Jewish Collective Ambitions and the 'Holocaust' Narrative

[Callafangers]

Some exterminationists have implied or expressed their view that it would be unlikely for Jews to coordinate dishonestly at any scale to advance a common narrative which ultimately benefits their tribal network. The claim is, therefore, that we should not put much weight to observed patterns of deception and the like between 'survivors' and their testimony related to the 'Holocaust', nor give too much attention to things like shared political or ideological motives and goals. But history and current events slap us with evidence that collective deception isn’t just possible; it’s been practically an art form whenever it suits Jewish interests.

Take a hard look at the mass media landscape. For decades, major conglomerates -- think Disney, Warner Bros., CBS, and others -- have been disproportionately owned and led by Jewish executives. This isn’t conspiracy nonsense; it’s just cold, hard data from annual reports and corporate histories. These outlets shape global narratives, decide what’s news, and what’s buried. Now, ask yourself: where’s the widespread Jewish outcry against the often deceptive practices of these giants? Where are the mass protests from Jewish communities against the spin, the omissions, the outright fabrications peddled by these entities? Crickets. If there’s no pushback, isn’t it reasonable to infer at least tacit approval of the distortion when it aligns with certain agendas?

Nowhere is this more glaring than in the Israel-Palestine coverage. Media bias here isn’t just a ‘whoopsie’ -- it’s systemic. Outlets with heavy Jewish influence have consistently framed Israel as the eternal victim, downplaying or outright ignoring the brutal realities of occupation, settlement expansion, and Palestinian suffering. Stats don’t lie: a 2018 study of the Associated Press found that Israeli deaths were reported on at a rate of nearly four times greater than on Palestinian deaths (see: https://israelpalestinenews.org/associa ... reporting/). Earlier studies found similar or even larger distortion. Yet, again, where’s the Jewish-led backlash against this skewed reporting? The silence isn’t just deafening -- it’s damning. It suggests a communal willingness to let the narrative slide when it protects the image of a Jewish homeland.

The issue here is a pattern of Jewish behavior that emerges when collective interests are at stake. History gives us additional parallels: during the early 20th century, Jewish networks in finance and politics often moved in lockstep to secure influence in host nations, from the Balfour Declaration to lobbying efforts in the U.S. Congress and more. Here's another example:

Jewish journalist Philip Weiss’ perception of this hypocritical double standard by Jewish organizations - i.e., non-Jews are anti-Semites for pointing out Jewish clannishness while Jews in fact celebrate their allegiance to each other - was stated this way:

“When the Anti-Defamation League surveys the goyim , one of the questions it asks is whether they think Jews stick together. If they say yes, that’s evidence of anti-Semitic attitudes. [The ADL’s] urging Jews to stick together on one hand while at the same time blasting the world for believing that we stick together: I don’t think you can really have it both ways, but that’s the outsider box Jews have helped construct for themselves.” [WEISS, p. 29]

p. 728,
https://archive.org/details/WhenVictims ... eInAmerica

The point is that Jewish initiatives can and do include strategic, well-organized deception whenever the stakes are high. And if this group can rally to shape policy or public perception, why wouldn’t they also rally to control a story?

Looping back to 'Holocaust' narratives, why the shock at the idea of coordinated testimony or exaggeration? If media silence and bias can be tolerated -- or even encouraged -- by a community for modern geopolitical gain, then historical narratives aren’t some sacred cow immune to manipulation. 'Survivor' accounts, often laced with inconsistencies when scrutinized (far too many examples to list), aren’t above question just because they’re emotionally charged. The capacity for collective deception exists; ignoring it is willful blindness and puts everyone in danger.

---

Red executives are Jewish (Jews are just ~2% of the US population, ~0.2% globally):

jewish-med.jpg (346.66 KiB) Viewed 1160 times

[Stubble]

Far be it from me to stifle your flair Sir. I would like to point out these were fully allied ambitions as well.

This is the 'it isn't just jews argument'.

I ran across Germar talking about this the other day and wondered if I should link it, I shall now.

https://odysee.com/@Detached:6/paganismandrebbe:8

To ignore the jewish interest in the holocaust narrative as we have come to know it would be naive. To ignore the zionist interest in it would be stupid. To ignore allied complicity (the 'noble lie') is short sighted, in my opinion.

