn't this what we see applied to occidental nations nowadays? It's almost as if it is recipe.

[hermod]

Not sure whether Lemkin was (or became) actually a Zionist. But he got e.g. an award from the American Jewish Congress. So apparently they found his work useful. There is some anti-German bias with him that would be older than world war two, perhaps stemming from world war one. He of course alleged that stacks of his family were "killed in the Holocaust", which we must believe on face value and it was never tested.

Prior to WWII, Lemkin had been a Professor of Law in a rabbinical college financed by the Mizrachi organization for over a decade. And he was a friend of prominent Zionist leaders' such as Yitzhak Gruenbaum.

https://postimg.cc/wyVfscWQ

The Mizrachi (Hebrew: תנועת הַמִזְרָחִי, Tnuat HaMizrahi) is a religious Zionist organization founded in 1902 in Vilnius at a world conference of religious Zionists called by Rabbi Yitzchak Yaacov Reines.

Mizrachi believes that the Torah should be at the centre of Zionism and also sees Jewish nationalism as a means of achieving religious objectives.

In Poland
During the interwar period, the Mizrachi party was represented in the kehilla councils as well as in the municipal councils and in the Polish Sejm and Senate, e.g. by the Vilnius Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Rubinstein (1888-1945), Mizrachi senator (1922-1930, 1938–1939) and deputy (1930-1935), and by Rabbi Simon Federbusch, Sejm member from 1922 until 1927.
In Israel
Major figures in the Religious Zionist Movement include Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook who became the Ashkenazi Jews Chief Rabbi of the British Mandate of Palestine in 1924 and tried to reconcile Zionism with Orthodox Judaism.

Mizrachi had a separate trade union wing, founded in 1921, Hapoel HaMizrachi, which represented religious Jews in the Histadrut and tried to attract religious Labor Zionists. The trade union also operated as a political party by the same name in the early days of Israel's existence, becoming the fourth largest party in the 1951 elections.

In 1956, the Mizrachi party and Hapoel HaMizrachi merged to form the National Religious Party to advance the rights of religious Jews in Israel, having fought the 1955 election together as the National Religious Front. The party was an ever-present government coalition member until 1992. In 2008, the party merged into The Jewish Home, essentially a successor party.

In the United States
In the United States the ideals of and work of the Mizrachi movement have been carried out through the official Religious Zionists of America (RZA) movement that has been an important source of the ideology and guidance for Modern Orthodox Judaism and its rabbis and followers. It is affiliated with the Bnei Akiva youth movement which has a great influence on the Modern Orthodox Jewish day schools and synagogues. The American movement has served as a fundraising and lobbying arm for its Israeli counterparts.

Many of the Jewish leaders and rabbis of Yeshiva University actively identify with and support Mizrachi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrachi_ ... us_Zionism)

Nevertheless Raphael Lemkin provide a comprehensive definition of Genocide:


And isn't this what we see applied to occidental nations nowadays? It's almost as if it is recipe.

Yes, it is. But it's being perpetrated in a democratic way because the consent of its victims has been manufactured for it (see "the manufacture of consent " devised by founding fathers of modern democratic propaganda such as Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays) (antinatalist open-borders & race-mixing social engineering). That's why it's often denied by politicians (policy-makers) and journalists (opinion-makers) of the West. But a genocide doesn't lie in the consent of its victims. It lies in the intent of its perpetrators, according to Lemkin's own words. Logical. Isn't induced suicide still murder after all? And the Holohoax is a weapon of psychological warfare very massively used to silence any opposition to that part of the New World Order agenda.

https://postimg.cc/SJs01zGt

https://postimg.cc/SnY8JBkf

https://postimg.cc/PCpVqCz1

https://postimg.cc/2q3NSKk1

https://postimg.cc/7CQqxW02

https://postimg.cc/JDc0xZZ0

https://postimg.cc/XBGJnD1C

https://postimg.cc/67YBGDrt

[Hektor]

Prior to WWII, Lemkin had been a Professor of Law in a rabbinical college financed by the Mizrachi organization for over a decade. And he was a friend of prominent Zionist leaders' such as Yitzhak Gruenbaum.

