@SecureSignals's banner p


Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine

13 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 06 13:34:27 UTC


User ID: 853


Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine

13 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 06 13:34:27 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 853

At Nuremberg, the series of Eastern camps allegedly responsible for the majority of gassing victims were barely mentioned at all in the trials. What was filmed and submitted as evidence were allegations that the camps liberated by the Western allies were the centers of extermination. Here is the Nuremberg Concentration camp footage which was submitted as evidence and shown in the trial courtroom supposedly showing a gas chamber at the Dachau concentration camp, here's a short transcript of that part:

Hanging in orderly rows were the clothes of prisoners who had been suffocated in a lethal gas chamber. They had been persuaded to remove their clothing under the pretext of taking a shower for which towels and soap were provided...

Even mainstream historians admit today that the clothing hanging outside the delousing chambers was not from prisoners executed in gas chambers, but that these were real delousing chambers use to disinfest clothing to prevent epidemic typhus. Dachau was one of the camps mentioned in the document I cited earlier, admitting that this claim was a hoax created by false testimonies and confessions:

The Allied Commissions of Inquiry have so far established that no people were killed by poison gas in the following concentration camps: Bergen Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, ...

In those cases, it has been possible to prove that the confessions had been extracted by tortures and the testimonies were false.

This must be taken into account when conducting investigations and interrogations with respect to war crimes.

The result of this investigation should be brought to the cognizance of former concentration camp inmates, who at the time of the hearings testified on the murder of people, especially Jews, with poison gas in those concentration camps. Should they insist on their statements, charges are to be brought against them for making false statements.

The Mainstream position admits that this film submitted as evidence at the Nuremberg trial was a lie. But it insists that the identical claims made in the camps conquered by the Soviet Union, the camps where the Allied Commissions of Inquiry were not allowed access to investigate, are the only camps where those claims were actually real.

Revisionists though have shown that likewise these Eastern camps which are currently claimed to have been extermination camps are the exact same story as the Western camps: real delousing facilities and shower rooms which were fabricated as gas chambers by Soviet propagandists, tortured confessions, and false testimonies.

Fun fact, if you review the Wikipedia page of the Nazi Concentration Camps film submitted as evidence and screened at the Nuremberg trial, the "Contents" section omits Dachau entirely and makes no description of the falsely alleged gas chamber described in this film. This is part and parcel for Wikipedia treatment of the Holocaust topic as a whole.

The Revisionist position is the same it has always been: the story that millions of people were tricked into entering gas chambers on the pretext of taking a shower was wartime atrocity propaganda. This propaganda originally centered around the Western camps until those claims were proven false after Allied investigation.

The mainstream position admits the gas chamber story in the Western camps was a hoax, created by false testimony and confessions, but then they claim that the "extermination camps" conquered by the Soviet Union were all totally real. Revisionist scholars have spent decades proving that the gas chamber story was likewise a wartime atrocity propaganda hoax in the currently alleged Eastern 'extermination camps' like Majdanek.

So the Revisionist position is simply that the gas chamber story is as real in the Eastern camps as it was in the Western camps. The mainstream position is that it was a hoax in the West but totally real in the camps "investigated" by the Soviet Union, where they fabricated evidence and denied access to Western observers.

This is an example for how X discourse influences the Tucker Carlson's and creates a feedback loop. Carlson will wade further into WWII Revisionism as it continues to gain ground on X. These twitter Spats actually matter.

Ethos is downstream from Mythos, it really is as simple as the boomer-internalization of the gas chamber mythos.

Quick compilations:

It's amazing watching these figures collapse into a deluded schizo-philosemitism. These figures used to represent the "Right of mainstream" perspective but that is falling apart as this nauseating Israel worship gets exposed to increasingly skeptical audiences.

As a further question, is this part of the right wing sphere dying?

What do you mean by "this part of the right wing sphere" here? I wouldn't consider Peterson and Fuentes part of the same sphere. I also wouldn't consider the AF 'conference' being canceled an indicator of that sphere dying. Engagement on X is probably the biggest indicator for the growth of those spheres. And Fuentes was able to ratio the Petersons handedly. And yes, ratios matter- they are the memetic fitness signal among the genetic algo of X discourse.

There also appears to be an enormous proliferation of DR engagement on X. It's quaint to imagine not too long ago where the most "radical" decile of the right wing youth would be listening to Glenn Beck or something. But now they are on X signal-boosting DR talking points and engaging in WWII revisionism. The engagement is huge and appears to be growing.

Another area in which X discourse seems to be changing is Holocaust Revisionism. I am increasingly seeing posts alluding to or outright endorsing Holocaust Revisionism and WWII Revisionism with high engagement and high numbers of likes. The ranks of "Holocaust Deniers" are certainly bigger than they have ever been before and appear to be growing judging by the number of accounts I am seeing endorse it on X. The taboo is collapsing, and it is largely because of the actions of Israel and the collapse of the credibility of the Jordan Petersons and Glenn Becks unable to corral young right-wingers any longer.

I wonder which claim you claim to be fictional.

I literally listed three right in my comment: the allegation that the Germans considered slavs non-Aryan and subhuman, the allegation that the Germans had a secret "Hunger Plan" by which they planned to genocide the Slavs by intentional starvation, and the allegation that "Generalplan Ost" was a secret plan to exterminate the slavs. None of those claims are true. All of those claims are aimed to misdirect from the fact that the real problem the Germans had was with Bolshevism, which they regarded as Jewish.

The idea their animus was motivated by their racial theories surrounding "subhuman slavs" is just propaganda meant to handwave the fact that the Germans fielded the largest foreign volunteer army in history composed of Slavs also animated against Bolshevism. That would be a highly inconvenient fact, so you make shit up about the Germans having secret plans to exterminate the Slavs and people, even otherwise smart people, completely fall for it. Just like they fall for the cartoonishly absurd claims that millions of people were tricked into entering gas chambers that had been disguised as shower rooms.