Not everyone involved with the hidden hand wears a small hat, and not everyone with a small hat is involved with the hidden hand.

Just my .02

[Callafangers]

To ignore the jewish interest in the holocaust narrative as we have come to know it would be naive. To ignore the zionist interest in it would be stupid. To ignore allied complicity (the 'noble lie') is short sighted, in my opinion.

Not everyone involved with the hidden hand wears a small hat, and not everyone with a small hat is involved with the hidden hand.

Just my .02

I do agree with this but people in general don't seem to have much difficulty pointing due blame at the Allies. It's when you mention Jews that they get defensive, tell you to be more of an 'individualist', etc. Thus, the need for additional clarification in this particular direction.

[fireofice]

On Jewish representation in the media, this article goes over that:

https://mischrev.substack.com/p/the-jew ... rican-news

The author (who is pro Jewish) finds an overrepresentation of Jews in the media.

There is this site which goes over various demographics of Jews in influential positions (although a bit dated):

https://thezog.wordpress.com/

There is also the website social sentinel which has a large database of famous people and their ethnicity including if they are Jewish so the Jewish representation in certain areas can be tracked.

https://socialsentinel.net/

[Wahrheitssucher]

[Nessie]

Some exterminationists have implied or expressed their view that it would be unlikely for Jews to coordinate dishonestly at any scale to advance a common narrative which ultimately benefits their tribal network...

It is not just the Jews who would need to coordinate. It is every government in every country in Europe, since 1939. The Jews would need to control them as well.

[Callafangers]

It is not just the Jews who would need to coordinate. It is every government in every country in Europe, since 1939. The Jews would need to control them as well.

What happens to governments at the end of world war? Seems to me they have to pick a side, one way or another.

[Nessie]

It is not just the Jews who would need to coordinate. It is every government in every country in Europe, since 1939. The Jews would need to control them as well.

What happens to governments at the end of world war? Seems to me they have to pick a side, one way or another.

They all picked the side that means they have all admitted their complicity in the murder of at least some of their Jewish citizens. From the Dutch police helping with arrests, to Latvian militia joining with the EG shooting Jews. From Quisling in Norway to the Vichy Government in France, countries admit to assisting with the Final Solution. Why do they all admit their responsibility, if it is all a fake?

[Callafangers]

It is not just the Jews who would need to coordinate. It is every government in every country in Europe, since 1939. The Jews would need to control them as well.

What happens to governments at the end of world war? Seems to me they have to pick a side, one way or another.

They all picked the side that means they have all admitted their complicity in the murder of at least some of their Jewish citizens. From the Dutch police helping with arrests, to Latvian militia joining with the EG shooting Jews. From Quisling in Norway to the Vichy Government in France, countries admit to assisting with the Final Solution. Why do they all admit their responsibility, if it is all a fake?

Normally, when someone "admits" to a crime, they face penalties and persecution or imprisonment. But in your example of this 'admission', they received favor with the victorious global powers. Do you see the difference?

[Nessie]

What happens to governments at the end of world war? Seems to me they have to pick a side, one way or another.

They all picked the side that means they have all admitted their complicity in the murder of at least some of their Jewish citizens. From the Dutch police helping with arrests, to Latvian militia joining with the EG shooting Jews. From Quisling in Norway to the Vichy Government in France, countries admit to assisting with the Final Solution. Why do they all admit their responsibility, if it is all a fake?

Normally, when someone "admits" to a crime, they face penalties and persecution or imprisonment. But in your example of this 'admission', they received favor with the victorious global powers. Do you see the difference?

People from those other countries, have been the subject of prosecutions, for their roles in the Holocaust, such as Klaus Barbie.

Those countries also admit to a collective responsibility, which, such as now, when relations with Israel are so poor, makes supporting a Jewish hoax a very unlikely act.

[Callafangers]

People from those other countries, have been the subject of prosecutions, for their roles in the Holocaust, such as Klaus Barbie.

Those countries also admit to a collective responsibility, which, such as now, when relations with Israel are so poor, makes supporting a Jewish hoax a very unlikely act.