To write a book like "Axis Rule in Occupied Euorope":
https://archive.org/details/AxisRuleInO ... haelLemkin
One obviously needs to be well connected to get access to all the sources one would need. Now that's probably not available to a run of the mill law professor. The later rather having access to a library and perhaps some news-papers as well. If he isn't connected to government or intelligence networks, he want be able to get info on what (supposedly) happens on another continent.

The lessosn from this can also be turned around and be used. The application towards Germany became possible with Allied domination of government, administration and especially media and academia in Germany. The key-positions there would be anything relating to culture and humanities. And well all the pre-1945 literature and learning was swept under the carpet, because it was somehow 'Nazi'. I recall the literature producers dealt with in West(!)Germany schools were commonly Communists. And also the textbooks had a lot from the 'civil rights movement' or from all those 'antifascist' gaslighters of that era. The core was however the university and there sociology, psychology and teacher training. That way they got all those leftist teachers into positions where they could plague the kids with their obnoxious views on society, culture, history, economics, etc. The first themes were pacifism, 'social justice' and how bad German Nationalism is.

The leftists were a majority in academia and among teachers. But also the conservatives or classical liberals were quite cucked. There is quite some leftist that have a 'conservative image', especially those connected to churches. The subversion becomes only apparent in analyzing what they are saying and teaching, but you need to know what to look for. And most don't. Most take what they are told by teachers as objective and scientific in nature. And when pastors/priests tell them something than it must be 'Christian'. Only on investigation and reflection one can learn that it isn't. And that requires knowledge already, logic and quite some effort.

[hermod]

Prior to WWII, Lemkin had been a Professor of Law in a rabbinical college financed by the Mizrachi organization for over a decade. And he was a friend of prominent Zionist leaders' such as Yitzhak Gruenbaum.

To write a book like "Axis Rule in Occupied Euorope":
https://archive.org/details/AxisRuleInO ... haelLemkin
One obviously needs to be well connected to get access to all the sources one would need. Now that's probably not available to a run of the mill law professor. The later rather having access to a library and perhaps some news-papers as well. If he isn't connected to government or intelligence networks, he want be able to get info on what (supposedly) happens on another continent.

The lessosn from this can also be turned around and be used. The application towards Germany became possible with Allied domination of government, administration and especially media and academia in Germany. The key-positions there would be anything relating to culture and humanities. And well all the pre-1945 literature and learning was swept under the carpet, because it was somehow 'Nazi'. I recall the literature producers dealt with in West(!)Germany schools were commonly Communists. And also the textbooks had a lot from the 'civil rights movement' or from all those 'antifascist' gaslighters of that era. The core was however the university and there sociology, psychology and teacher training. That way they got all those leftist teachers into positions where they could plague the kids with their obnoxious views on society, culture, history, economics, etc. The first themes were pacifism, 'social justice' and how bad German Nationalism is.

The leftists were a majority in academia and among teachers. But also the conservatives or classical liberals were quite cucked. There is quite some leftist that have a 'conservative image', especially those connected to churches. The subversion becomes only apparent in analyzing what they are saying and teaching, but you need to know what to look for. And most don't. Most take what they are told by teachers as objective and scientific in nature. And when pastors/priests tell them something than it must be 'Christian'. Only on investigation and reflection one can learn that it isn't. And that requires knowledge already, logic and quite some effort.

(Ditto in the other countries of the U.S. Empire)

But tell them that their own "bible," The Authoritarian Personality, was sponsored by the American Jewish Committee and didn't even tried to hide its strong politically-motivated ideological biases and you'll see them angrily reply "So what? " and call you an antisemite and a fascist in the minute, as their dear Cultural Marxist manual told them...

https://postimg.cc/23g0NzwW

Pseudoscience at its best!!