WWII mythos is just half-remembered plotlines written by Hollywood Jews.

The most famous alleged product of anti-Slavic literature is supposed to be the 1942 pamphlet Der Untermensch. Despite the fact this pamphlet is widely cited, it's nearly impossible to find an English translation. Figures. I was only able to find a partial translation here.

It doesn't mention Slavic peoples at all. "Subhuman" is a mistranslation, and is not used here in a racial sense but in a cultural sense. It's meant to be more of a Nietzschean "underman" concept than the modern day notion of a racial subhuman.

The narrative of that pamphlet is similar to what you mentioned: a German elite brought a Culture to Eastern Europe, and Bolshevism is the modern-day representative of the "underman" threatening the light of civilization.

So just as the plough, modern tools and the concept of hearth and home helped to form human society and create the family, the people and the state. So then must mankind become good and great, rising above all other living creatures. Dwelling in the realm of God!

However, along side of mankind dwells the subhuman. This subhuman hates all that is created by man. This subhuman has always hated man, and always secretly sought to bring about his downfall, first like a thief, and then like a brazen killer.

The subhuman is united with his peers. Like beasts among beasts, never knowing peace or calm. The subhuman thrives in chaos and darkness, he is frightened by the light. These subhuman creatures dwell in the cesspools, and swamps, preferring a hell on earth, to the light of the sun.

But in these swamps and cesspools the subhuman has found its leader – The Eternal Jew! The Jew understands the desires and needs of his fellow creature. The Jews endeavors to corrupt and manipulate this horror of inhumanity until they are rallied towards a common goal in the destruction of true man.

Beginning as early on as the destruction of Persians, the Jew has glorified this destructive nature. Even honoring it and declaring the holiday Purim that celebrates the organized mass murder of 75,000 Aryan Persians, who died as victims of Jewish hatred and evil.

Even now world Jewry still glorifies this terrible act - as its greatest religious holiday. The eternal hatred of the subhuman for mankind exists; they envy the clean and noble character of man. So they have tried to destroy what they hate, and from out of the vast deserts and endless steppes they have gathered hordes of their Huns whose leaders Attila, and Genghis Khan descended on western civilization bringing with them violence, fire and death, to every part of Europe they came.

The subhuman hordes would stop at nothing in their bid to overthrow the world of light and knowledge, to bring an apocalypse to all human progress and achievement. Their only goal is to make a desert wasteland of any nation or race that shines with creativity, goodness and beauty.

The only goal of the subhuman is chaos.

So for millennia this law of nature, the conflict between man and his anti-man, the subhuman has occurred. Over and over a new Attila, and new Genghis Khan, appears at the gates of Europe attempting to wreak havoc and destruction on mankind and his creations.

But today Bolshevism is the new Attila, the personification of the subhuman horde and its destructive power! But Bolshevism not a phenomenon of just our time, not a product of our modern era. Neither has Bolshevism evolved within the framework of human history.

Bolshevism is as old as the Jew itself! Lenin and Stalin are only two who have prepared the way for this new horde!

"Subhuman" is a poor translation of the "Untermensch" term which would be better to translate as "Underman" or a foil to the Nietzschean Overman. The fact this was used in a cultural/intellectual sense rather than a racial sense is clear throughout the pamphlet where modern art, Zwei Untermenschen ("Two Undermen"), is contrasted with Zwei Menschen. The pamphlet also regards Roosevelt and Churchill as Untermensch, also pointing to a Nietzschean interpretation rather than a racial classification of "subhuman" as is commonly claimed.

Although usually considered to have been coined by the Nazis, the term “under man” in the above-mentioned sense was also used by American author Lothrop Stoddard in the title of his 1922 pamphlet The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-man.[8] It was later adopted by the Nazis from that book’s German version Der Kulturumsturz: Die Drohung des Untermenschen (1925).[9] The German word “Untermensch” itself had been used earlier, but not in a racial sense, for example in the 1899 novel Der Stechlin by Theodor Fontane. Since most writers who employed the term did not address the question of when and how the word entered the German language, “Untermensch” is usually translated into English as “sub-human.” The leading Nazi attributing the concept of the East-European “under man” to Stoddard is Alfred Rosenberg who, referring to Russian communists, wrote in his Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts (1930) that “this is the kind of human being that Lothrop Stoddard has called the ‘under man.'” [“…den Lothrop Stoddard als ‘Untermenschen’ bezeichnete.”][10] Quoting Stoddard: “The Under-Man – the man who measures under the standards of capacity and adaptability imposed by the social order in which he lives.

So even what is supposed to be considered the most iconic Nazi propaganda demonstrating their belief that Slavs are subhumans doesn't even mention Slavs at all. The menace is unambiguously Bolshevism, which is compared to the Huns threatening Europe, with propaganda throughout contrasting conditions under Bolshevism with "Aryan Europe." And Bolshevism is regarded as Jewish throughout. Russian Women are portrayed crying, as victims, before the last line "Wehr dich Europa!" - Defend yourself Europe!

It's obvious why it's so hard to find a translation for this pamphlet: it actually disproves the conventional wisdom that German aggression towards the Soviet Union was driven by the belief that Slavs were subhuman and proves it was always about German opposition to Bolshevism, which was widely regarded as Jewish, even by Winston Churchill himself by the way.

The mythos surrounding WWII is lie, after lie, after lie, after lie.

Hyperion claimed that Germany killed millions because they did not consider Baltics and Slavs Aryan. This is plainly wrong, as their racial theory did consider them to be Aryan. They were pan-German nationalists, not pan-Aryan nationalists. The notion that the Germans killed millions of Slavs because they weren't considered Aryan is fictional, like other allegations here of a "Hunger Plan" or plans for mass extermination of Slavs because of German racial theory. That's Steven Spielberg History and didn't happen, like other absurd and salacious claims that have basically no evidence to support them.