It is a century later, Nessie. The people and politicians of today are products of those who have had actual experiences during WW2, not direct witnesses to any of it. Moreover, most of the politicians you would point to of the prior generation had no direct knowledge or information which could lead them to confirm either way what "actually happened". You think most French, Dutch, etc. could say either way whether the 'Holocaust' was indeed true, rather than simply a propaganda narrative? The facts of the matter have little influence on how a nation or its officials position themselves in the court of public opinion. It is only your assumption that a critical mass of them would have enough confidence in the untruth of 'Nazi extermination' to have come out and said so, even if it were indeed untrue.

[Nessie]

People from those other countries, have been the subject of prosecutions, for their roles in the Holocaust, such as Klaus Barbie.

Those countries also admit to a collective responsibility, which, such as now, when relations with Israel are so poor, makes supporting a Jewish hoax a very unlikely act.

It is a century later, Nessie. The people and politicians of today are products of those who have had actual experiences during WW2, not direct witnesses to any of it. Moreover, most of the politicians you would point to of the prior generation had no direct knowledge or information which could lead them to confirm either way what "actually happened". You think most French, Dutch, etc. could say either way whether the 'Holocaust' was indeed true, rather than simply a propaganda narrative? The facts of the matter have little influence on how a nation or its officials position themselves in the court of public opinion. It is only your assumption that a critical mass of them would have enough confidence in the untruth of 'Nazi extermination' to have come out and said so, even if it were indeed untrue.

Please show your evidence, that the people who had been in the occupied and aligned countries governments, the officials who worked with the Nazis, did not know what was happening.

Here is what they 100% knew about. From Norway to Greece, Jews were to be identified, arrested and sent to camps and ghettos. They were then transported out of the country to Eastern Europe, mainly into what had been Poland. In 1945, few of those Jews returned home, or otherwise made themselves known to their fellow country men.

Officials in Latvia, Lithuania, Belorussia, Romania, Serbia and Poland 100% knew that Jews were being murdered, as they were often active participants in the killings.

Officials from Norway to Greece feared the worst for the deported Jews, due to the rumours of killings, and many tried to protect their fellow Jewish citizens. Finland, Denmark and the unoccupied part of France were most successful. The Dutch were very cooperative and as a result they had one of the highest death rates. If those officials really thought the reports of killings were just atrocity nonsense, why were there many efforts to protect Jews? The Hungarians held out until 1944, when the Nazis took over and then their Jewish population plummeted. If it really was resettlement, where were the Hungarian Jews deported to A-B, at the end of 1944? Why did Hungarian officials get Jews into Switzerland and protect the population of Budapest? They were acting in a way, that they knew Jews sent on Nazi transports to camps were at great risk of death.

Post-war, many officials were able to hide behind claims that they did not know. But some, such as Quisling in Norway and Barbie in France, were held to account for their actions. They were unable to convince their fellow countrymen that they did not know, and were executed.

Your suggestion of a successful hoax, that needed the active cooperation of so many people, from so many countries, to act against the interests of their country, stretches credibility beyond breaking point. That is why you want to deny the reality of the scale of the hoax you allege.

[Callafangers]

Here is what they 100% knew about. From Norway to Greece, Jews were to be identified, arrested and sent to camps and ghettos. They were then transported out of the country to Eastern Europe, mainly into what had been Poland. In 1945, few of those Jews returned home, or otherwise made themselves known to their fellow country men.

Yes, Jews often left and did not wish to return "home". Jews as a collective have historically behaved as internationalists and forcible expulsion, years of devastating deprivation and war, and new opportunities for a global diaspora thereafter (emigration, Zionism, etc.) to escape the chaos of Europe which persisted through the 20th century explains this. Jews were not at "home" in Norway, Greece, etc., thus the desire and pattern of returning there was minimal. Jews instead ended up across the globe, in dozens of countries as evident in testimonials spanning as many countries from the Shoah Foundation archives taken decades later, or of the scattered records reflecting extreme dispersion over any pattern of "homecoming".

Officials in Latvia, Lithuania, Belorussia, Romania, Serbia and Poland 100% knew that Jews were being murdered, as they were often active participants in the killings.