[Hektor]

Prior to WWII, Lemkin had been a Professor of Law in a rabbinical college financed by the Mizrachi organization for over a decade. And he was a friend of prominent Zionist leaders' such as Yitzhak Gruenbaum.

....
The leftists were a majority in academia and among teachers. But also the conservatives or classical liberals were quite cucked. There is quite some leftist that have a 'conservative image', especially those connected to churches. The subversion becomes only apparent in analyzing what they are saying and teaching, but you need to know what to look for. And most don't. Most take what they are told by teachers as objective and scientific in nature. And when pastors/priests tell them something than it must be 'Christian'. Only on investigation and reflection one can learn that it isn't. And that requires knowledge already, logic and quite some effort.[/b]

(Ditto in the other countries of the U.S. Empire)

But tell them that their own "bible," The Authoritarian Personality, was sponsored by the American Jewish Committee and didn't even tried to hide its strong politically-motivated ideological biases and you'll see them angrily reply "So what? " and call you an antisemite and a fascist in the minute, as their dear Cultural Marxist manual told them...

https://postimg.cc/23g0NzwW

Pseudoscience at its best!!

In the 1960s your degreed academics would still have known who Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer were and what the Frankfurt School was. They could also name the title of "Authoritarian Personality". But even they would be puzzled, if you put them onto who actually sponsored this and would be ignorant of what they purpose would have been.

That changed since 1990. I don't think a sociologist or political 'scientist' would immediately know who those folks are. Unless he specialized on this of course.

If you point that out - and there is no way to overlook that those folks were Jewish - then you are an 'Anti-Semite'.
So the taboo of Anti-Semitism (which they created via Holocausting) actually shields them from effective critic in the process.

What that book and others tried to do is to 'psychoanalyze' society as a whole. Attesting the White, Western, Christian societies had some mental illness that needed therapy to be cured. And if that wasn't done then something 'very evil' would have happened. That's gas lighting on the mega-level. Strategic guilt-tripping, if you want.

What "The Authoritarian Personality" did was to predictably declare a large percentage of the then White population as 'potentially fascist' and 'hostile to democracy'. They criteria were distrust of back-door politics and attachment to folk, family, fatherland. And that's the pattern they followed ever after.

[Whodunnit?]

Why is it that the genocide of the eastern Germans is never brought up? You can prove it by just comparing maps. East Prussia, a nation that existed for 800 years, the nation of Frederick The Great, field marshall Bluecher, and Immanuel Kant was entirely genocided.

[Hektor]

Why is it that the genocide of the eastern Germans is never brought up? You can prove it by just comparing maps. East Prussia, a nation that existed for 800 years, the nation of Frederick The Great, field marshall Bluecher, and Immanuel Kant was entirely genocided.

Change of borders doesn't prove it. There were however camps for Germans in Eastern Germany that could be investigated. And the German population of Eastern Germany was expelled a process during which many of them died. There were indeed attempts to investigate this and publish on it, but that has mostly ran into sand. Most Eastern Germans tried to cope with their new situations and rebuild their lives. They didn't want to remind themselves over and over again of their own partially horrible experiences and suffering. E.g. observing how neighbors and relatives get murdered and raped isn't exactly a pleasant experience. Also, they don't like to play the victim card. I recall that the expulsion ("die Vertreibung") did play some role in West-Germany until the 1970s-1980s. But it seems have to diminished after the Holocaust became an established part of German public live since the late 1970s. This was after the soap opera "Holocaust" was aired in Germany. It seems to have been a game changer. The "Historikerstreit" was in the 1980s and it was settled by academics making a big fuss and insulting Ernst Nolte.

[Whodunnit?]

Why is it that the genocide of the eastern Germans is never brought up? You can prove it by just comparing maps. East Prussia, a nation that existed for 800 years, the nation of Frederick The Great, field marshall Bluecher, and Immanuel Kant was entirely genocided.

