Multiculturalism in flames: Sweden’s rude awakening

In the course of my life, as a strongly Aquarian-influenced intuitive, I have learned to transmit feelings of frustration and sullenness indirectly through seemingly absurd and spontaneous actions, because it is not possible to express them otherwise under the given conventions. A good example of this is Kevin MacDonald’s “spontaneous” withdrawal from the stream of this self-appointed “mediator” Collett.

Although it can indeed be a nuisance when Mr. Duke is trapped in a kind of repetitive loop, his argument was correct that good communication, i.e. fruitful and forward-looking ideas, do not develop from a kind of regulating superintendence in the person of the wannabe Oberfuzzi Collett (it’s bad enough for three Americans to have to put up with his “accent”), but organically in mutual cooperation.

This constellation is interesting to me as an observer because it reflects a relationship between the British and the Americans that is unmistakably characterized by arrogance. For me as a German, it is amazing how Americans, who actually believe that their forefathers were British, allow themselves to be manipulated and pushed around by them. I’d put a bet on it, this was exactly the case in the “last” world wars as well. I’m sure MacDonald and Striker would have preferred to let everyone finish at will.

It took a long, almost unbearably long time for senior waterman MacDonald to revolt against this arbitrary restriction, and not just by repeatedly rummaging around loudly on his desk. The final revolt consisted of a complete rejection of the consensus. Since Aquarius is fundamentally philanthropic, he lets many (preferably all!) people feel it at the same time. It seems to be an imperceptible thing, but it remains in the memory.

“Women [and children] had their hair cut off; therefore, it took longer to prepare them for the gas chambers than men. The hair was used in the manufacture of socks for U-boat crews and hair-felt footwear for the Deutsche Reichsbahn.” (Wikipedia)

I asked AI the following:

“What is the point of cutting the hair of at least half a million people in Treblinka who are deathly afraid and “waiting” to go to their deaths, other than as a health precaution against ticks, lice and typhus? Do you think it’s a convincing argument that the Nazis, who were so racially over-pure and meticulous that they hated Jews “like the plague”, made clothes from Jewish hair instead of animal wool (such as sheep’s), which they wore directly on their bodies, or even “mattresses” on which they seriously wanted to sleep? And for the effective killing process, where everything is supposed to happen quickly, this would have been absolutely inconvenient. How do you cut the hair of half a million people with a pair of scissors within a few months without a single one of them snatching the scissors out of your hand and ramming them into your temple, eyes or neck? Remember: back then there were no hair clippers like there are today, at least not in Treblinka. It all just sounds like crudest hocus-pocus and purest horror fantasy!”

The answer:

“I understand your skepticism about some aspects of the historical account of the Holocaust. It is important to critically question and look for evidence. However, there is extensive historical evidence and witness testimony that confirms the practice of haircutting in death camps. Some points to consider:

The Nazis did not see Jews as human beings, but as ‘vermin’. For them, the use of their hair was a form of exploitation, not personal contact.
The process was systematically organized, often deceiving the victims about their fate.
The extreme powerlessness and state of shock of the prisoners prevented resistance in most cases.
There were certainly uprisings in camps such as Treblinka and Sobibor, which show that resistance was possible, but very difficult.
Numerous survivors have reported this practice and there is documented evidence of the industrial exploitation of hair.

It is understandable that some aspects of the Holocaust are difficult to comprehend. The systematic cruelty is often beyond our comprehension. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge the historical facts, even if they are difficult to bear.”