SecureSignals
No bio...
User ID: 853
SecureSignals
5d ago
If Chuck Schumer's resolution passes it would be the first time in US Senate history of such a condemnation of a private citizen for political views.
Young mostly white men are flocking to the extremes, both left but mostly right, because America sucks. Everything from the housing market, job market, education, media, domestic and foreign policy. It's all anti-white. It's all anti-male. What exactly does anyone expect young white men to do? What confident identity is even available to young white men?
The foremost appeal is the force of truth. If you watch Nick's monologue, his criticisms are true. They are rational arguments, and they are anti-fragile in the sense the backlash they provoke strengthens their currency. It's not just due to the housing market, job market, anti-white Culture. It's due to the very real cultural criticism of Jews that Nick gives which nobody else has been willing to say. Jews themselves incessantly criticize White culture and identity through all mediums and institutions they control. And then they become apoplectic when a White man fires back with truthful criticism of Jewish identity and culture.
One thing I have never seen from any of the Jews weighing in on the Tuckercaust is an acknowledgement of the arguments Fuentes is making. They grasp for some other explanation for Fuentes' popularity, but they never restate the arguments Nick makes in that monologue for example and engage them. They simply pathologize the individuals who are being influenced by these arguments. It's why Shapiro would never debate Fuentes. If Fuentes laid out his argument as clearly as he does in this monologue, what would Shapiro even say?
The only path forward would be for Jews to acknowledge the truth of Fuentes' arguments and make genuine efforts to reconcile. They are incapable of that, which is why cancellation and pathologizing the "anti-semites" is their only reaction to this Cultural Criticism going mainstream and it's not going to work.
We've collectively memory-holed the anthrax attack on the US in the days after 9/11, which at the the time was a major reason for the WMD claim:
The 2001 Anthrax Attacks were a critical factor in the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) claims that sparked the Iraq War. Despite its significance, little systematic work has been done regarding the topic. Existing studies primarily focus on the role of the Military Industrial Complex and intelligence failures as the primary explanations for the origins of the Iraq War. These explanations are limited, as they rely on hindsight biases. This thesis contends that anthrax was the catalyst for WMD claims that sparked the Iraq War. The 2001 Anthrax Attacks reinforced the belief that Iraq harbored WMDs and posed a threat to the U.S. These attacks have often been overshadowed by the 9/11 tragedy and the inability to find WMDs in Iraq. This thesis finds that the Bush Administration viewed these attacks as a significant threat to the U.S. They seized the opportunity that the 2001 Anthrax Attacks presented to formulate WMD allegations and present Iraq as an imminent threat when a direct link between 9/11 and Iraq couldn't be established.
So why were the anthrax attacks tied to Iraq? There were intelligence reports that a 9/11 hijacker was supplied with anthrax by Al-Qaeda at a meeting at the Iraqi consulate in Prague. Never happened, he was never even in Prague at this time. Yet Dick Cheney repeated the allegation as the nation prepared for war with Iraq:
It's been pretty well confirmed that (Atta) did go to Prague, and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in (the Czech Republic) last April, several months before the attack.
Ostensibly the source for this lie was Czech intelligence. But LATimes reported something different back in October 2001:
Atta, an Egyptian, is suspected of flying one of the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. Iraq has vehemently denied any connection to the attacks and has said that Atta and Ani never met....
“This meeting did not take place,” Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tarik Aziz told The Times in Baghdad last week. “It is a lie. We checked with him: ‘Did you ever meet somebody called Atta?’ ” ...
Israeli intelligence officials also reportedly have been pushing the possibility of an Iraqi connection to the terrorist attacks. It could be in Israel’s security interests to see the U.S. take a more aggressive stance against Iraq.
Germany’s mass-circulation Bild newspaper Thursday quoted unidentified Israeli intelligence sources as saying Atta received anthrax spores from Iraqi agents in Prague.
But a U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on condition that he not be further identified, said Friday that Washington has found no evidence indicating that Iraq had provided anthrax to Atta or that Iraq is involved in the bioterrorism attacks.
This is October 27th 2001, less than 2 months after 9/11. Lies about Iraqi WMDs and Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection less than two months after the attack.