The fact is over a million Slavs volunteered for the German war effort. The notion Germany had some secret extermination plan for after the war is total fiction, but it's a very easy story to tell in order to make the conflict appear black-and-white to masses of people. They had multiple versions of very early proposals for post-war resettlement, which is a common feature of all wars, including the current Israeli war in Gaza. This has been spun as a "secret extermination plan" in Spielberg History, but the fact is something like 12 million Germans themselves were subjected to resettlement after the war.

But Hyperion's claim was simply wrong, you can downvote all you want, doesn't make it true.

I think the whole concept of being "kind" to a slave is a bit oxymoronic. The kindest thing to do is to free them immediately

It's a social dynamic that doesn't exist today, and paternalism was a big part of that dynamic. The paternalistic aspect was very real but isn't to be recognized in this day in age. It certainly isn't an oxymoron.

Luckily someone in my family already compiled all the archival research going back to the 1730s: enlisted in the Revolution, 300 acres, 4 horses, 0 Negroes according to archival documents. It's wild reading wills and such. The first ancestor to arrive to America left his son a Bible, a stove, and a pipe in his will.

You are eliding the fact that the Nazis thought that Balts and Slavs weren't really Aryan, despite them being more CWC by ancestry than any German.

Because that's not true, from the German racial laws where Poles and Italians are given as examples of Aryan people:

Aryan descent (German blooded) is thus a person who is free of foreign blood, as seen by the German people. The blood of Jews and Gypsies also living in Europe, that of the Asian and African races and the Aborigines of Australia and America (Indians), are considered as foreign. For example, if a Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian, is free of such foreign blood, he must be regarded as Aryan, whether he lives in his native country or in East Asia or in America or he may be a US citizen or a South American Free State.

Alfred Rosenberg also regarded Slavs as Aryan. Both Hitler and Rosenberg also regarded Greeks and Meds in general as Aryan, as well as Finns and Estonians. Why lie about what they believed?

Nazi racial theories made no sense and they used them to justify killing millions of people most of which were fellow Aryans.

This is fake Steven Spielberg history, Germany had a reasonable causus belli against Poland and France/Germany escalated to a World War and refused all of Hitler's peace proposals.

Sure, CW was ancestral to Italo-Celtic, Germanic, and Balto-Slavic languages. So nearly all European languages, fair enough. I already mentioned the Urheimat was not the CW culture in any case. It's pretty amazing all of those languages come from one common ancestor. In my opinion that qualifies as some vindication for the older Racial theories. The Urheimat was probably the Russian Steppe, but the CW culture gives truth to the caricatures of the older racial theories, especially in comparison to something like Hebrew mythology or modern-day academic consensus. The Nazi racial theories were more grounded in reality than what passes today. Although the Reich Lab is responsible for making a lot of very recent corrections that are bringing the present-day consensus closer to the old racial theories.

CW culture was a mixture of Yamnaya, European farmer groups, and Hunter-gatherers. So basically they were "mongrels" to the extent modern Northern Europeans are mongrels.

German Nationalists claimed the Urheimat was Germany, but in reality the markers they pointed to spoke to the massive influence of CW culture. That's a reasonable error, it's not a racial cargo-cult compared to something like Judaism or modern Race Denial.

Even the most mystical accounts of Hyperboreans emerging from the Northern most land in existence and colonizing the world/founding civilizations likewise has far more basis of truth than something like the Hebrew bible.

Nah, Judaism is a racial Cargo Cult. The Old theories around race turned out to be more empirically accurate than what constitutes modern-day expert consensus. The current consensus of race and HBD denial is the Cargo Cult. Those older theories, which predated the Nazis and were not invented by them, have been totally vindicated by 21st century advancements in genetic analysis. Obviously they weren't correct about everything, the Urheimat of the Aryans was not in Germany as claimed by German nationalists. But the Corded Ware culture, the common ancestor to all European peoples and languages, did originate from that part of Europe.

Only an icky minority of HBD proponents would claim that HBD is a refinement of whatever the Nazis thought.

It would be incredibly dishonest for HBD proponents to pretend that their conclusions are divorced from the 20th century Protestant Darwinists/race scientists. They are simply "rediscovering" what was already learned over a hundred years ago, and suppressed by ideologues with an ethnopolitical agenda.

I think Jewish culture places a great value on arguments

I do think they place great value on arguments, and are very willing to bend reality to conform to their arguments. This was a common pattern of behavior throughout all the influential 20th century intellectual movements discussed in this thread. They weren't based on empirical study, they were just arguments based on predetermined conclusions which happened to align with their Jewish identities and ethnic interests. Yes, they place great value on arguments, very true. Too much value, even, and not enough on the truth.

I strongly object to your suggestion that Culture War falls by the wayside with real war. That isn't true. Our prevailing post-war American Mythos fundamentally revolves around the story of WWII and the Holocaust. Culture War gets racketed up during period of armed conflict, it doesn't go away.

I expect even the most radical of progressive American Jews to start frothing at the mouth and wrapping themselves in the Stars and Stripes, baying for blood.

Yes, at the outbreak of war in Europe American Jews started to froth at the mouth and wrap themselves in Stars and Stripes, baying for blood. That didn't lead to a "pause" in the Culture War it culminated in a complete reinvention of the American Mythos under the banner and ethos of pop-culture figures like Superman and Captain America, which were created by Jews with the conscious intention to redefine American Values in a way that accommodated their ethnically particularistic motives and, in my opinion, at the grand sacrifice of the legacy white American population and Europe as a whole.

The biography of Marx and Engels would be useless, but if you aspire to large-scale denazification or decommunization then the intellectual and mythological inspirations for the collective consciousness are at the forefront of relevancy. This is an all hands on deck audit and I wouldn't spare anything from scrutiny, not Christianity or the American mythos itself. I give a critical eye even towards those things I have held dear in my life. But I'm certainly not going to lie to myself about what is an obvious ethnopolitical undercurrent to Jewish political and cultural influence in the 20th century either.