Change of borders doesn't prove it. There were however camps for Germans in Eastern Germany that could be investigated. And the German population of Eastern Germany was expelled a process during which many of them died. There were indeed attempts to investigate this and publish on it, but that has mostly ran into sand. Most Eastern Germans tried to cope with their new situations and rebuild their lives. They didn't want to remind themselves over and over again of their own partially horrible experiences and suffering. E.g. observing how neighbors and relatives get murdered and raped isn't exactly a pleasant experience. Also, they don't like to play the victim card. I recall that the expulsion ("die Vertreibung") did play some role in West-Germany until the 1970s-1980s. But it seems have to diminished after the Holocaust became an established part of German public live since the late 1970s. This was after the soap opera "Holocaust" was aired in Germany. It seems to have been a game changer. The "Historikerstreit" was in the 1980s and it was settled by academics making a big fuss and insulting Ernst Nolte.

What do you mean, "Change of borders"? Countrys are gone. Before the German unification, Prussia was a country. It's gone, including it's population. The architecture of the capital has been razed to the ground. The Prussians were intentionally genocided since the allies wanted a Germany without "prussian militarism". The fact that Prussia acquired the Rhinelands and some other western German territories doesn't change the fact that "Prussians" were Germans who lived east of the Oder and at the baltic sea.

Sudetengermans, Danube Swabians, Transilanvian Saxons, and so on, these ethnicities don't exist anymore, Pommeranians and Silesians used to be Germans, they are also gone and were replaced with Polacks.
This is genocide. This is not a "border correction".

[hermod]

In the 1960s your degreed academics would still have known who Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer were and what the Frankfurt School was. They could also name the title of "Authoritarian Personality". But even they would be puzzled, if you put them onto who actually sponsored this and would be ignorant of what they purpose would have been.

That changed since 1990. I don't think a sociologist or political 'scientist' would immediately know who those folks are. Unless he specialized on this of course.

If you point that out - and there is no way to overlook that those folks were Jewish - then you are an 'Anti-Semite'.
So the taboo of Anti-Semitism (which they created via Holocausting) actually shields them from effective critic in the process.

What that book and others tried to do is to 'psychoanalyze' society as a whole. Attesting the White, Western, Christian societies had some mental illness that needed therapy to be cured. And if that wasn't done then something 'very evil' would have happened. That's gas lighting on the mega-level. Strategic guilt-tripping, if you want.

What "The Authoritarian Personality" did was to predictably declare a large percentage of the then White population as 'potentially fascist' and 'hostile to democracy'. They criteria were distrust of back-door politics and attachment to folk, family, fatherland. And that's the pattern they followed ever after.

If pathogenic bacteria could talk (and bribe and lobby and threaten and make propaganda and...), they would of course demonize the immune system and criminalize antibiotics. The sociological and legal ban on antisemitism demonstrates that the antisemites' analysis on power in Western societies is the correct one.

"To determine the true rulers of any society,
all you must do is ask yourself this question:
Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?"
- Kevin Alfred Strom, August 14, 1993

What "The Authoritarian Personality" did was to predictably declare a large percentage of the then White population as 'potentially fascist' and 'hostile to democracy'.

The "hostile to democracy" thing was a second version of it, a misleading slogan adapted for the American public after the leaders of the Frankfurt School had been kicked out of Germany. Some Marxist agitators such as the top Frankfurt Schoolers were of course ardent opponents of democracy, especially of a super-capitalistic democracy like the United States. But they couldn't say that too openly in America. So they pretended to be democracy-lovers and rather attacked the American democracy from within.

[Whodunnit?]

....

In the 1960s your degreed academics would still have known who Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer were and what the Frankfurt School was. They could also name the title of "Authoritarian Personality". (...)

That changed since 1990. I don't think a sociologist or political 'scientist' would immediately know who those folks are. Unless he specialized on this of course.

Just a short remark: I studied Soziology in the late 90's, only for a few semesters. It was pretty much all about the beforementioned names and other khazar classics, like Durkheim and Marx. Them being jewish wasn't a topic, though.