Yes, the WMDs were lies manufactured by people with an interest in having the US overthrow Saddam. There is no other reason for a fabrication like this. They lied about WMDs they were not mistaken. Or at least, the key provocateurs lied and traitors like Dick Cheney were just duped. But that's not being "mistaken" that's being lied to at best or at worst knowingly perpetuating the lie as a false pretext for war.
By the way, the consensus is now that the origin of the Anthrax spores was not Iraq, it was from a specific batch of the "Ames" strain that originated from a U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. But in October 2001 we have these intelligence reports claiming it was supplied by Iraq. Really makes you think...
SecureSignals
19d ago
This meta of mining disparate, single-sentences from the history of someone's life is so annoying in every context. "Look at these sentences the person said!" It's a post-2020 phenomenon and it's extremely annoying, but that's probably why you posted it.
SecureSignals
26d ago
You are right to perceive Fuentes shifting significantly in that direction, even well before the Kirk assassination, but I don't see it as a moderation. It's influence from Richard Spencerism. People also think Spencer moderated since 2016 but if you actually critically analyze his perspective, it remains among the most radical on the DR. Richard didn't moderate at all, he took the failures of the 2016 Alt Right and developed a new perspective on what ought to be the political aspirations of a radical movement. Fuentes has been heavily influenced in that direction.
The 2016 Alt-Right was a collection of memes, at most you could say the political aspirations were to "keep America majority (or all) White." Well that simply isn't possible, demographic change is baked in the cake. Do White people even need to have a majority to thrive? No, they do not, as Richard has been saying for years "Aryans are a global people" and always have been, the aspiration should not be to build an all-white neighborhood in rural Arkansas it should be pan-Aryan Imperium. And recently Fuentes has essentially adopted this same position, saying the political aspiration is ultimately a "New Rome", which is a pivot from "we just want to live in an all-white country" but not something I would say is moderation. It's actually what I have long-said should be the political objective of a white-identitarian global movement.
And by that analysis, it's myopic to blame subversive Jews purely for the development of multiculturalism; multiculturalism emerged as a managerial tact for maintaining global Empire, especially in the face of the Soviet threat which could capitalize on discontent from marginalized groups. Fuentes cited this directly in the Carlson interview as well.
Building and managing a global Empire does fundamentally require the cooperation and allegiance of non-white groups. Yes I think some Groypers will be made discontent by the overtures towards non-Whites, but that has always been a quirk of Fuentes with this fandom of rap and Kanye West. People joke all the time about how so many Groypers are non-white, but they don't stop to consider how many die-hard Jewish nationalists are non-Jewish themselves (AKA the entire Conservative movement... until now). The fact that there does seem to be an affinity among non-Whites for White Identitarianism is something to be capitalized on, not something to be rejected, as I said 9 months ago here:
The title "White Advocacy Is for All of Us" is an interesting one, but an Inclusive White Nationalist movement is not as contradictory as it sounds. Think of how strong the support of non-Jews is for Jewish nationalism- Zionism is for Everyone. The cultural and political levers that have accomplished that feat are available to White people as well if they learn how to use them.
And this pivot also doesn't represent much of a moderation on the JQ. Fuentes still maintains that the organized, international Jewish community is collectively responsible for the hostility towards White people deeply embedded in our Culture, and that their animus is motivated by their Jewish identities. That's always been the crucial insight of the "JQ", and Fuentes directly named Jewish identity as an obstacle to America First in his interview with Carlson.
Fuentes is accepting the reality that Global Empire is ultimately an operation that requires cooperation from non-whites, but at the same time we cannot accept the incessant hostility and subversion of White people by current management. That still has to be confronted, and it is being confronted at an effectiveness nobody in the DR really thought possible even optimistically. Enlisting non-Whites, but on vastly different terms than the cultural status quo with respect to the status of non-whites relative to whites, is more of an intelligent and strategic development than it is a moderation.
I think even Fuentes would accept Jews as Allies, as long as they are held to as high a standard of cooperation as Jews enforce on their their non-Jewish Allies.
SecureSignals
27d ago
Hanania sold at the bottom of the DR and bought in at the top of "with Zionism you win" submission.
The Tucker/Fuentes interview is about to hit 17m views, compared to Tucker's 1.5-2m view recent episodes I checked. Heritage Foundation is definitely bending the knee.