Understanding the malady that haunts us absolutely requires us to understand these forces, including the means and motives. We need to be able to detect them, decode them, countersignal them. This is not historical trivia, these same forces I've described are at the absolute forefront of censorship, lawfare, lobbying, and culture-creation across the entire world. It's a present-day conflict that confronts you whenever you turn on the TV. It's not biographical trivia.

I don’t buy that Superman was written with secretive philosemitic intent, even if the writers have said as much.

I know, I know, I'm not telling you what you want to hear but what you need to hear.

Clark Kent is an Anglo-American name, but Kal-El is Hebrew for Voice of God. To defend a point @Amadan made, just because a mythological figure was created with one intention does not mean that intention is followed or respected in all the portrayals of the figure. Zach Snyder's Superman is definitely portrayed more Aryan and Christ-like and Lex Luthor Jewish, a reversal from the comic-books. It seems the upcoming Superman is the first cast with a Jewish actor so it will be interesting to see how the character is different from Snyder's interpretation.

But of the origins of the character, there can be no doubt. From Rolling Stone:

To our ears, fighting for “truth, justice, and the American Way” may sound like old-fashioned patriotism. But in the 1940s, it was controversial.

In fact, looking back on those early days, Superman was very woke. He was known as the “Champion of the Oppressed.” At a time when Republicans opposed President Roosevelt’s liberal programs and opposed entering World War II, Superman supported — in comic books and on a wildly successful radio program — the New Deal, open immigration, and entering the war against Hitler. Some episodes of the radio show lampooned the KKK.

Indeed, in 1940, Nazi propaganda accused Superman of being a Jewish conspiracy to poison the minds of American youth.

Of course, after Pearl Harbor, American sentiment changed, and Superman became a national hero, not only fighting Nazis in the comic books but with his image emblazoned on tanks and planes. At first, however, he was a progressive — even a radical.

And of course, Superman was also an immigrant. As Schwartz puts it in his book, “he is the ethnic guy with the Hebraic name Kal-El who came to America, changed his mannerisms and appearance. He tucks his tallit [Jewish prayer shawl, but Schwartz means Superman’s costume] down into his suit, and he goes around the world like a gentile. So it’s sort of like the ultimate assimilation/assertion fantasy, the ability to decide which part of you should interact with society at any given moment. What is more American than being an ethnic immigrant, and bringing the gifts and uniqueness of your cultural heritage to the greater benefit of the American society?”

Sorry to rain on your parade, but it's important to understand how and why this stuff happens, and why all this stuff is important. The realm of story and myth is the most important in Culture War.

What are the "white" values (as distinct from Protestant values) that Jews do not share?

Cultural relativism and race denial (i.e. Boasian Anthropology), Critical Theory (i.e Frankfurt School), Psychoanalysis (i.e. Freud) are major areas of intellectual and cultural influence which are widely regarding as introducing hostility towards White culture and traditional values, and the progression into what we call Wokeness. Would you agree with that? I think a lot of us here are aware of the implications of HBD denial, what even boomercons are calling "Critical Race Theory" and so-on. Freud was obviously hostile to traditional values, as were the Frankfurt School intellectuals who related traditional values and White ethnocentrism to anti-Semitism and the authoritarian personality.

So accepting that these intellectual movements perpetuated hostility towards White culture and traditional values, all that remains is understanding the motivation of these intellectuals. They were not rooted in empiricism: Boasian anthropology, Frankfurt School study of the "Authoritarian Personality", and Freudian psychology are known for ideological dogmatism and antipathy for empiricism. They were likewise not motivated by 18th century liberalism. They were motivated by their Jewish identity and their hostility towards Gentile culture and morality.

Who orchestrates this anti-white agenda? Either it's Jew genes or... storytellers, I guess.

Yes, it's storytellers. Alwayshasbeen.jpg. Stories orient us in the world, they direct our moral compass and perception of reality. The stories we tell and honor direct our behavior in all respects. It's an important insight. Stories matter, the people who tell stories can influence masses of people. Not a new insight by the way, Plato understood this.

How implausible is this actually?

The reason it is implausible is because there is a bunch of documentation proving the resentment and antipathy these intellectual figures had towards the culture and values in question, the very same they were consciously challenging with their work. They did not like them, they did not want to associate with them. None of them claimed that they were motivated by an adoption of 18th century liberalism, but all of them were influenced by their Jewish identification and concern over issues like anti-Semitism.

Franz Boas, the Frankfurt school, they were all motivated by opposition to German National Socialism and HBD/race ideology (well, except for that one race ideology...)

Freud is one of the most stark examples, where he just outright says he perceives his work as waging war on Gentiles. But Jewish comic book writers defining "Americanism" as fighting Nazis with the creation of their heroes are engaging in the same behavior. Literally none of them were motivated by 18th century liberal ideas, and they were all motivated by their Jewish identity which they retained even as atheists.

It's about tracing the development of the modern-day myth of America, today in 2024. It's about establishing that it's totally untrue that modern-day American mythos was predetermined by Protestantism or Classical Liberalism, although I definitely grant those are necessary ingredients. But you cannot ignore the ingredient of Jewish influence on the culture, and that influence was and is not motivated by a desire to assimilate to Protestant values or White culture. It is and always has been hostile to White culture. This dynamic is foundational to so many of the most important myths that calibrate our moral compass and perception of the world: the Holocaust, desegregation, WWII, Hitler as the anti-Christ of our post-war universe...

Obviously, this does not describe the behavior of everyone, or every contribution, or every myth or body of art. But there is a systematic, underlying current that can't be denied and it's just silly and this point that people try to deny it.

and he's instead spreading "Jewish" values in his "gentile" society as part of the secret Jewish plot to subvert their host civilization

That is obviously not the intention of the writers. The intention of the writers is that he lives among the humans even though he can never truly be one of them. He protects them and guides them, and he's an avatar for Kryptonian values. Obviously the myth-creators do not view Superman as a subversive but as a superior being, leader, and moral teacher. That is their self-conception. It's the same self-conception as Freud, Franz Boas, the Frankfurt school. It was absolutely not "I just want to be one of you and adopt your way of thinking and living." In none of those cases.

