SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
No bio...
User ID: 853
That's funny, it's the inverse of a common Revisionist joke about why people are so upset over the good news that ~3 million Jews weren't gassed inside shower rooms. "Rabbi, good news..."
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9d ago
Yes, but I was answering your question. As a father the question of whether my kids will have kids unnerves me much more than the prospect of natural family planning.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9d ago
To Rightists with daughters reading this: are you concerned that they might encounter "natural family planning" on the internet and really f*** up their life?
I know this is bait, but the number of childless women I know is so much higher than women who have ruined their lives with natural family planning or children out of wedlock. Childless woman is the scarier outcome for a daughter than even teen pregnancy IMO.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
11d ago
You don't count that conflict as war between Iran and Israel? That's just bad faith. Even Trump is lobbying to call it the "12 day war." America undeniably was drawn into the war, both defensively and offensively. Syria falling was directly related to the conflict between Israel and Iran's proxies, Hezbollah in particular.
"Solve the Gaza Question" is undeniably underway, he didn't say it would be resolved immediately he said the attack gave the Israelis cover to solve it, which is ongoing. Basically Iran regime change is the only thing that hasn't happened yet, even though that was clearly an objective of Israeli aggression.
Let me then ask you straightforwardly: do you object to being characterised as anti-semitic? Do you disagree with the statement "SecureSignals hates Jews"?
I don't accept your definition of "anti-semitism". "Anti-semitic" is an emotionally-loaded slur intended to denounce and pathologize any criticism of Jewish identity, religion, or culture whether it's rational or irrational, true or false.
So when Gentiles, like me, engage in radical criticism of Jewish behavior and identity that's "anti-Semitic," which makes the criticism intrinsically irrational according to the popular understanding. But there's no similar term for when Jews in Academia or Hollywood engage in radical criticism of Gentile racial identity, culture, and religion.
For example, my criticism of the very broad pattern of behavior of Jews in academia and popular culture engaging in criticism of White identity while also strongly denouncing any criticism of Jewish identity is a rational and true argument. This pattern of behavior is seen across the political spectrum, from secular Communists like Ignatiev, to Conservative religious Jews like Ben Shaprio, to politically heterodox/rationalist-adjacent like @2rafa. They all oppose White identitarianism and support Jewish identitarianism, meaning this pattern of behavior cannot be reduced to communist vs capitalist, liberal vs postmodern, secular vs religious, because this pattern of behavior dominates the entire spectrum of those other categories.
Conservative talk show host Mark Levin, who has been cartoonishly pro-war on the Iran question and extremely vitriolic towards everyone opposed to war with Iran, accused a White man on twitter of having antisemitism in his family's DNA. What's the word for that? If I accused Levin of having subversion in his family's DNA (someone in the Twitter replies did that), that would be "anti-semitic."
Anti-Semitism can be rational or irrational, true or false. All it requires is engaging in criticism of Jewish behavior, culture, and identity, and there's no word for when Jews do the same to Gentile race, religion, or culture. And I do those things, so I accept the label, although I don't accept that label denotes irrationality- that's just a vain attempt to pathologize rational criticism as being crazy-talk. What people call "anti-Semitism" is a rational response to this behavior of Jews in American politics and culture spending decades undermining white racial identity and political interests while strongly promoting Jewish identity and political interests, and especially the geopolitical interests of the state of Israel. Look at this clip of Greenblatt from the ADL:
What I'm focused on is how the fringes like the woke right, the TuckerCarlson, Steve Bannon... have been fermenting antisemitism. Blaming this war on the Jews, on the Zionist, on the Neo-cons.
You really don't think there's a "there" there?
I also don't accept "you hate the Jews" that's just a proto-woke slur also intended to intrinsically attach irrationality to a critical perspective of Jewish behavior and identity. I don't hate Jews, I don't remember who said something along the lines of "when Jews are great they're amazing and when they're bad they're really terrible." That's been my own experience with Jews personally, and I do have an adversarial-level respect for what I see myself as opposing. I see them as political and cultural opposition in how they behave politically and culturally, it's not an irrational hatred although this statement is not going to stop you or anyone else from accusing me of that. Which is why I don't respond to it, those accusations very conveniently derail from the arguments I'm making (by design), so if you just get bogged down in trying to convince everyone you aren't a neo-Nazi or you don't want to kill all the Jews you are just operating within the same consensus that I reject.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
13d ago
"The terrorist attack on Israel will encourage Israel to attack back!" is not prescience.