Any former German allies were necessarily on the chopping block post-war, meaning their desire to cooperate with Allied nations was paramount. That many of them cooperated with mass shootings would not be in dispute as anti-partisan measures were not especially well hidden (but also isn't industrialized, cartoonish mass murder).

Officials from Norway to Greece feared the worst for the deported Jews, due to the rumours of killings, and many tried to protect their fellow Jewish citizens. Finland, Denmark and the unoccupied part of France were most successful. The Dutch were very cooperative and as a result they had one of the highest death rates. If those officials really thought the reports of killings were just atrocity nonsense, why were there many efforts to protect Jews?

You have answered your own question: they believed the rumors. If there had been no bizarre atrocity propaganda doing its rounds at this time, we would be able to rule this out and your suggested conclusion might have a leg to stand on. But no, the black atrocity propaganda was incredibly mendacious and in full-swing around this period. The fact that it was believable to certain officials is only evidence that the propagandists (in partnership with "resistance networks") had reason to feel encouraged and to double their efforts.

The Hungarians held out until 1944, when the Nazis took over and then their Jewish population plummeted. If it really was resettlement, where were the Hungarian Jews deported to A-B, at the end of 1944? Why did Hungarian officials get Jews into Switzerland and protect the population of Budapest? They were acting in a way, that they knew Jews sent on Nazi transports to camps were at great risk of death.

I've addressed this with you many times. The fact of Germans opening up camps for the most "unfit" Jews (children) at this time, in huge quantities (86 camps for Hungarian-Jewish children in Austria in mid-late 1944) is strong evidence that the policy was not to kill these Jews. This provides strong support for the continuation of resettlement policy.

Post-war, many officials were able to hide behind claims that they did not know. But some, such as Quisling in Norway and Barbie in France, were held to account for their actions. They were unable to convince their fellow countrymen that they did not know, and were executed.

This entire "who knew vs. who didn't" is a psychological tactic that attempts to railroad the narrative further forward without its due process of criticism and open debate. For the question of "knowing" to be significant, one must first prove the events in question. Many people who did not deserve to die were executed as 'traitors' based on their benevolence toward Germany, without any credible evidence of a 'Holocaust'.

Your suggestion of a successful hoax, that needed the active cooperation of so many people, from so many countries, to act against the interests of their country, stretches credibility beyond breaking point. That is why you want to deny the reality of the scale of the hoax you allege.

You make multiple assumptions here without basis in fact or reason -- that "active cooperation" was needed from "so many people" and "so many countries". But as suggested earlier, siding with the victors often had more material benefit than costs, and many of thes deals taking place were not announced publicly.

[Nessie]

Here is what they 100% knew about. From Norway to Greece, Jews were to be identified, arrested and sent to camps and ghettos. They were then transported out of the country to Eastern Europe, mainly into what had been Poland. In 1945, few of those Jews returned home, or otherwise made themselves known to their fellow country men.

Yes, Jews often left and did not wish to return "home". Jews as a collective have historically behaved as internationalists and forcible expulsion, years of devastating deprivation and war, and new opportunities for a global diaspora thereafter (emigration, Zionism, etc.) to escape the chaos of Europe which persisted through the 20th century explains this. Jews were not at "home" in Norway, Greece, etc., thus the desire and pattern of returning there was minimal. Jews instead ended up across the globe, in dozens of countries as evident in testimonials spanning as many countries from the Shoah Foundation archives taken decades later, or of the scattered records reflecting extreme dispersion over any pattern of "homecoming".

From Norway to Greece, including pre-Nazi Germany, Jews were treated as much as citizens as other religions. It was in Eastern Europe, that they encountered the greatest prejudice, often subject to residency and other conditions. Countries such as the Netherlands, where anti-Semitism was not a particular issue, accepted that official behaviour towards Jewish citizens and cooperation with the Nazis, meant that they carried a lot of responsibility for the Holocaust.

The suggestion that millions of Jews left Europe for other places, in 1945, is not evidenced.

Officials in Latvia, Lithuania, Belorussia, Romania, Serbia and Poland 100% knew that Jews were being murdered, as they were often active participants in the killings.

