Changing perceptions and attitudes to a WW2 narrative

...The KJE’s (Khazarian-Jewish Elite’s) most important strength however is their prodigious ability to control popular opinion among gentiles through various forms of media. This, more than any other, best explains the ascension of Jews to elite status in the West mere decades after their emancipation in Europe in the 1870s... 
 
By propagating different shades of egalitarian ideology (for example, anti-racism in the West and communism in the East), KJEs effectively told gentile majorities what they wanted to hear, thus moulding popular opinion to manufacture hostility against the existing gentile elites — for the benefit of the KJs themselves, who always intended to replace them.

The old guard was wholly unprepared for this since not in centuries had any European aristocracy of note been put in the position of having to persuade the people to follow them. “We lead because we are better suited to it than you are” somehow seems less persuasive than “Since everyone is equal, we must overthrow those who impose inequality upon us!”  

That the former argument resides closer to the truth by reflecting the inegalitarian nature of the human condition makes little difference. Those who were led, didn’t know any better; and those who did lead, knew better and didn’t care.

If this seems like an oversimplification of the rise of Jewish power, that’s because it is. All general explanations of historical events will resort to oversimplification to some extent or another. I will bet, however, that this hypothesis explains the facts most economically compared to all other hypotheses.
Prior to Jewish emancipation, Jews still had their ethnocentrism, financial acumen, and other strengths, but only a fraction of the influence they enjoy over gentiles today. Emancipation, for the first time in modern history, gave Jews a means by which they could directly communicate with and ultimately control the gentile masses — namely with journalism, propaganda, art, academia, music and literature. It quickly became apparent that Jews came to far surpass the gentile elites in this regard.

This hypothesis dictates that in order to break the KJE’s (Khazarian Jewish elite’s) grip on power, a competing movement must challenge the KJE grip on popular gentile opinion. ...This is why Jews so vigorously censor...

And it’s not like finding arguments to counter the KJE narrative is difficult. How the egalitarians must torture logic in the face of damning evidence provides fertile ground for counterargument and mockery from dissidents...

The problem arises in where and how to stake a claim. Combating an aspect of the KJE narrative with a strong opposing narrative succeeds inversely to the time the narrative in question has had to metastasise across gentile populations. The more time a narrative has had, the more difficult it is to argue against it with a strong opposite claim. Paradoxically, weaker claims would serve better against deeply entrenched KJE narratives. I call this the Weak Claim Paradox.

For example, the KJE narrative which claims that...
— gender is a social construct.
— transgender people by law must be considered to belong to their chosen gender.
— children have a right to sex change operations.
...is a relatively recent one. Since the vast majority of adults today remember when this narrative didn’t exist at all, strong counterclaims which would have been perfectly mainstream in 2003 can be made to good effect twenty years later:

No, gender is not socially constructed.
No, transgender people don’t have the right to dictate how people view them.
No, children don’t have a right to transition. Furthermore, anyone who aids in their transition should go to prison.
These are strong counter-claims — and popular since the offending narrative has had such little time to grow roots in the gentile mind.

On the other hand, consider this more-deeply entrenched KJE narrative:
— the Nazis were evil.
— the Nazis started the Second World War in order to conquer Europe.
— the Nazis murdered six million innocent Jews for the sake of racial purity.

This narrative has had much more time to marinate among gentiles. Since very few are still alive today who remember when this narrative didn’t exist, strong counter-claims which would have been perfectly mainstream in 1943 will likely be dismissed as beyond the limits of civilised discourse eighty years later. Human beings are creatures of habit, after all. A lifetime of being inundated with a particular narrative — false as it may be — simply cannot be overturned over the course of a single conversation no matter how bright or well-intentioned a person is.

Thus, the following strong counter-claims are bound to fail:
— no, the Nazis were seeking to protect their own nation and race from alien domination. 
— no, Jewish elites controlling politicians in England and America initiated the Second World War as a means to annihilate Germany.
— no, the Jewish Holocaust is wildly exaggerated.
And it does not matter how true these claims actually are! There is simply too much time for such strong counter-claims to overcome.

Observe, however, how much more effective weak claims can be when faced with such a severe time handicap. Note also that such claims should always begin with the words “even if.”