Not very many people predicted the extent of the destruction of Gaza, not to mention that escalation path that would ensue from that response. Many here were consistently underpredicting the Israeli response every step of the way.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
13d ago
They are going to couch it mostly as voluntary emigration, but if you blockade a region and completely level the cities and make intolerable conditions, and then set up offices to facilitate "voluntary emigration" that is an expulsion as far as I'm concerned. The extent of the destruction of Gaza doesn't point in a different direction with respect to longer-term plans.
Both the US and Israel have at this point made it clear the Gaza population is going to be deported and not allowed to return. It hasn't happened yet but both Trump and Israel have stated this position. Gaza is completely destroyed, even if they wanted to keep the Gazans in Gaza it's hard to see how that would be possible at this point even with a good-faith effort. But the overtures from both Trump and Israel is that the population is going to be deported; sorry, "allowed to leave."
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
13d ago
The remarkable predictive accuracy of Nick Fuentes on the Israel Conflict
I'm sure most here have heard of Nick Fuentes, maybe seen clips where he's said something funny or outrageous. I do not consider myself a follower of Fuentes, I have my criticisms of him and his movement, but I have to give credit to Fuentes for churning out consistently correct predictions.
When it came to the Israeli-Gaza war, Nick Fuentes registered these predictions in this short clip, in summary from just the first 60 seconds:
- The Oct. 7 attack is going to be the tripwire that enables Israel to finally solve the Gaza Question with ethnic cleansing.
- Israel is going to conduct a "brutal campaign against Gaza" which they "know Iran has to respond to."
- In doing so, their retaliation against Gaza will knowingly provoke a retaliation from Iranian-backed militias against Israel.
- This will give Israel an excuse to widen the conflict and "to do what they always wanted to do, which is bomb Iran's nuclear program".
- This will initiate war between Iran and Israel, and Israel will draw the United States into the war with Iran- Israel brings in the United States to "put Iran in check."
- This will culminate in an end to the regime in Syria and an end to the regime in Iran.
- This is the big play Israel is making.
Nick Fuentes registered these predictions on October 8th, less than 24 hours after the Hamas attack on Israel. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say Fuentes may have registered the best predictions out of anyone in the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7th (feel free to keep me honest here if you think someone else was even more on the money).
Hindsight bias being what it is, the accuracy of Fuente's predictions may seem less impressive than they actually are. But I still remember the huge amount of uncertainty leading up to the Gaza campaign, including a high degree of uncertainty over the strength of Israel's retaliation against Gaza- whether they would show restraint or even put boots on the ground in the first place, and even if they put boots on the ground would it be a relatively short and mostly symbolic campaign. Certainly at the time "Israel is going to ethnically cleans Gaza, provoke escalations from Iranian militias, and widen the conflict to try to draw the US into war with Iran" was a prediction registered by not very many people.
Fuentes drew a huge amount of criticism for vocally opposing Trump's campaign due to his belief that Israel would draw Trump into war with Iran. A lot of that criticism comes from the "Bronze Age Pervert" sphere, and BAP is a sharp critic of Fuentes for Fuente's low-IQ obsession with da Joos. But we can contrast Fuente's sober-minded and accurate predictions with BAP's own incoherent analysis of the conflict he published last week, chalking it up to some old-man syndrome while remaining baffled as to why Israel is pursuing the strategy it has engaged in since the beginning of the conflict.
Nick Fuente's live-stream on Rumble in the aftermath of the US bombing campaign against Iran had something like 66,000 live viewers, with overall viewers on that VOD now around 530k, putting his viewership on par with Ben Shapiro despite the fact Fuentes is banned from YouTube so his content is relegated to a much less mainstream platform.
One of the most remarkable parts of the Ted Cruz / Tucker Carlson debate was that Ted Cruz:
- Said one of his primary motivations to become Senator was to be Israel's greatest defender.
- AIPAC is not a strong enough lobby.
- Said that his support for Israel is personally motivated by God's command in Genesis that those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed.
And then, just a few minutes later, Ted Cruz accused Tucker Carlson of being "obsessed with Israel" for Carlson's pointed questions on AIPAC as a foreign lobby. The turnaround of why are you so obsessed coming from someone who just said God has commanded him to support Israel is just a discredited attempt to derail the conversation.