Any former German allies were necessarily on the chopping block post-war, meaning their desire to cooperate with Allied nations was paramount. That many of them cooperated with mass shootings would not be in dispute as anti-partisan measures were not especially well hidden (but also isn't industrialized, cartoonish mass murder).

Why did those countries admit to mass murdering their Jewish citizens, when that was a hoax? Why do they still admit it, after the fall of the SU? None accept your version of events, that it was anti-partisan. They all admit that all Jews were shot, as well as partisans. They were separate groups.

Officials from Norway to Greece feared the worst for the deported Jews, due to the rumours of killings, and many tried to protect their fellow Jewish citizens. Finland, Denmark and the unoccupied part of France were most successful. The Dutch were very cooperative and as a result they had one of the highest death rates. If those officials really thought the reports of killings were just atrocity nonsense, why were there many efforts to protect Jews?

You have answered your own question: they believed the rumors. If there had been no bizarre atrocity propaganda doing its rounds at this time, we would be able to rule this out and your suggested conclusion might have a leg to stand on. But no, the black atrocity propaganda was incredibly mendacious and in full-swing around this period. The fact that it was believable to certain officials is only evidence that the propagandists (in partnership with "resistance networks") had reason to feel encouraged and to double their efforts.

Or, the alternative answer is that they believed the rumours, because of the evidence that also made its way back to those countries, from credible witnesses and reports.

Those countries can account for the Jews they prevented from being transported. They cannot account for the majority of those who were transported.

The Hungarians held out until 1944, when the Nazis took over and then their Jewish population plummeted. If it really was resettlement, where were the Hungarian Jews deported to A-B, at the end of 1944? Why did Hungarian officials get Jews into Switzerland and protect the population of Budapest? They were acting in a way, that they knew Jews sent on Nazi transports to camps were at great risk of death.

I've addressed this with you many times. The fact of Germans opening up camps for the most "unfit" Jews (children) at this time, in huge quantities (86 camps for Hungarian-Jewish children in Austria in mid-late 1944) is strong evidence that the policy was not to kill these Jews. This provides strong support for the continuation of resettlement policy.

Except, you cannot account for the c400,000 Hungarian Jews sent to A-B, who were not selected for work and were sent to the Kremas. That you can account for the rest, is strong circumstantial evidence to support a policy of killing as many Hungarian Jews as possible.

That pattern was repeated all over Europe. Jews who avoided arrest and transportation, can be accounted for. Jews arrested and transported by the Nazis, make up the vast majority who cannot be accounted for.

Post-war, many officials were able to hide behind claims that they did not know. But some, such as Quisling in Norway and Barbie in France, were held to account for their actions. They were unable to convince their fellow countrymen that they did not know, and were executed.

This entire "who knew vs. who didn't" is a psychological tactic that attempts to railroad the narrative further forward without its due process of criticism and open debate. For the question of "knowing" to be significant, one must first prove the events in question. Many people who did not deserve to die were executed as 'traitors' based on their benevolence toward Germany, without any credible evidence of a 'Holocaust'.

That is merely your conspiratorial opinion. All over Europe, those most involved in the deaths of Jewish citizens, were held to account, because of the evidence that those Jews were being sent to their deaths. Either every European judiciary was duped into believing a hoax, or a few conspiratorial so-called Holocaust revisionists have been duped into believing a hoax. It is clearly far more likely that it is the so-called revisionists who have been duped.

Your suggestion of a successful hoax, that needed the active cooperation of so many people, from so many countries, to act against the interests of their country, stretches credibility beyond breaking point. That is why you want to deny the reality of the scale of the hoax you allege.

You make multiple assumptions here without basis in fact or reason -- that "active cooperation" was needed from "so many people" and "so many countries". But as suggested earlier, siding with the victors often had more material benefit than costs, and many of thes deals taking place were not announced publicly.

I have made no assumptions. The evidence proves that Jews from any European country, including the UK, who fell into the hands of the Nazis, had a far lower survival rate than those who were protected from arrest and transportation. The evidence is also that every country admits to its failings, when it came to its Jewish citizens, from Latvians who joined in with the murders, to the highly cooperative Dutch police arresting Jews. If it was a hoax, it would be very much in those countries interests to blow it and reveal that they did not actively participate in the Holocaust.