Jewish writers portraying superheroes as fighting Germans, even before American entry into WWII, is an obvious demonstration of the ethnic motivation of the creation and depiction of superheroes. Captain America was created in 1940, well before Pearl Harbor and when America was in opposition to entering the war against Germany by over 90%. But then we get these Superheroes that inspire large audiences, who go out and fight the Germans and redefine American Values. It is absolutely subversive, even if the writers genuinely see themselves see themselves as doing a moral good:

In 1940, Timely Comics publisher Martin Goodman responded to the growing popularity of superhero comics – particularly Superman at rival publisher National Comics Publications, the corporate predecessor to DC Comics – by hiring freelancer Joe Simon to create a new superhero for the company.[2] Simon began to develop the character by determining who their nemesis could be, noting that the most successful superheroes were defined by their relationship with a compelling villain, and eventually settled on Adolf Hitler.[3][4] He rationalized that Hitler was the "best villain of them all" as he was "hated by everyone in the free world",[4] and that it would be a unique approach for a superhero to face a real-life adversary rather than a fictional one.[3][c]

This approach was also intentionally political. Simon was stridently opposed to the actions of Nazi Germany and supported U.S. intervention in World War II, and intended the hero to be a response to the American non-interventionism movement.[5] Simon initially considered "Super American" for the hero's name, but felt there were already multiple comic book characters with "super" in their names.[6] He worked out the details of the character, who was eventually named "Captain America", after he completed sketches in consultation with Goodman.[2] The hero's civilian name "Steve Rogers" was derived from the telegraphy term "roger", meaning "message received".[2]

Goodman elected to launch Captain America with his own self-titled comic book, making him the first Timely character to debut with his own ongoing series without having first appeared in an anthology.[4] Simon sought to have Jack Kirby be the primary artist on the series: the two developed a working relationship and friendship in the late 1930s after working together at Fox Feature Syndicate, and had previously developed characters for Timely together.[7][8] Kirby also shared Simon's pro-intervention views, and was particularly drawn to the character in this regard.[4] Goodman, conversely, wanted a team of artists on the series. It was ultimately determined that Kirby would serve as penciller, with Al Avison and Al Gabriele assisting as inkers;[4] Simon additionally negotiated for himself and Kirby to receive 25 percent of the profits from the comic.[9] Simon regards Kirby as a co-creator of Captain America, stating that "if Kirby hadn't drawn it, it might not have been much of anything."[4]

These figures are, intrinsically, conceived by particularistic ethnic motivations to produce a moralizing or psychological effect on audiences. In the case of Captain America, he was created by Jewish mythmakers to inspire Americans to wage war on Germany during a time this was deeply unpopular. These myths are not inscrutable, they can be interpreted. The idea that there's no deeper meaning to a Jewish immigrant Abraham Erskine injecting Steve Rogers with a serum to fight the Germans is just totally preposterous.

I could make Jupiter and James Bond into crypto-Jewish superheroes if I tried.

Exactly, and that's the point. You could make James Bond African. That would be subversive. You are proving my point that Superheroes, and their creation and depiction in myth, is a medium for waging Culture War. But if you decide to write a myth portraying Jupiter as crypto-Jewish, it would rightfully be considered subversive, but it would also not change the fact that the origin of the character had a different ethnic motivation which you would try to change or subvert in your updated myth.

Captain America and Superman and many other comic-book heroes have a deep meaning regarding the self-conception of Jews in Gentile society, and it is not at all a story of assimilation with Gentile culture.

So is the theory here that the very concept of a "superhero" is crypto-Jewish? Because:

Of course not! My theory is that superheroes are a vehicle for waging Culture War. This was true in the Greco-Roman Pantheon, in the Hebrew Pantheon, as true as it is in Marvel Comics. These heroes are consciously and intelligently designed to send cultural signals of dominance, weakness, subversion, or celebration of a people based on the conscious intentions of the mythmaker. It runs the gambit. Jupiter, for example, is obviously an Aryan superhero who is placed at the very top of the hierarchy of that mythos. James Bond is an Aryan superhero, Superman is a crypto-Jewish superhero. Moses is a Jewish superhero. Bruce Wayne is Jewish according to canon.

It's about understanding the medium, not the assertion that all superheroes are crypto-Jewish. It's about the fact that this body of myth betrays the fact that the mythmakers strongly identify as Jewish and perceive themselves as playing a different sort of role in Gentile society than assimilation with Protestant values and White culture. That is not what those content-creators internalized or portrayed at all in their myths. They are portraying Culture War with gentiles, and depicting their self-conceived role in it.

Well, the European Continent was destroyed by Captain America and Uncle Joe, who then proceeded to impose very tight ideological and information control on much of Europe for decades. America is an Empire, it's plainly obvious that European countries adopting American-style culture is not happening independently of the cultural developments in America.

Eastern Europe lags behind, also pointing towards American cultural influence, and the lack thereof throughout a lot of the 20th century, although it is certainly growing. It's not a stretch to say the global hegemon is chiefly responsible for the cultural developments in Europe. That's how empires work, especially in the age of Mass Media where millions of people all around the world can crowd into the Dionysia and watch the myth of Abraham Erskine injecting Steve Rogers with an Ubermensch serum so he can go fight Nazis.

Ok, let's say that Jews are overrepresented in the canon of HBD studies by 50%. And then let's say that Jews are overrepresented in the cultural/academic forces which eradicated HBD by 1000%. You can't just say "they have high IQ so they are overrepresented" to explain the causation, and more importantly the consequences, of this pattern.

Jews do not become overrepresented among intellectual movements equally, and their motivations for forming and joining some intellectual movements to a greater degree than others is not explained by their IQ. Oftentimes they "join" an intellectual movement and change it in a fundamental way, like the Neo-Conservatives jockeyed anti-Communism into ultimately being about pro-Zionism. IQ does not explain this.