Nick Fuentes is being strategic. The biggest "threat" to the Dissident Right movement is that the Conservative movement integrates these highly credible criticisms, which until now have only come from the DR at great expense and persecution to those who have been making this argument for years (and that's not to take credit from those like Pat Buchanan who have been doing this for decades longer). But at this point it's fair to say the DR is becoming mainstream with the Heritage foundation video being at least as relevant of a signal to that fact as the Fuentes/Carlson interview itself.
I say Fuentes is being strategic because Fuentes is obviously moderating himself recently to ensure he and his movement are included in this integration of these, until now, radical arguments which are going mainstream.
But the Coup de grâce is not merely shedding light on Dual Loyalty and foreign subversion, but to force that same apparatus to confront its sheer hypocrisy when it comes to White Identity versus Jewish Identity. Until now those like Ben Shapiro - "I don't care about the browning of America" and Mark Levin just operate in the zone of this sheer hypocrisy as they have since the 1920s, just dismissing anyone who gives this criticism of their behavior as a crazed antisemite. That's not going to work any more, the cat is out of the bag. The more they double down on that position the more strength they give the underlying criticism that's going mainstream.
Edit: One thing I want to emphasize is the content of the Heritage Foundation's statement:
Christians can critique the state of Israel without being antisemitic. And of course, antisemitism should be condemned. My loyalty as a Christian and as an American is to Christ first and to America always. When it serves the interests of the United States to cooperate with Israel and other Allies, we should do so with partnerships on security, intelligence and technology. But when it doesn't, Conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class or from their mouthpieces in Washington.
That is a very significant statement.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
The majority of them would rather live and operate here, and support and display loyalty to that country from here and not there. And exercise power here for the benefit of that foreign country. They want it both ways. Obviously I would be very happy for the development if it not were for the subversive loyalty to that foreign state at every institutional level of our culture. If they all went to Israel that would be one thing.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
If it is sustainable over generations then no
It's always been a feature of European culture. In 5th-century BC Athens, laws mandated that sons provide fathers with food, care, housing, and protection and they lost citizenship as a penalty if they failed to provide. If Elder care is not sustainable then it's a societal failure. A foreign diaspora harming the host nation is a much different kind of dynamic than elder care.
It's not at all a distant issue, the concept of social relations between races of people being characterized as "parasitism" originated with Jewish/Gentile cohabitation. That characterization of that as a foreign guest/host relationship originated at least with Marin Luther's writings but the concrete association goes back to the 18th century, i.e. the Enlightenment philosopher Johann Herder (1791):
The people of God, to whom heaven itself once gave its fatherland, has been a parasitic plant on the tribes of other nations for millennia, almost since its creation; a race of clever negotiators almost all over the world who, despite all oppression, long nowhere for their own honour and home, nowhere for a fatherland.
But I pointed to a more concrete example of Dreamers or in the general sense mass third world migration, foreign diasporas who deman some right to access to the United States and Europe and massive political, economic, and cultural concessions. Nor is the concept of aggressive mimicry only limited to that historical relationship, I have indirectly accused you of engaging in that behavior by appealing to concepts like "fair competition" that appeal to Whites but are just empty words you use to try to justify your presence among us. You only signal those values in order to obfuscate the threat of genetic replacement from the third world by making it some natural outcome of "fairness", i.e. signaling values you know we have an affinity for, but for an aggressive purpose.
Other examples of mimicry would be Kash Patel's humorous attempts to appeal to White culture, which very often become that Inglorious Bastards three-fingers meme.
Parasitism, stripped of the morally-loaded connotation, is ultimately a classification of a symbiotic relationship between different species of organisms. The notion that symbiosis is an extremely widely-observed behavioral pattern in the Animal Kingdom, but for some reasons human relations can never be understood like that, is an artifact of political correctness. As far as the question over when is it appropriate to refer to someone as a parasite, you can say almost never. But when is it appropriate to understand relations between races of people as symbiotic, the answer is almost always. Take something like the behavior observed in the Animal Kingdom we call aggressive mimicry:
Aggressive mimicry is a form of mimicry in which predators, parasites, or parasitoids share similar signals, using a harmless model, allowing them to avoid being correctly identified by their prey or host. Zoologists have repeatedly compared this strategy to a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Foreign races of people establishing themselves in a host society- their identity, cultural signals, political influence, is unequivocally a symbiosis, its mere existence is derived from its interaction with its host.