Fuente's obsession with Israel appeared to result in what is perhaps the most accurate prediction of the series of events following Oct. 7th among anyone else.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
13d ago
Seriously, like @Hadad said, I'm not your dancing monkey. I'm not going to denounce something I have never said. I stand by everything I have said, but I'm not going to play this game where you just invent positions that you claim I hold and demand I denounce them in order to try to convince you I don't hold them.
I have denied being a "neo-Nazi", although I accept that in common parlance "anti-Semitic White identitarian" is the operative definition of neo-Nazi, and if that's the definition then sure? National Socialism is a defunct pan-German nationalist movement, I don't identify with it and I don't support German nationalism or any petty European nationalism.
Yes, everybody here does know my views because I don't hide them. The accusation that I secretly want all the Jews killed just because I give cultural criticism towards Jews in a similar nature as Jews like Ignatiev constantly levy against whites is simply your attempt to enforce a social consensus making any criticism of Jews taboo. I reject your social consensus, I have and will engage in critique of Jewish identity in behavior in similar nature and measure as Jews do towards Whites. I'm not hiding any beliefs.
The notion that I criticize Jewish identity and behavior and people like you hysterically yell that I secretly want to kill all the Jews is a byproduct of the exact cultural forces I am criticizing. You can't accept that I just have a political and cultural opposition to their influence in politics and culture, that's impossible in your mind. And instead of arguing against my opposition you attack positions I don't hold and claim I secretly hold them.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
14d ago
But come now, SS, you tactically hide your power level but your agenda is not merely JAQing about why so many Jews.
The notion I hide my power level is absurd. I'm very open that I view the dynamic between Jews and White Gentiles to be a very profound, long-standing cultural and political conflict that is even deeply rooted in the Jewish religion itself. Ignatiev is just a figment of that conflict. But what gets annoying is that you won't allow me to simply recognize a political or cultural adversary as such. I have to be an exterminationist hiding my power level. Yes, they are a threat obviously. But acknowledging and engaging a threat is not the same thing as being an exterminationist. I don't think the USG wants to kill all the Iranians even though the USG considers them to be a threat.
I wouldn't even say about Jewish identity what Ignatiev says about White identity. I don't call for the end of Jewish identity but the renaissance of European identity, and that's not simply because I'm hiding my power level. I do accept the reality that Jewish influence in politics and culture is a huge counterforce to any political or cultural effort to achieve that, with Ignatiev only being one of many examples of Jewish academics pathologizing White racial identity while declaring strong opposition to anti-Semitism. But on the other end of the political spectrum you have Ben Shapiro who is also opposed to White identity.
What are we to make of the fact that two figures so politically divergent as Ignatiev and Shapiro still oppose White identity and strongly support Jewish identity?
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
14d ago
That's a thing SS is good at: finding a lot of evil Jews. The problem is they're mostly evil Jews, whereas he thinks they're evil Jews.
Do you think Ignatiev is motivated by his Jewish identity to any significant extent, or that his cultural output is influenced by his cultural and genetic heritage? If so, then it's not just- he's evil and he happens to be a Jew. My position is that he's neither good nor evil- he's a Jew.
Do you think Ignatiev's ideology is that "all white people are awful?" I don't think that's his ideology. I think he's hostile to White Identity.
It's so telling that you are so charitable to Ignatiev when I have never spoken rhetoric nearly as inflammatory as Ignatiev in his statements on the White race. But you still interpret his philosophy openly calling for the end of the white race with so much more charity than my cultural criticism of Jewish behavior in American society.
When it comes to Jews, it's not possible to simply oppose them politically and culturally. You have to be an exterminationist if you oppose Jews politically. You can't just oppose their influence in culture and academia and foreign policy, if you criticize them it means you want them all killed. Only for Jews though. This is the hysterical bullshit standard you enforce in every single reply to me Amadan, but don't at all apply to a Jew who openly calls for ending the white race by any means necessary.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
14d ago
If the context was unimportant, why not include it yourself?
