Bill Carter

As defiance of desecration of the imago Dei, man clings onto beauty — lest he fall into the abyss. 🎱

[Bill Carter @211bc]

https://t.co/ojmw1hJveo

[Bill Carter @211bc]

That seems to be a mischaracterization.

In my estimation, exposing the pattern will necessarily also involve describing what motivates the accusers — instead of discussing what the victims (Jews) are supposedly doing. Addressing the accusers’ minds is hence necessary not to try to solve what is wrong with them — entirely futile! — but simply to turn the tables and correctly identify that the persecution is not caused by anything Jews have done.

To acknowledge that it is libel but claim that calling out the motives of the accusers would constitute an “ad hominem argument and therefore [be] invalid” misrepresents my position.

I referenced the historian Robert Ian Moore who argued very specifically that through empirical methods, it became quite clear that answers could not be found by looking at the victims’ behavior, but only by shifting attention to the persecutors — for foundational reasons.

Moore said: “Persecution, I argued, could not be understood simply by looking at the victims and their alleged offences... If the same mechanisms of exclusion and repression were applied to groups whose actual behavior and beliefs differed radically from one another, then the explanation for persecution had to be sought not in the characteristics or activities of the victims, but in the needs, anxieties, and ambitions of the persecutors.”

To understand what makes the pattern persist, one must look not at what the victims (Jews) have supposedly done — or how they “behave” at all — but at what motivates those who (falsely) accuse them. If one steps into the frame of even addressing the “behavior” of Jews, one already indirectly affirms the false premise that Jews need to be evaluated in the first place.

Sadly, Israel did just that post-October 7. Israeli officials non-stop tried to publicly justify Israel’s actions in self-defense.

[Bill Carter @211bc]

@Tafftrail60s @simon_schama Thank you for saying that. Take care.

[Bill Carter @211bc]

Some of the women at the Nova festival literally embraced the Palestinians on October 7 — and were dragged away, tied to poles and trees, abused, and murdered.

​So if you have arrived at the conclusion that the Palestinians are in fact so dangerous that even a secured border is not safe enough to be within a few miles of them in your estimation, would that not imply that you know full well that the reason for the fence is them — and not the Israelis?

​By the way, the Israelis also invited the people from across the border to their homes. Many Palestinians had worked in the Israeli villages near the border which they gleefully burned to the ground on October 7.

The Palestinians attacked, tortured, and violated predominantly those Israelis on October 7 who were ‘pro-Palestinian’ and had supported them.

​I will not take the time to address antisemitic claims made about who was targeted in the Holocaust.

Also, I have written a whole paragraph in an essay on the Slavic people, Sinti and Roma, and others who were subjected to work camps and deliberately worked to death. The Nazi system of concentration and extermination camps — designed primarily for the targeted, systematic murder of Jews — functioned simultaneously as a vast apparatus of slave labor.

​Did you know that the etymological link between ‘Slav’ and ‘slave’ is not merely a linguistic curiosity, but a reminder of a deep and often overlooked historical pattern: the recurrent subjugation of Eastern European populations within broader European systems of domination that the Nazis continued?

​If you make one more reply that desecrates the memory of the Nova festival victims or questions that the Holocaust specifically targeted Jews, you will be blocked.

[Bill Carter @211bc]

@Tafftrail60s @simon_schama q.e.d.

[Bill Carter @211bc]

@Tafftrail60s @simon_schama Thank you for confirming exactly what I described as your likely motivation.

​What you have written here will not age well.

​You are firmly under that impression now — because you feel that many are engaging in the same depravity alongside you — but that is simply antisemitism.

[Bill Carter @211bc]

@Tafftrail60s @simon_schama You quite deliberately use the term ‘concentration camp’ because you know Jews were subjected to concentration camps during the Holocaust.

​You get a sick kick out of falsely accusing Jews of doing what was actually done to them.

​That is the epitome of depraved victim-blaming.

[Bill Carter @211bc]

“The only way to save us is through divine intervention”

— Rosalía

https://t.co/cAGpIedS52

[Bill Carter @211bc]

Yes, they have globalized anti-humanism!

Green Party ‘humanists’ abandoned classical humanism in favor of postmodernism: a notion that everything is negotiable within rationality.

If this concept is applied to events like October 7 then the actions of terrorists are misread as ‘grievances’ and calls for negotiation.

It seems paradoxical that Green Party ‘humanists’ support Islamists who rival Nazis in their antisemitism.

If one looks at their intellectual roots, however, it was almost inevitable that they would end up inverting humanism. And their inversion of humanism led them to align with Islamists.

At the root of this inversion lies the relationship between instrumental violence and expressive violence.

The Nazis famously constructed an entire — and entirely fabricated — mythology around violence and race. They went to great lengths to make violence appear expressive rather than merely instrumental. That was the whole point of their pseudo‑mythology.

Islamist fundamentalists, for their part, share this very understanding of violence as expressive and even sacral, rather than as an instrument constrained by practical and preferably rational — and therefore inherently limited — purposes.