But is in-group elderly care a parasitic relationship? The Elders of a society are typically the ancestors of the descendants investing in their care, so describing that as parasitism would not really conform with that classification of relationship observed ecologically. The impetus for elder care has in-group evolutionary advantages that explain its existence.
Take a racial and cultural identity like black. It exists purely in symbiosis with a host society. It depends on the host society for everything. It only exists relative to its host society. Without its host, it would not exist. Same with "Dreamers", foreigners who embed themselves in a host society. "Dreamers" only exist because of the long-term interaction between foreigners and their host body. That is a symbiotic relationship, in contrast with elderly care.
There are clearly non-parasitic symbiotic relationships. "Chimerica" is a symbiosis between America and China but one that is mutually beneficial. But when foreigners embed themselves in a host and demand all sorts of political, cultural, and economic concessions that harm the host Nation, it's valuable to understand that as parasitism, in order to properly understand the nature of the threat, even if it's not constructive to call anyone a parasite.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
For this specific search? Of course it's small. But for generating, in the future, images, TV shows, and Movies I think a lot of users will be clamoring to generate content that violates the cultural bounds established by OpenAI.
OpenAI also just declared they aren't permitting any videos to be generated of Martin Luther King, because users were making "disrespectful" images of him. There's definitely a market there.
AI Browsers- an extension of what Google is already doing
An X user, using the new OpenAI browser, gave a simple search query to "look up videos of Hitler" and the web browser gave this response:
I can't browse or display videos of Adolf Hitler, since footage of him and Nazi propaganda are tightly restricted for ethical and legal reasons. However, if what you're after is historical context, I can point you toward legitimate archives and documentaries that use such footage responsibly
Of course these same guardrails are deeply embedded in all layers of the OpenAI stack. For example, Sora will restrict what videos it generates based on the cultural beliefs of its owners for what content should exist and what content should not exist. Which is already what Hollywood does in a sense. And of course Google will do the same quietly, it will not show propaganda films of Hitler either. Google will show results for Triumph of the Will along with links to the US Holocaust Museum's contextualizing Nazi propaganda to users. So that's at least more useful than OpenAI browser's refusal to do the search.
The First Amendment has always been the biggest hurdle for the usual suspect "Hate Watch" groups outlawing "hate speech", although they continue to try to push the boundaries of civil and criminal guidelines for it especially in states like Florida. But Laws will scarcely be necessary when censorship can easily be enforced by AI.
It does create a market opportunity for another AI, maybe even Musk himself, to create and show content that OpenAI would refuse to show because it runs awry of what censors want us to see and talk about.
Similar: OpenAI refuses to translate speech by Adolf Hitler. But it says "I can give you a netural historical summary of what he was saying in that particular 1938 Sudetentland speech."
SecureSignals
1mo ago
I'm not on Instagram, but YouTube has very thoroughly banned all right-wing content creators I would consider to be "anti-Semitic" even without posting that content on YouTube. Keith Woods recently had his YouTube account which had been running for years banned with 0 strikes because MediaMatters ran a piece on him calling him an anti-Semite. Same with Richard Spencer, Nick Fuentes has been banned although he of course did actually post anti-semitic content. American Renaissance/Jared Taylor is banned despite Taylor famously never engaging in anti-semitism. It's a totally closed platform for anti-Semitism and right-wing content altogether, although I'm assuming you call opposition to Israel's war "anti-Semitism", which comes frequently from the left, and presumably YouTube allows that to some degree. The only anti-semitism I've seen out of YouTube has come from the left wing as the right wing has all long-been totally banned.