The context is unimportant, and I excluded it because it is unimportant. You can't just say the word "context" you have to explain how "the context" changes what I said- and it does not in any way. So he was against Jews getting their own dining accommodations at Harvard? Can you explain to me how that's relevant at all to what I said? My point was to contrast his call to destroy the white race with his claim that anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity. That point is not whatsoever challenged by his position on Harvard dining.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
14d ago
I don’t believe that this is what he meant by “anti-Semitism”! I believe he meant a far more quotidian antipathy towards individual Jewish people as a result of their religion or ancestry.
Ok, well let's just take a look at the undefeated Uno Reverso.
If I said: "The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the Jewish race" do you think Ignatiev would regard that as anti-semitism? Obviously he would. So you just switch "White" from "Jew" in his own rhetoric and it goes from "moral good" to "crime against humanity."
Again, why would Ignatiev waste his time writing books and giving speeches about “abolishing blackness” when he knows full well that this would simply introduce massive friction and mutual recriminations within his political coalition? Just to prove to you that he’s not a hypocrite? It’s not like you’d hate him or oppose him any less if he did so. So why should he care about appeasing your sensitivities?
This is funny Hoffmeister. Firstly, I never accused Ignatiev of hypocrisy, he's a Jew who is hostile to White Identity. That's not hypocritical. Ben Shapiro is not hypocritical for strongly opposing White Identitarianism while strongly supporting Jewish identitarianism. He's not being a hypocrite, he's being a Jew who is strongly motivated by his religion and ethnic identity.
But secondly, you were the one who said "In that sense, it is also true that he wants to 'abolish the black race'" without providing a shred of evidence.
In fact, the situation is worse. You, Hoffmeister, accuse me of being an equal-offender racist- racist against everyone, while I accuse you of being even worse- only racist against blacks. It's telling then that you are defensive of Ignatiev who defends Black Identity on the basis that it musters resistance to White Identity. So his real position is the precise opposite of what you imagine. He supports using Black Identity as a tool to undermine White Identity, which is why his ideas found such prominent reception during the BLM Great Awakening. In this way, his position is basically equivalent to the anti-semitic conception of the conniving Jew who wants to manipulate Blacks to get back at whitey. This is literally Ignatiev, but you remain totally blind to this pattern of behavior and the writ-large alliance between Jewish intellectuals, Blacks, and the Civil Rights movement.
You appear to see him more as the consciously-vindictive aggrieved minority who wants to be the next one to hold the whip hand. Is this an accurate characterization?
He hates White Identity, he wants to destroy it- and there's no evidence for hatred of Black or Jewish identity, in fact precisely the opposite. That is my characterization of his beliefs.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
14d ago
Your claim is that I was saying "Ignatiev only cares about Jews" when I said no such thing and would have no reason to believe this. I said he is anti-white and he strongly opposes anti-semitism, which is a claim that is not refuted by anything you or anyone else has wrote in response.
You are being intentionally obtuse. You are obviously intelligent enough to parse Ignatiev’s actual beliefs
Obviously I understand Ignatiev's beliefs, better than you apparently. No, I don't think Ignatiev is calling for a literal murder of all white people. Instead he is using his own non-negligible cultural influence to deconstruct and pathologize White Identity, in an effort to undermine it. I understand that perfectly well, I more than most here understand that you don't undermine a race by just committing murder, you do it at a symbolic and ultimately cultural level. It remains an expression of a strong ethnic hostility even if it's not actually advocating for physical violence.
In that sense, it is also true that he wants to “abolish the black race”; not to abolish the African phenotype, but to abolish the idea that anyone should care what ancestral group an individual appears to descend from.
Citation strongly needed! He regards the Black Race as a social construct also, but one that is sympathetic and he does not call to Abolish Blackness. If you're going to provide a claim for that, please provide evidence. While you're at it- provide evidence that he called to Abolish Jewry. Of course he did neither such thing, it is Whites who who receive the enmity of his ideological worldview and no other racial group.
There’s no secret undercurrent of wanting to see Jewish people secretly privileging themselves while dissolving other macro-scale unchosen identities.
Calling for the Abolition of Whiteness while simultaneously declaring anti-semitism as "Crime against Humanity" is a far more important demand for Jewish privilege than the question over whether Jews at Harvard should be given dedicated kitchens. He is demanding Jewish privilege by socially deconstructing White identity while declaring in-kind criticism of Jewish identity to be a Crime against Humanity. His position on dining at Harvard notwithstanding, which is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.