Likewise, IQ and verbal abilities may explain a lot of the overrepresentation of Jews among comic-book writers but it does not explain the artistic motivation or meaning of the content itself.

Clark Kent Did Not Assimilate

The Dissident Right Inquisition on Twitter/X is ongoing, whereby certain factions of the DR, mostly surrounding the orbit of Bronze Age Pervert, are accused of being crypto-Jewish, owing to their willingness to be super edgy on every aspect of cultural consensus under the sun except that one question. They will criticize everything except Jewish power and Zionist influence. The fact that a growing number of them have actually turned out to be secretly Jewish puts wind in the sails because that sort of behavior is predicted by DR critique of Jewish behavior: the Clark Kent metaphor of deceptively presenting one identity to the outside world while secretly maintaining a different one under the surface.

Steve Sailer got caught in the crossfire here. In our recent discussion on this Twitter spat, I would have put Steve Sailer as an "execption" to the rule that an edgy DR figure who counter-signals the JQ is probably secretly Jewish himself, but now I increasingly believe Sailer is another instance of this model generalizing after all. Last week, after some token Holocaust worship and virtue signaling against anti-semitism on Twitter, Sailer abandoned his typical methodological thoroughness in an article placing the blame for Wokeness solely at the feet of white Protestants and Quakers (!). This position is not new, it is identical to what (Jewish) DR figures like BAP and Curtis Yarvin have been saying for a long time, and @2rafa has advocated for this position as well:

Peng writes:

…wokeness appears to be a syncretic blend of Puritanism and Quakerism. Woke adherents value elite education and moralizing, seem obsessed with rooting out heretics, adhere to orthodoxy, and display a sense of personal salvation, traits that were all characteristic of Puritans, while also displaying the radical openness and commitment to egalitarianism that characterized the Quakers.

Puritans tended to be intense and Quakers nice. Put them together and you get an intolerant religion of tolerance...

...Peng sees Jewish liberalism as, historically, a triumph of assimilation:

Whereas anti-Semites today like to blame Jews in academia for “cultural Marxism,” the correlation actually runs the other way: Jews gave up their faith and assimilated into liberal Christian values, including sometimes literally converting to Christianity. The Jews that resisted assimilation, Orthodox Jews, are a solidly Republican bloc. A similar assimilation is occurring among Asian Americans, who have swelled the ranks of the same colleges over the past few decades.

The key piece of evidence relied on by Sailer is an analysis of The 100 Most Influential Americans by The Atlantic. Finding only 7 Jews among that list, Sailer concludes that Peng is correct and Jewish association with wokeness is merely an effect of their assimilation with Protestant values.

Keith Woods wrote an excellent response to this article, pointing out the the biggest problem with Sailer's methodology: the question at hand is the cause for the radical change in trajectory of American progressivism in the 20th century. "Progressivism" in America at the turn of the century denoted not just immigration restriction, but demographic reversal, as well as HBD and eugenics. This all changed with the growth of Jewish influence in the 20th century. If you tried to create a "top 100 most influential list" related to this sharp diversion in American progressivism you would walk away from vastly different conclusions than those drawn by Sailer and Peng.

What's the motive?

Jewish participation in these cultural upheavals is not challenged by Sailer, or 2rafa, etc. Rather the most import question surrounds the motive for Jewish support, and even creation, of these counter-cultural movements. Sailer cites Peng briefly, but there's no actual evidence presented that Jewish participation in these cultural movements was motivated by a desire to assimilate to Protestant culture and values. On the other hand, Keith presents very strong evidence that the academic and cultural movements most closely associated with these upheavals throughout the 20th century were motivated by a retention of a Jewish identity and a hostility towards Protestant culture and values.

Keith presents strong evidence that the anthropological movements in the 20th century which enforced HBD denial as dogma, deriving from the Boasian school of anthropology, were motivated by his Jewish identification and opposition to antisemitism:

Boas was committed to the fight for racial equality throughout his life. Together with close friends he formed the American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom in 1939, an antifascist organisation designed to “discredit the theories of race being forwarded by the Nazis in Germany”.

One of Boas’s most successful students was Ashley Montagu – born Israel Ehrenberg to a Jewish family in London’s East End – who completed a dissertation under Boas in 1937. Montagu arrived in the United States in 1931, and immediately focused his intellectual work on dismantling what he considered the dangerous idea of biological race, as well as attacking his new home of America for its racist past. His 1942 work Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: the Fallacy of Race, which was based on his dissertation, deconstructed the concept of race as one which developed in the 18th century as a response to slavery and colonialism.

Montagu’s book received mixed reviews from other academics, and he misled other academics on his credentials. In her book The Evolution of Racism, Pat Shipman records that Montagu responded to his academic critics by branding them as “racists” who opposed him because of his Jewish heritage. In an interview later in his life, he explained this early opposition with the sensational declaration that “all non-Jews are anti-Semitic”[9], a statement Shipman used as the title of one of the chapters of her book. Montagu also described childhood experiences of antisemitism in London as formative. It does not seem Montagu ever embraced or assimilated to the American Christian culture after his arrival in 1931, rather, he critiqued the norms of White Christian society as masking oppressive dynamics which brutalised other races and women.

Associating the radical departure from HBD to race denial in the early 20th century to Protestantism also does not make sense given the fact HBD was invented within White protestant culture, and the eugenics movement was also invented there and more advanced than anywhere else in the world. The United States, Germany, Scandanavia all had comparable eugenics programs and the Nazis were not even an outlier in that regard. It's impossible not to Notice that the battlelines between HBD and race denial in the 20th century largely broke between Protestant Darwinists (Madison Grant, E.O Wilson, Charles Murray, Samuel Morton, James Watson, etc.) and Immigrant Jews (Franz Boas, Stephen Jay Gould, Jared Diamond, Eric Turkeimer, etc.). Madison Grant also remarked that Jewish influenced was mobilized against HBD as early as 1921:

It is well-nigh impossible to publish in the American newspapers any reflection upon certain religions or races which are hysterically sensitive even when mentioned by name. . . . Abroad, conditions are fully as bad, and we have the authority of one of the most eminent anthropologists in France that the collection of anthropological measurements and data among French recruits at the outbreak of the Great War was prevented by Jewish influence, which aimed to suppress any suggestion of racial differentiation in France.