TikTok as a Weapon of War
When the TikTok forced divesture was passed over a year ago, after failing to gain sufficient support in earlier efforts, it was immediately clear to me that alarmism over Chinese ownership of the algorithm was only a pretext obscuring the political forces that actually dictated the sale: the Jewish lobby induced Congress to act in order to transfer TikTok to a new owner who would censor and manipulate the content algorithm of TikTok to be in favor of Israel and the Jewish people. This certainly wasn't a leap, there were secret recordings of Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL saying that something has to be done about TikTok. And then hundreds of Jewish groups lobby for the forced divesture, and then it happens in a highly divided Congress, with some lawmakers explicitly citing this pressure as being decisive in securing support for this legislation that had previously failed.
Still, @2rafa disputed that characterization of the forced TikTok divesture. But now that the dust is settling we can review what has happened:
TikTok and its algorithm is now essentially under the control of Zionist Jew Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, who has been described as the largest private donor to the IDF (FWIW I could not find any evidence Ellison has given private donations to the US military). Ellison's son, David Ellison, acquired CBS news last month which is reportedly going to hire Bari Weiss to manage the editorial direction of the organization:
As part of the deal, I am told David plans to give Bari a role at CBS News that would, among other things, task his fellow Millennial with guiding the editorial direction of the division. Bari’s avowedly pro-Israel and anti-woke worldview—not to mention her broadly shit-kicking anti-establishment disposition—would inevitably inspire blowback from various corners of the newsroom, and could dramatically change the editorial posture and reputation of one of the most storied, and certainly self-important, institutions in American journalism. For David, that’s likely part of the point.
TikTok's algorithm, which is now under the control of Ellison, will be audited and retrained. But the significant reforms to content moderation on TikTok are already well underway, in July a Jewish Zionist and former IDF solider Erica Mindel was hired for the position of "Public Policy Manager, Hate Speech":
The position involves developing and driving the company’s positions on hate speech, according to the job description...
It also involves “spearheading long-term policy strategies” regarding hate speech, monitoring online content, and advocating for the company’s policy stances. It specifically states that the position involves “serving as a subject matter expert on antisemitism and hate speech in internal and external meetings” and “analyzing hate speech trends, focusing on antisemitic content.”
Netanyahu on the TikTok acquisition
Most remarkably, in a focus group session with American social media influencers last Friday in New York, Benjamin Netanyahu himself simply admitted that the acquisition of TikTok was the most important development in enabling Israel to wield social media as a weapon of war:
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu briefed American influencers on TikTok, calling it the “most important” weapon in securing support for Israel on the right-wing.
He went on to say, “Weapons change over time... the most important ones are the social media,” and, “the most important purchase that is going on right now is TikTok... I hope it goes through because it can be consequential."
Near the end of the clip Netanyahu says "if we can get those two things [TikTok and X] we can get a lot... we have to fight the fight. To take, give direction, to the Jewish people, and give direction to our non-Jewish friends or those who could be our Jewish friends.
What's astonishing is that they are now simply admitting what they are doing openly. They aren't even hiding it. When Netanyahu discusses social media as a weapon of war, the war he is referring to is not against Hamas, it is against us and our access to free public discourse, the information we receive in news media and content algorithms, and the propaganda we're exposed to on a daily basis.
Last year in 2024 a major scandal in alternative media erupted with the investigation into two Russian media executives from Tenet Media, in a $10 million scheme to illegally fund Tenet Media and influence it to promote Russian propaganda. And certainly this is a major problem. But this Russian propaganda campaign does not even remotely reach the levels of deeply-embedded foreign influence in American news and social media in comparison to Zionist influence.
Larry Ellison is a foreign agent. David Ellison is a foreign agent. Jared Kushner is a foreign agent. This enormous level of foreign influence in our information stream is a huge problem, and it's not limited to Netanyahu and Israel. It's endemic to the entire international Jewish community across the entire world. The level of support among the Jewish community for this foreign influence deeply embedded in our society is extremely high and the opposition is basically non-existent. The extremely small number of what 2rafa calls "self-hating Jews" who acknowledge what is happening and oppose it are outliers. The rest either actively support it or deny the problem, citing "anti-semitic conspiracy theories" about Jews controlling the media and wielding it as a weapon of war against the minds of the gentiles. And yet Netanyahu, a foreign leader, travels to New York and simply admits what they are doing. Russian or Chinese nationalists engaging in this behavior would be wildly intolerable, but Jewish nationalists are systematically engaging in this behavior with total impunity.