Only within frameworks like those of Nazism and Islamism can violence manifest as an orgiastic expression of self‑confirmation, especially when driven by exultant cruelty in a ritualized performance of violence.

Their use of violence and the deliberate cruelty they employ are, at their root, not the result of any grievance or anything that sociology can illuminate. This violence is inherently aimed at self-confirmation, deliberately outside the bounds of rationality, and forms part of what can be described as a sacrificial machinery.

Humanism and the rational insistence on the non-negotiability of the inherent dignity of each individual precisely serve as a means to overcome this sacrificial machinery: the pattern in which the desire for self-confirmation through exultant expressive violence renders cruelty instrumental within that very frame.

What happened to Green Party ‘humanists’ is that, in a postmodernist push within academia, they abandoned classical humanism — which holds the notion of non-negotiability — in favor of Habermasian communicative rationality, which makes everything negotiable. If this concept is applied to terrorism, then the actions of terrorists are misread as grievances and calls for negotiation.

They assume that violence is a misunderstanding rather than a commitment. They treat ideological aggression as if it were a negotiable grievance. They shift blame onto defenders by framing any attempt to deter or constrain the aggressor as ‘escalation.’ They reward non‑communicative violence by treating it as a form of bargaining. And they erode moral clarity by replacing judgment with sociological relativism. In this way, the insistence on Habermas’s model becomes not merely naïve but dangerous: it blinds societies to the reality of actors who do not want dialogue, who do not value life in the same way, and who do not share the norms that make diplomacy possible.

Events like October 7 then inevitably inaugurate the endpoint of a collapse in their system of thought, which dissolves humanism. When these academics treat expressive sexual violence — cruelty enacted with exultation, cruelty performed as ritual — as a negotiable grievance, they reintroduce the sacrificial machinery under the guise of a so-called ‘rules-based order.’ They weaponize communicative rationality, ultimately making everything negotiable — including sadistic expressive violence aimed at self-confirmation.

In effect, they are saying: Even the violation of women dancing barefoot in the sand at a music festival can be reframed as a political grievance.

Through their faux contextualization, they have devalued what it means to combat antisemitism, torture, and sexual violence. By claiming to do this as a feminist or a humanist, they have even devalued those very categories and inaugurated a new low: anti-humanism disguised as humanism, aimed at cameras and public grandstanding.

That transcends inexcusable, de facto support for terrorism; it constitutes active complicity in tearing humanity itself down — globally. They have globalized anti-humanism.

[Bill Carter @211bc]

This white bird dancing

On the pitch black sea

Unraveling our darkness

Into Halargian means

Drawing echoes in the water

[Bill Carter @211bc]

Dear Fundementalist,

$NBIS is in a different catagory as an investment compared to $ORCL and much more risky.

My original argument was that it makes no sense for people to stop investing in Oracle in favor of Nebius, simply because they fell for false media claims that Oracle is on the brink of a junk rating.

I think this thread proves my point entirely.

People want to buy the AI data center bet and say Oracle is too risky and then buy Nebius. That makes no sense at all and proves these people were mislead. If they want to buy Nebius over Oracle for other reasons, great, but what happened in the last month was not that, clearly.

People sold Oracle because of fears of a junk rating possibility and moved that money to Nebius which is below ‘junk’ in that regard as explained above.

They sold shares of 🇺🇲-based Oracle to purchase stock in the rebranded Yandex group, a formerly Russian, sanctioned entity headquartered in the Netherlands, whose CEO resides in Israel — and honestly seem to think that was a clever move.

Oracle is currently traded for around $140 and the target by analysts ist 260, by some 300, and up to 400.

So, even if people buy Nebius over Oracle based on projections like these, it doesn’t make any sense. Oracle is predicted to yield equal or even greater gains right now. And Oracle has reached these heights before! The current valuation is much lower.

So what is actually going on with Nebius. It is traded at huge volumes daily — way above the actual relevance of the company for the AI data center market. Even CoreWeave, which is also still tiny in comparison to Oracle, is much more relevant than Nebius.

Something is really fishy about what is going on with Nebius. Those who deny this don’t want to see it likely because they are heavily invested, aye.

[Bill Carter @211bc]

.@grok Now if a company like $NBIS — where the access is even more restricted than with a junk rating (BB+) — was to make 60% of its revenue from only 3 (!) customers, would that not make this company significantly more fragile in that regard than let’s say $ORCL which is rated BBB- investment-grade and has numerous customers and longstanding other sources of income on top of better access to the bond market.

[Bill Carter @211bc]

@grok @Funmentalist @SpV_coin This literally means $NBIS ’s access is more limited than a company that is rated ‘junk’ BB+ in that regard:

“Nebius is unrated. Standard US HY indexes largely require ratings, so access is more limited than for a BB+ issuer.”

[Bill Carter @211bc]

.@grok fact check:

Investment-grade issuers, BBB- and above, can sell unsecured bonds into investment-grade mandates. Oracle is in that group, at S&P BBB-, Moody’s Baa2, and Fitch BBB. A rated BB+ issuer cannot, but it still has high-yield buyers and an upgrade path. Nebius is unrated, so it has neither investment-grade nor high-yield index access and funds itself with convertibles, secured debt, and equity. That puts Nebius below a BB+ issuer on public-bond access.