Keith does a good job establishing that the motivations of the Boasian School of Anthropology and the Frankfurt school of academics were not motivated by a desire to assimilate to white Protestant culture, but rather by their Jewish identification and deep-seated desire to wage culture war on White Protestant culture.

But I want to talk about two more:

Was Sigmund Freud motivated by a desire to assimilate to White Protestant Culture? This is from Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique:

[Freud] was proud of his enemies—the persecuting Roman Catholic Church, the hypocritical bourgeoisie, the obtuse psychiatric establishment, the materialistic Americans—so proud, indeed, that they grew in his mind into potent specters far more malevolent and far less divided than they were in reality. He likened himself to Hannibal, to Ahasuerus, to Joseph, to Moses, all men with historic missions, potent adversaries, and difficult fates. (Gay 1988, 604)

There is also evidence that Freud conceptualized himself as a leader in a war on gentile culture. We have seen that Freud had a great deal of hostility to Western culture, especially the Catholic Church and its ally, the Austrian Habsburg monarchy (Gay 1988; McGrath 1974; Rothman & Isenberg 1974a).[177] In a remarkable passage from the Interpretation of Dreams, Freud, in attempting to understand why he has been unable to set foot in Rome, proposes that he has been retracing the footsteps of Hannibal, the Semitic leader of Carthage against Rome during the Punic wars.

Hannibal . . . had been the favourite hero of my later school days. . . . And when in the higher classes I began to understand for the first time what it meant to belong to an alien race . . . the figure of the semitic general rose still higher in my esteem. To my youthful mind Hannibal and Rome symbolized the conflict between the tenacity of Jewry and the organisation of the Catholic Church. (Freud, Interpretation of Dreams; in Rothman & Isenberg 1974a, 64)

The passage clearly indicates that Freud was self-identified as a member of “an alien race” at war with Rome and its daughter institution, the Catholic Church, a central institution of Western culture. Gay (1988, 132) states, “A charged and ambivalent symbol, Rome stood for Freud’s most potent concealed erotic, and only slightly less concealed aggressive wishes.” [178] Rome was “a supreme prize and incomprehensible menace” (Gay 1988, 132). Freud himself described this “Hannibal fantasy” as “one of the driving forces of [my] mental life” (in McGrath 1974, 35).

A strong connection exists between anti-Semitism and Freud’s hostility to Rome. Freud’s conscious identification with Hannibal occurred following an antiSemitic incident involving his father in which his father behaved passively. Freud’s response to the incident was to visualize “the scene in which Hannibal’s father, Hamilcar Barca, made his boy swear before the household altar to take vengeance on the Romans. Ever since that time Hannibal had . . . a place in my phantasies” (in McGrath 1974, 35). “Rome was the center of Christian civilization. To conquer Rome would certainly be to avenge his father and his people” (Rothman & Isenberg 1974a, 62). Cuddihy (1974, 54) makes the same point: “Like Hamilcar’s son Hannibal, he will storm Rome seeking vengeance. He will control his anger, as his father had done, but he will use it to probe relentlessly beneath the beautiful surface of the diaspora to the murderous rage and lust coiled beneath its so-called civilities.”

Rothman and Isenberg (1974) convincingly argue that Freud actually viewed the Interpretation of Dreams as a victory against the Catholic Church and that he viewed Totem and Taboo as a successful attempt to analyze the Christian religion in terms of defense mechanisms and primitive drives. Regarding Totem and Taboo, Freud told a colleague that it would “serve to make a sharp division between us and all Aryan religiosity” (in Rothman & Isenberg 1974, 63; see also Gay 1988, 326). They also suggest that Freud consciously attempted to conceal his subversive motivation: A central aspect of Freud’s theory of dreams is that rebellion against a powerful authority must often be carried on with deception: “According to the strength . . . of the censorship, [the authority-defying individual] finds himself compelled . . . to speak in allusions . . . or he must conceal his objection beneath some apparently innocent disguise” (Freud, Interpretation of Dreams; in Rothman & Isenberg 1974a, 64).

If we were to create a Top 100 Influential list regarding, specifically, the radical shift in American culture Freud would certainly make this list along with the other examples discussed, and likewise another example for the intellectual motivation being driven by Jewish identity and a bitter hostility to White American culture. Not an attempt to assimilate to Protestant-Quaker cultural values.

Captain America - American as Apple Pie?

One blind spot in MacDonald's work is the comic-book pantheon: hugely influential on American culture, identity, and values. Looking barely beneath the surface reveals the very same psychology: less overtly malicious, but no less salient.

After all, someone ignorant would perceive Captain America as an Ayran hero. But when I watch this scene from Captain America (2011) I perceive something very different from the rest of the laity. I perceive the significance of the Jewish immigrant-inventor, Abraham Erskine, injecting Steve Rogers with the Serum that empowers him to fight the Nazis. The meaning of the myth does not point to a Jewish attempt to assimilate to Protestant values, it portrays a Jewish self-conceived role of transformation of American values. In the case of Captain America, the Jewish Immigrant lectures the audience before literally injecting the Aryan with a serum to transform him into the "Superior Man" so he goes to fight other White people. The Jewish writers are metaphorically depicting Culture War with Gentiles through these symbols.

Superman is one of many others which clearly fits in with this category, with heroic symbols and combat being a metaphor for Jewish Culture War being waged on white Gentiles.

Clark Kent is not a Jewish assimilation fantasy, he's a Jewish supremacist fantasy.