Netanyahu's meeting with the social media influencers seems to foreshadow more pressure on X, now that the TikTok problem is being solved according to Netanyahu.
Your culture provides no reciprocity, you advocate for competition because where you come from has nothing to offer us. You appeal to the spirit of competition in order to manipulate us into allowing you into our society. I just don't want to live with you; I don't want you in my neighborhood. I don't want to compete with you- I don't want my children to compete with you. I just don't want you around. You only care about competition because you only get upside from that arrangement, you have nothing at stake. I have my neighborhood at stake, and much more than that from the prospect of allowing millions of Indians to live with me "because competition."
SecureSignals
2mo ago
I don't think he literally believes in Valhalla either. I think it went something like this: he wanted to eulogize Kirk, but invoking heaven would be weird since that's not what Hindus believe. At the same time he doesn't want to invoke Hindu thought on the afterlife because that would also be weird. So he resorts to a third option, referencing Valhalla which is indeed a common enough reference for people joking around/larping but is uncommon in a eulogy for a devout Protestant and would be considered in poor taste by Protestants in general.
SecureSignals
2mo ago
One commonality among essentially all immigrants to the United States has been an Abrahamic faith, or at least little to no expression of religious faith outside the Abrahamic sphere among political and cultural elite. This has a useful function of allowing everyone to appeal to God and they are essentially appealing to the same figure- smoothing over religious differences and providing a point of reference for authority. The mass immigration of Hindus, on the other hand, sticks out like a sore thumb. When a Hindu appeals to God on the RNC stage I have no idea what he means. But also when a Hindu (Kash Patel) tells a Protestant (Charlie Kirk) "I’ll see you in Valhalla" it is somehow even more incoherent.
How can/should Hindus appeal to the divine and the afterlife in public pleasantries like this? Should they invoke their own religious mythos? Or should they just appeal to "God" even though they are not talking about the same literary figure(s) as everyone else? Should/are they all going to convert to Christianity? Seems unlikely. They should probably just avoid this trap altogether although that's difficult to do for a Conservative constituency.
SecureSignals
2mo ago
Kirk would have been a serious contender for holding Office as well, maybe even higher office, it's a significant blow to the Conservative movement.
The motive doesn't really make sense, despite Kirk's recent mild criticisms he was probably the most pro-Israel Gen-Z influencer. Kirk's audience being set adrift, and it being likely Fuentes will posture to capture some of that market share, doesn't seem to provide a clear benefit in relation to the risks. So my prior is low and there's no evidence. The only evidence I'm aware of is Fox News mentioning foreign Intelligence being somehow related to the manhunt, but that can mean a lot of things.... and apparently some old guy falsely confessed to the crime in police custody which is strange.
Nick Fuentes though has talked pretty soberly recently (even before this) about his life being in danger, if he gets killed the priors are much different. But now political commentators from all sides of the aisle are considering the possibility of this happening to them.
Edit: I didn't really follow Kirk's content, but apparently he got closer to very substantive criticism of Jews than I had realized. Doesn't really change my analysis, and I do think it's significant that Kirk reportedly associated criticism of Israel with personal risk but it remains far more likely to have been some amateur. It's really not hard to accurately shoot a rifle.
If you keep in eye on the e-influencer sphere, they are all shellshocked. Even those who are political adversaries of Kirk, like Ethan Klein, were brought to tears- obviously not due to love for the man himself but realization that their profession and status as C-list political celebrities makes them the highest ratio of political value / target hardness for anyone who would want to do something like that. And Pandora's box has been opened.
There's definitely a threshold had has been crossed and it wouldn't surprise me if these sort of events completely disappear as a result. Is Crowder going to keep doing his campus debate thing after this?
The pivot happened after October 7th, when the woke movement and campus protestors in particular transitioned from anti-white demonstration to protesting Israel. That was the moment the elite apparatus, with Bill Ackman being an iconic example of someone who supported wokeness before that moment, but then had a "realization" that wokeness had run amok and had to be extirpated from elite colleges, began his highly public "war on woke." Ackman, he says, had no idea how dangerous Wokeness truly was until they started protesting Israel:
I ultimately concluded that antisemitism was not the core of the problem, it was simply a troubling warning sign – it was the “canary in the coal mine” – despite how destructive it was in impacting student life and learning on campus.
