How you know the jews are in error

If you are jewish your people have been expelled from nearly a hundred countries. There are two conclusions you can draw from this: either you are in error or the world is in error. 

If the world is an error the world must be defeated. 

If you are an error judaism should be disbanded.

Trying to defeat the world inevitably leads to abusing a hell of a lot of people. If you were not in error before you tried to defeat the world you will be afterwards. If you are undergoing this dilemma then other people who are jews have undergone this dilemma before you. Some of them must have tried to defeat the world. Some of them must have been in error.

If some were in error then all the jews who were punished were punished because some of you were in error, because some of you tried to defeat the world.

Ergo, the members of your religion have always been at least partially in error since some of them tried to defeat the world, and the world punished many of you for the trouble.

Therefore your history of being punished is your history of enduring revenge by a world your people tried, and failed, to defeat.

Scissor Statements

As you probably already know there is something called a scissor statement. Here's the definition;

A "scissor statement" is an intentionally inflammatory phrase or idea, coined by Scott Alexander, designed to cause intense polarization and irreconcilable, angry disagreement between groups. It acts like a wedge, highlighting ideological differences to divide people, often used to create social conflict or to, in marketing, target a specific, passionate audience. 

Key Aspects of Scissor Statements:

Definition: A statement that causes, rather than just reports, a massive, emotional divide.

The "Scissor" Effect: The argument becomes so intense that participants become incredulous that the other side could possibly disagree, viewing the issue as an existential battle.

Origin: Coined by author Scott Alexander in his short story "Sort by Controversial," illustrating how certain topics (e.g., the "Ground Zero mosque") act as social scissors.

Purpose: To force people to take sides, making it impossible to hold a neutral position.

Marketing/Strategy: Used to stand out by appealing intensely to one group while alienating others. 

My argument here is that judaism has a scissor effect on the human mind and specifically on the minds of jews themselves. You cannot learn about something like the holocaust, especially if you are jewish, without reaching one of two conclusions: either the world is capable of extraordinary evil (and that evil must be defeated by managing the culture of the goyim) or the jews are profoundly in error. 

The claim I am making here is a meta-claim about the psychological nature of judaism. Scissor statements are explosive in their capacity to produce division and hostility between people. What I am claiming is not the Judaism is evil per se, but that the psychological effect of having a group of people who have been profoundly traumatized and victimized by society will always create in those people an anxiety that compels them to try to manage the culture of others, that this managing will be interpreted as meddling, and that the meddling will then produce a backlash that gets them killed. Judaism then becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy of victimization where the attempt to ward off victimization incites it. 

I was reminded of this mentality when I watched a video about the Jewish filmmaker Ari Aster and how his movie Midsommar has the following plot: 

A couple go visit a maypole festival that turns out to be run by a cult that practice is human sacrifice. The cult has a girl drug and rape the boyfriend of the character played by Florence Pugh. She is so upset that she offers him up for human sacrifice because he cheated on her. She then watches and smiles as he is burned alive as a human sacrifice offering. 

The purpose of this plot of course is to demean the entire maypole festival and that is why the movie has generated a lot of animosity and resentment among Swedes. The subversion of the film acts on several levels. First, it's a grades a pre-christian non abrahamic religious festival that gives its people some national pride. Second, it portrays a woman, female character played by Florence Pugh as indifferent to the rape of her boyfriend and willing to enjoy his murder to get "even" for his "cheating." This drives a wedge between the white couple and therefore between white people who watch the movie. White women are unlikely to realize that the character was raped because he was drugged, and therefore, may have some sympathy for the vengeance plot against him. White men well then look at these women and be horrified at how unsympathetic they are. The psychological effect is that white men will perceive their own women as being untrustworthy and dangerous, while the woman's soul is toxified with vicarious pleasure at getting even with white men.

Following divisions and subversions are successfully created: 

1. Degrading the international perception of the festival 
2. Making white men suspicious of white women 
3. Making white women indifferent to the rape of their partner 
4. Teaching white women that it's okay to be violent towards the cheating partner
5. Portraying the triumph of evil over good in a movie, and the demoralizing effects of that on culture

So I was thinking, what would compel Ari Aster to produce this film? A garden variety anti-semitic response might be because jewish subversion is a collective evolutionary response.

But I find genetic explanations unconvincing.

I think it's the nature of jewish history itself. I think the problem is cultural. I think judaism is an entire religion in the form of a scissor statement that compels the individual who is born into it to conclude that the world is a fundamentally hostile and evil place, that people are bad, and that the goyim must be managed or defeated. How can you, as a jew, not look at the holocaust and conclude that the only way for jews to be safe in the long term is for all whites to go extinct? A scissor statement is a statement that creates profound hatred and division between people to the point to where you no longer even see your opponent as human. There is no way to belong to a group that has been purged in a factory killing machine by the millions without concluding some pretty awful things. A jewish man of strong moral conviction will see this situation and conclude he must be prepared to do drastic things to survive and protect his people, and that friends is why judaism is the problem.

Most people are not evil. Most people are good people who do evil things. It is not a world of good versus evil but of stupid versus stupid. Every person who does profound evil is convinced that they are right, convinced that they are acting under an absolute necessity to vanquish and enemy that is implacable. Evil doesn't look like a cackling psychopath plotting your extermination. It looks like an incredibly afraid man who thinks that subverting you, (or holocausting you) is the only way he can survive. Evil is fearful. Evil is driven by fear. "We must do what must be done," they say before burning a village alive in a church. "We must never let the holocaust happen again," they say before subverting your whole culture and making you hate them. The greatest threat to a man's survival is his own moral conviction. Ari, like Hitler, is probably a profoundly moral man. I say that without irony because there is no irony, because there is no separation between a man who thinks he is moral and a man who everyone else thinks is moral. Whenever you find a man of strong conviction you will find his surrounded by other people of similar conviction. He is therefore moral in the eyes of the people surrounding him even as he does objectively evil things. That's how evil really works. Evil feels like doing good.