Please provide evidence Ignatiev called for the Abolition of Blackness or Jewry. He did not. He called for the Abolition of Whiteness, and he declared anti-semitism to be a crime against humanity. Which is exactly what I said in my original post.
When I’ve expressed enthusiasm about miscegenation between white people and East Asians, you’ve reacted with shock and horror, because you take it for granted that preserving the genetic purity of the white race is of considerable importance.
I challenged your absurdly naive notion that combining all the races of the world would magically combine all the relative strengths of each group into one superior specimen:
I do believe that the optimal genetic admixture of people in the future will be some combination of European, East Asian, Jewish, and a small but non-negligible amount of Amerindian. You might think this would be a mystery-meat catastrophe, but I think it would be a healthy and vital blending of the best each of these elements would offer.
That was the juvenile claim you made which I challenged.
You only mention him objecting to anti-Semitism, as usual implying that Jews only care about Jews and are enemies of everyone else.
There is no implication of that at all. My implication is exactly what I said: he is vehemently anti-white and he strongly objects to anti-semitism. Absolutely nothing about the context challenges that fact, there is no implication that he "only cares about Jews." He's a commie, I'm sure he cares about a bunch of stuff! But he's vehemently anti-white while strongly objecting to anti-Semitism (very very many such cases).
That was my point, it is 100% true, it is not changed at all by the context, and it's not challenged by anything you wrote here.
@Amadan, would you agree that he's vehemently anti-white and he simultaneously strongly objects to anti-Semitism, regarding it as a Crime Against Humanity? If not, why not?
Can you explain how the context contradicts my summary? He vocally supported ending the white race, while at the same time declaring anti-Semitism a Crime against Humanity. That was my statement, and your context does not refute that in any way. Sure, he made that affirmation in order to defend himself from the accusation of anti-Semitism for his position on Harvard food accommodations but that is no matter. What I have said is not changed whatsoever by the context you provided, he simultaneously held both positions exactly as I described.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
15d ago
It should also be noted that Noel Ignatiev regarded anti-semitism as a "Crime against humanity." So according to Harvard professor Ignatiev there's a moral impetus to abolish the white race by any means necessary, but anti-semitism is a Crime against Humanity. The surge of anti-semitism is caused by the Noticing of this bitterly hostile social consensus. The actions of Israel are going a long way in revealing this social consensus for what it is.
There's a point where free speech bleeds too far into norms of civility, and this guy crossed that line when he said "Jews must be abolished by any means necessary."
FWIW "Abolish whiteness" was an extremely common slogan during the Floyd Great Awakening, and the term itself was coined by a high-status Jew in the Academy, Noel Ignatiev:
He was best known for his controversial theories on race and for his call to abolish "whiteness". Ignatiev was the co-founder of the New Abolitionist Society and co-editor of the journal Race Traitor, which promoted the idea that "treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity"... His academic work was linked to his call to "abolish" the white race
The point is, when you criticize Jews in any capacity you are crossing the line too far into norms of civility, whereas Jews criticizing Whites is extremely prolific and high-status across all cultural and academic institutions.
A lot of the surge of anti-semitism is coming from the rejection of the notion that Jews deserve this special treatment, where the "norms of civility" means they are beyond any criticism in any similar measure they give to Whites.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
19d ago
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
19d ago
And Israel probably isn't trying to decapitate; they're probably not trying to topple the regime (which would lead at best to chaos), but incapacitate it technically.
Israel is absolutely trying to topple the regime, Netenyahu has made this very clear. Reporting is that Israel had a window to assassinate the Ayatollah but was vetoed by Trump, with Israelis claiming it would end the conflict. Trading missile blows was never going to achieve either of Israel's war objectives directly, but escalating to this point forces the hand of the United States to achieve those objectives on behalf of Israel including toppling the regime.
It's going to follow the model of Libya and Syria, with bombing campaigns coincided with arming and fomenting a civil war in Iran. Toppling the regime is without question the goal of Israel, but it remains to be seen if the US is on board with that.
The Iraq war was fought on behalf of Israel at the behest of Zionist Jews in the American foreign policy apparatus who fabricated intelligence on WMDs for the purpose of manipulating the US into war against Israel's regional rivals. The Iraq War was fought for Israel, not for WMDs and certainly not for Oil or Democracy.
More options
Context Copy link