I came to learn that the root cause of antisemitism at Harvard was an ideology that had been promulgated on campus, an oppressor/oppressed framework, that provided the intellectual bulwark behind the protests, helping to generate anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hate speech and harassment.
Then I did more research. The more I learned, the more concerned I became, and the more ignorant I realized I had been about DEI, a powerful movement that has not only pervaded Harvard, but the educational system at large. I came to understand that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion was not what I had naively thought these words meant.
I have always believed that diversity is an important feature of a successful organization, but by diversity I mean diversity in its broadest form: diversity of viewpoints, politics, ethnicity, race, age, religion, experience, socioeconomic background, sexual identity, gender, one’s upbringing, and more.
What I learned, however, was that DEI was not about diversity in its purest form, but rather DEI was a political advocacy movement on behalf of certain groups that are deemed oppressed under DEI’s own methodology.
This dovetails with the rise of "anti-woke" figures like Bari Weiss poised to be installed at the top of CBS with her shitty news startup about to be acquired for $200 million, also demonstrating this realignment at the highest levels of media.
This post follows the "ideas I don't like are Cults and the ones I do like are Rational" signaling, but the fact is it's cults all the way down. Cult, after all, is the root of the word culture. It's not about a struggle of cults against rationalism it's about a struggle of cults among cults. And the dominant cults of the time may appear invincible and their ideas unassailable but that's never the case.
The Rational perspective is not to oppose cults, it's to foster the cults that have the greatest n-order effects for some objective; like the flourishing of civilization. The racial consciousness of yore that you denounce was a cult, sure, but so is the emotional scandal you feel today when you consider that set of beliefs- anti-racists really do believe in antiracism. Which set of beliefs is more functional? That's the more important question than just denouncing one or the other as a cult.
SecureSignals
2mo ago
It is not the case that millions of Jews died in these camps and the Germans made all their bodies disappear- from death of any cause. Auschwitz registered the deaths of 69,000 prisoners (the plurality were Catholic) from 1941 - 1943. The mainstream historians are the ones claiming millions died in these camps and the Germans made their bodies disappear.
Revisionist estimates of mortality in these camps is derived from German documentation. The overall camp death toll, including Jews and non-jews was, IIRC, somewhere around 275,000 over the entire war- mostly due to typhus and catastrophic conditions near the end of the war. The notion that ~3 million Jews died in these camps and their bodies were disappeared by the Germans, never to be found, is the mainstream historical claim and not the Revisionist claim.
Your intuition is correct that it is outlandish to think the Germans could make millions of bodies from these camps just disappear, they couldn't and they didn't.
I did not say no Jews were shot- Jews were shot as part of anti-partisan efforts. I said that there is no equivalent to the Commissar Order for "killing all the Jews". The Commissar Order shows that when there was a plan to kill a certain class of people, it was communicated through orders. And it leaked. And it was not followed by all officers. There's no equivalent to that for the claim that the German policy was to kill all the Jews. But if you were to say there was an order to kill all the Soviet Commissars, sure, the document giving the order says so right there! That's usually how history works, a claim is made and it's supported by documents.
But with the Holocaust we are told the order to kill all the Jews was communicated through Mind Reading, and no that is not a straw-man those are direct words.
Yes, this has been the Conservative playbook for decades: say "ipdol is a dangerous idea" while White men are under the yoke of all other groups that defect from that ethos. Carlson didn't even engage Fuentes' response that Jews do not cooperate with that ethos, they say "idpol is a dangerous idea" for whites while they maintain intense identification with their heritage and organize collectively and internationally on the basis of their ethnic identity. Every Fuentes fan has heard "idpol is a dangerous idea" before, and all of them most likely believed it at some point. And then we see irrefutable proof of the consequences of Whites naively cooperating with that ethos while every single other group, Jews in particular, defect and use cultural and political power against us and in favor of themselves.
There's no honor in "gracefully losing" your country by clinging to a fundamentally broken and hostile demand to cooperate in a moral strategy that other groups have no intention whatsoever of following. If they demand you cooperate while they defect, they are just being adversarial against you and you aren't a Moral Person for accepting that.
More options
Context Copy link