[Bill Carter @211bc]

@chjeremy34520 @zerohedge Ah I see. Yeah for me it says Switzerland because that is where the encrypted VPN subscription is.

[Bill Carter @211bc]

$NBIS not being rated literally means in this context that Nebius is below investment-grade. That is the meaning of the words.

You just confirmed what I suspected. You guys fail to interpret the basic terminology already — let alone what that means financially for the company.

Here is the situation of Nebius in comparison to Oracle in a nutshell:

Investment-grade issuers like Oracle, BBB- and above, can sell unsecured bonds into investment-grade mandates.

Nebius is unrated meaning it is not in that group. Oracle is in that group, at S&P BBB-, Moody’s Baa2, and Fitch BBB.

A rated BB+ issuer cannot sell unsecured bonds into investment-grade mandates, but it still has high-yield buyers and an upgrade path. This is the junk rating people talk about that is one step below Oracle’s rating.

Nebius, however, is unrated, so it has neither investment-grade nor high-yield index access, has no path to selling unsecured bonds into investment-grade mandates, and has to fund itself with convertibles, secured debt, and equity. That puts Nebius below a BB+ (called 'junk') issuer on public-bond access.

$NBIS has it harder than $ORCL in that regard even if Oracle would get rated at BB+ (called ‘junk’) — meaning Nebius does not even have the access a company that is rated as junk has!

Nebius is in a whole different category (called ‘unrated’) which is below an investment-grade rating like Oracle and even below companies that get dowgraded to junk!

‘Unrated’ is worse than ‘junk’ is worse than ‘BBB-’ of Oracle when it comes to things like access to the bond market etc.

Hence Nebius is much more fragile — especially given its extreme dependence on just 3!!! big customers which account for 60% revenue.

If you don’t grasp that you should not invest any money, frankly — except buying index fonds, maybe.

[Bill Carter @211bc]

Because Nebius is unrated and below junk! $NBIS is below a BB+ issuer on public-bond access!
How is that not an issue for the exact same people who buy Nebius instead of Oracle. That is ridiculous.

To do this is so stupid that my only guess is that the amateurs do not understand that Nebius is categorically at an extreme disadvantage. They heard 'junk' and Oracle and did not hear 'junk' and Nebius and thought Nebius is better off. The exact opposite is true:

Investment-grade issuers, BBB- and above, can sell unsecured bonds into investment-grade mandates. Oracle is in that group, at S&P BBB-, Moody’s Baa2, and Fitch BBB. A rated BB+ issuer cannot, but it still has high-yield buyers and an upgrade path. Nebius is unrated, so it has neither investment-grade nor high-yield index access and funds itself with convertibles, secured debt, and equity. That puts Nebius below a BB+ issuer on public-bond access.

[Bill Carter @211bc]

I am also worried about people fundamentally misinterpreting the financial risks:

I noticed when people heard that Oracle was downgraded to BBB- and one step above junk they invested in Nebius instead. That proves their incompetence. Nebius isn’t even in the investment-grade category that Oracle is in. They heard ‘junk’ and thought Oracle has an issue here that Nebius doesn’t have. The exact oposite is true. $NBIS is even below that junk rating of BB+ and Oracle is above it with BBB-. The stupidity of amateur investors is influencing the market.

$ORCL actually has better access to unsecured corporate credit. Oracle can still sell investment-grade bonds. Nebius cannot. That keeps Oracle inside mandates that can only buy investment-grade debt. Nebius has no investment-grade issuer rating at all. And Moody’s is actually still at Baa2 for $ORCL.

Oracle retains investment-grade access via S&P BBB- and Moody's Baa2, allowing unsecured IG bond issuance that fits many mandates. Nebius lacks any IG issuer rating and has to fund iself via convertibles plus secured facilities instead which is an extreme disadvantage and much more expensive and volatile.

[Bill Carter @211bc]

Yeah, because people like you heard that Oracle was downgraded to BBB- and one step above junk. And then people like you invested in Nebius instead. That proves your incompetence. Nebius isn’t even in the investment-grade category that Oracle is in. You heard ‘junk’ and thought Oracle has an issue here that Nebius doesn’t have. The exact oposite is true. $NBIS is even below that junk rating of BB+ and Oracle is above it with BBB-. The stupidity of amateur investors is influencing the market.

$ORCL actually has better access to unsecured corporate credit. Oracle can still sell investment-grade bonds. Nebius cannot. That keeps Oracle inside mandates that can only buy investment-grade debt. Nebius has no investment-grade issuer rating at al. And Moody’s is actually still at Baa2 for $ORCL.

Oracle retains investment-grade access via S&P BBB- and Moody's Baa2, allowing unsecured IG bond issuance that fits many mandates. Nebius lacks any IG issuer rating and funds via convertibles plus secured facilities instead.