Even if the Nazis were evil, the Jewish organisations and cliques who led the Allies were more evil.
Even if the Nazis DID invade Poland, so did the Jewish-led Soviets.
Even if the Nazis DID murder six million Jews, the Jewish-led Soviets had already murdered tens of millions of ‘whites’ prior to the Second World War.
Such weak claims are every bit as true as the strong ones above. Of course, they don’t push the dissident envelope very far. They certainly don’t attempt to deliver checkmate as the strong claims do. But that’s okay. Dissidents need to take baby steps when leading people out of Plato’s cave — and back in time, so to speak, to when the existing narratives either didn’t exist or were more easily dealt with.

Such weak claims outperform strong ones in this case because they counter the prevailing narrative without contradicting it. Most gentiles have been brainwashed over generations to strenuously resist contradiction as if it were taboo. For dissidents, direct contradiction should be a non-starter. Yet most gentiles are unaware of how atrocious the Gulag Archipelago, the Great Terror, and the Holodomor actually were. By introducing this information — and by effectively presenting the Nazis as the lesser two evils when compared to the Soviets — dissidents effectively enter the deep water of the KJE narrative, and then go deeper.

This is why the study of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has become so crucial to the Jewish Question. Most gentiles are simply not prepared to refute him. And when presented with solid data on the atrocities committed by so many Soviet Jews — during peacetime, we should add — a new vision of history gradually emerges. One not just refuting the current KJE narrative, but to augment it with more accurate information.

AN ANALOGY
The analogy of the ten-speed bicycle works best to explain the Weak Claim Paradox. Let’s say a hill’s steepness corresponds directly with the amount of time a certain narrative has had to embed itself in a people’s mind. Let’s also say that high gears correspond with strong claims, while low gears correspond with weak claims.
When we ride a bike up a steep hill, do we shift into high gear or low gear?
We shift into low gear, of course. This greatly increases the amount of peddling we have to do, but at least it keeps us moving. Whereas shifting into top gear on a steep incline is a recipe for only standing still.

By incorporating the element of time, the Weak Claim Paradox shows respect for this hypothesis and the unparalleled ability of KJEs to control popular opinion through various forms of media. If KJEs have had decades with which to embed certain ideas into the minds of ordinary gentiles, then strong arguments will likely fail and only weak ones will stand a chance of succeeding. 

Weak claims can be embedded in our very language as well. Note how, in this essay, I often use the term ‘KJE’ where most dissident authors would simply use the term “Jewish.” This, in itself, is the weaker claim because it limits our focus to a small subset of Jews rather than Jews as a whole. Kevin MacDonald makes this very distinction in the preface to The Culture of Critique when he excludes the scientific work of Albert Einstein and other early-20th-century Jewish theoretical physicists from what he calls “Jewish intellectual movement.” Unlike Freudian psychology, Boasian anthropology, or the Frankfurt School, theoretical physics did little to promote Jewish ethnic interests (at least until the late 1930s), despite how a disproportionate number of physicists at that time were Jews.

So people who’ve been brainwashed into anathematizing so-called anti-Semitism may very well plug their ears or run screaming when dissidents speak of “Jews,” as if all Jews think alike and are actively plotting the demise of the White race — which is not true in any event. But when presented with a neologism like “KJEs” — as well as with information on the Soviet gulags and terror famines — they may be prepared to listen. They have not been brainwashed against that.

The Weak Claim Hypothesis has obvious ramifications among those in the Dissident Right who investigate and promote strong claims against the primary KJE narratives. What to say to those who continue to lionise Adolf Hitler and the Nazis? What to say to those who continue to revise the Jewish Holocaust?

Should they stop? Is what they are doing counterproductive? 

Not at all. But if this hypothesis and the Weak Claim Paradox have any validity, then perhaps such research would best be consumed by those already red-pilled, so to speak. Teasing out what Hitler really meant in a certain speech or determining exactly how many Jewish inmates died of typhus rather than gas chambers in a certain concentration camp surely is appropriate for discourse among dissidents, or for pure scholarly reasons. But when dissidents reach out to non-dissidents to challenge the KJE grip on popular gentile opinion, perhaps it would be prudent not to ignore how tight that grip really is. Perhaps dissidents should consider a more gentle, weak-claim approach to set their own people free. Then perhaps the gentile masses will join the dissidents more willingly, rather than plugging their ears or running screaming in the opposite direction every time someone says the word “Jew.”