Clark Kent adopts an alter-ego in his daily interactions with humans by changing his name from Kal-El, meaning "Voice of God" in Hebrew, to the Gentile name Clark Kent. He changes his appearance, puts on a suit, goes to work as a media reporter (!) with everyone else none the wiser to his true identity.

But when Clark Kent tears open the shirt, he affirms that underneath the disguise he was always Superman. He holds sentimental feelings towards humanity as his adopted family, but in his heart of hearts he is a diasporan son of Krypton and he will never be them- he is a superior being and he must protect them and guide them.

This is extremely sophisticated storytelling. It provides perceptive Jewish audiences with a sense of identity, and yes superiority, it is a myth that tells them they cannot assimilate even if they change their name and appearance such that nobody around them knows who they truly are, they will always be Kryptonian underneath the surface. At the same time, there is compelling content for Gentile audiences that internalize the Ethos espoused by the ass-kicking superhero.

The dynamic described above was consciously created and self-aware. This is from a former principal writer of the Superman series from 1971 through 1986:

The unwarranted assumption in the explanations above is that Kryptonians are not Jews. I dissent from that notion. While they are not direct descendents of the Judeans of the Middle East from whom the term "Jewish" comes, I always ascribed effectively Jewish doctrine and ritual to the Kryptonian tradition. In fact, the Kryptonian tradition is congruent with and certainly predates the Judean, so they have at least as much claim to the tradition as any of us.

I give all my characters religions, so I've thought this through - really. The kents are Methodist (as is Clark), Lois is Catholic, Perry is Baptist, Jimmy is Lutheran (no surprise there) and Bruce Wayne and Batman are both Episcopalian (even less of a surprise there). And Superman (like the Siegels, the Shusters, the Weisingers, the Schwartzes, the Maggins and the Luthors) is Jewish.

This is so self-evident that it may as well be canon.

What's interesting here is that Clark Kent is Methodist but Superman is Jewish. This points to a very different dynamic of non-assimilation, and there's an interesting parallel to be made with certain DR edgelords who are Nietzschean on the surface and then crypto-Jewish underneath. These characters are metaphors for things that are real.

The psychology embedded metaphorically in the comic book canon points towards the exact same dynamic which motivated other intellectual movements: Jews retain their identity, if only in cryptic form, and self-conceive as saviors directing the values of humanity.


I'm not one to let Christianity off the hook, I also believe it is necessary but not sufficient to describe the cultural trajectory of 20th century America. But to say that Jews only contributed to it by force of their desire to assimilate is just so preposterous and contradicted by an enormous body of evidence of all forms that I find it hard to believe someone of Sailer's caliber falls victim to it. When Sailer sees someone say something like "IQ is just a measure of how good you are at taking tests, nothing important" that's how I feel seeing Sailer, BAP, Yarvin, 2rafa all say something so implausible like Jewish contributions to 20th century intellectual movements were motivated by their intense desire to assimilate to White American Protestant values.

These people are obviously motivated by their own Jewish identities, and it's correct for the Gentile DR to be inherently suspicious of the crypto-Jewish DR. It is a real problem that these people are unable and unwilling to see an incredibly obvious pattern, psychology, and symbolic coherency underlying these 20th century intellectual movements, it's not simply a prejudice.

Boasian Anthropology, the Frankfurt School, Freud and psychoanalysis, comic book myth creation, in none of those cases is the cultural influence of those movements motivated by an attempt to assimilate to a Protestant/Quaker ethos. In all cases, the individuals involved directly perceived themselves as Jews outside- even above and superior than, White Gentile culture and they all perceived their role as engaging in Culture War against White American values to direct them towards a way they perceived to beneficial for Jews.

Well, the video you linked does not claim that those myths were introduced "to undermine the revival of old European religions." Rather, it is suggested that some of those myths may have been introduced to undermine or subvert the people the god represents. We complain about Hollywood doing this all the time.

'Mythological figures change with the times, this has always been the case and is not merely a recent phenomenon caused by wokeness run amok. But it's also true that culture-creators change or undermine mythological figures with the specific intention of engaging in hostility towards the people represented by that figure. Of course this same phenomenon would have occurred in the ancient world as well, with plays and poems in the Dionysia for example presenting some extended lore that humbles the god and by extension the people he represents.

The point is they don't accept the mythos wholesale, they are going to retcon what they perceive as not belonging there according to the intentions of the mythos. This also happens all the time. Jews did not accept the extended lore portrayed in the Gospels, most christians do not accept the extended lore portrayed in the Book of Mormon. Dan Brown wrote Jesus as having had Mary Magdalene as a lover and a bloodline, which is perceived by most Christians as an example of "hostile extended-lore". The entire Talmud is nothing but a fandom of autistic wordcels arguing over Hebrew lore.

The notion that a revival European religion would retcon stuff that doesn't belong is perfectly sensible, and there's no contradiction there.

these myths may have been subversively introduced to undermine the revival of old European religions.

Not quite- think of it more like Spiderman or James Bond. You get many reboots or episodes with different writers, who all have different artistic interpretations and motives. And "what becomes canon" often becomes hotly debated among the followers of that mythological figure. And characters change with the time, Juliet is going to be black in an upcoming movie.

If some writer gave James Bond a male lover in a new James Bond "myth" that would also become "canon", but a lot of followers of James Bond would consider that to be a subversive myth within the broader myth body. It's entirely possible that James Bond, created with the intention to be a masculine symbol of English chauvinism, gets transformed by writers in the future who do not like that original message. It happens all the time.

So if someone wanted to reboot James Bond and reset the canon, they would pick and choose what remains canon and what does not because it was not created wisely, or it was created subversively. In practice this happens all the time, for example a huge amount of Star Wars canon was ejected because it wasn't aligned with Disney's plan for the mythos. There's no contradiction there as they openly admit this is what they are doing.

It should also be noted that the Old Testament is another example of comic-book literary fiction becoming religion. Their observation of the way symbols and myths inspire us and direct our behavior is a powerful one. How can we harness it? I doubt a revival religion around Apollo is the answer but I think it's the right question.