SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
No bio...
User ID: 853
American decline and European decline. No loyalty to the American empire because even its very existence is denied. Endless quagmires like the Middle East caused by the ambiguity of America's role on the global stage, and because neither non-intervention nor subjugation are options on the table. The mandate is easily exploited by small groups of influential lobbyists because there's no real underlying direction or imperial identity.
The notion that Germany had any intention of conquering the UK is just totally ridiculous. Germany conquered France because France declared war on Germany and then Germany offered peace, pulling out of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norway. Of course the notion that Germany had any plan or intention whatsoever of conquering Britain is a pure, unadulterated lie, meant to manipulate people like you into accepting a certain narrative.
if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."
The British Empire was lost due to "Their finest hour!" They lost Poland too, and they destroyed Europe and killed tens of millions and gifted half of Europe to the Soviet Union. The only way the actual outcome of that war can be reconciled with the victors coming out as justified is with an enormous pile of lies.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
5mo ago
After Soviet investigators conquered the camp, they claimed 2 million were killed there between 7 gas chambers. Now today it's "tens of thousands" (not a minimum, by the way) who mostly died of disease and poor hygienic conditions. The gas chambers at Majdanek were a hoax, that newspaper article about 500,000 children being lured into gas chambers with candy and chocolate has no basis in reality whatsoever. It was wartime atrocity propaganda, only one example of a deluge that has been dumped onto the West, a psychological warfare campaign that didn't end with the war itself.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
5mo ago
Jerusalem Post: Despite nearly starving the hostages, Hamas used special techniques to make them look healthier and more energetic.
Now that people can clearly see a modern-day manifestation of a very particular modus operandi- By way of deception you shall engage in war, it is worth revisiting WWII wartime propaganda as well. Given the stuff they've blatantly lied about in front of our own eyes, imagine the stories that would have been told during WWII...
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9mo ago
The term “improvised explosive device” comes from the British army in the 1970's, after Irish republican army (IRA) used bombs made from agricultural fertilizer and SEMTEX smuggled from Libya to make highly effective booby trap devices or remote controlled bombs.
No, the acronym was created by the British to describe explosive-rigged boobytraps like suitcases created by the IRA. This is obviously an IED, why not just admit it? The Iraq insurgency is the other most notable case of this being used in warfare, but now Mossad has adopted it as well.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9mo ago
So a boobytrapped suitcase is an IED, but a boobytrapped pager is a grenade or a drone strike?
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9mo ago
Has the CIA done this in the war on terror? No, it hasn't. You know who has done this? Insurgents and Mossad.
The US was apparently not even in the loop on this operation, also making this another demonstration of Israel's insolence. The CIA would not have approved of this attack and it has not done similar attacks in its own War on Terror.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9mo ago
FYI these were improvised bombs detonated in crowded marketplaces. That's why I said they are terrorist tactics. This is not a tactic the US has engaged in in its war on terror.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9mo ago
The US has already deployed an enormous naval presence to the region. It has vowed to defend Israel if it is attacked. The prospect of joining the war is very real, and it is already costing the US billions of dollars in aid and the expenditures involved in dedicating so much naval power to defending Israel.
It's also a diplomatic rebuff. The Biden administration has made its position clear- to avoid a regional conflict. For good reason. Obviously the Biden Administration does not believe this is in the best interests of the US. You can say that they are wrong, but to pretend "we just can't know if this is in our interests" is incredibly naive. What exactly does the US stand to gain from more war on behalf of Israel? How does the US benefit from a regional war? It doesn't, it can only be costly.
Everything you are saying now could have, and was, said on the eve of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Do you have specific reasons to believe that this hypothetical war will be more like Syria, and less like the Iran-Iraq War (two Middle Eastern countries going at it, the West basically unaffected) or the Six-Day War?
The Six-Day War led to an intractable quagmire in the entire region. But there is plenty of reason to suggest this will turn into a protracted conflict. Israel wasn't able to pacify Gaza in six months, much less six days. Against Hezbollah? Yeah, that's going to look more like Syria and Iraq/Afghanistan than the Six Day War because Hezbollah is more well-armed, financed, they are experienced fighters. They are entrenched. There is very good reason the Biden administration's policy is a negotiated settlement and not a regional war.
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
1mo ago
It's pretty dishonest to pretend that nobody would react to the revelation that the entire extermination camp and gas chamber story was a lie, and nobody was killed in that fashion. You are saying you wouldn't care if that turned out to be false (I don't believe you by the way) but it would be shocking to many people. Certainly that story is the epicenter of the placement of Hitler as the anti-Christ of Western Methology. Things get very awkward if you admit the entire gas chamber and extermination camp story was all just a huge lie meant to manipulate the public, a lie you will get arrested in Europe for challenging.
The Germans were capable of a 1% death rate in prison camps (the death rate of American POWs).
The Typhus epidemic killed 2-3 million people during WWI, mostly civilians. The Germans did not have a vaccine for Typhus during WWII.
The conditions in the concentration camps were also tolerable throughout most of the war, save for outbreaks of disease. It was in the final months of the war when German infrastructure was being destroyed from all sides that the catastrophic conditions became ubiquitous, a fact that this Revisionist film covers very well.
The Holocaust Narrative was not dominant in the 1960s, I said that was when the Holocaust Narrative essentially began in its current form. Yes Origins hardly touches the topic and doesn't mention gas chambers at all. It doesn't really do you any favors though to point out that the Holocaust narrative as such really emerged decades after the war in full form. Usually a historical event is most salient in the public consciousness in the immediate aftermath of the event and fades over time. It's the complete opposite with the Holocaust, in which it was basically ignored for decades and didn't peak in the public consciousness until the 1990s at the earliest, although I would argue it is at its peak right now.
Origins doesn't touch the Holocaust, neither does Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe or Churchill's Second World War totaling 4,448 pages, neither does de Gaulle's three volume Mémoires de guerre, none of them mention gas chambers a single time or anything resembling the prevailing Holocaust narrative. It's a very stark omission, which the mainstream explains away as- they just didn't care enough about Jews enough to mention it.
The fact that WWII Revisionism emerged before the Holocaust narrative in its current form proliferated, and then has been fanatically suppressed ever since the Holocaust narrative has become the holy center of western mythology points to a relationship between the two.
most notably "What was the status of the so-called Hossbach memorandum presented to the Nuremberg Tribunal as evidence of a long-term Nazi plan for conquest in Eastern Europe?" AJP Taylor throws a lot of shade at the authenticity of the memorandum, which if definitive would directly refute his argument
How many various Israeli memorandum have been produced with various proposals and plans in the past 2 years? The mainstream relies on an extremely illogical overemphasis on memos like that. A non-reviewed memo written from memory by an attendee 5 days after a single meeting 1937- how likely is that to be a realistic blueprint ground-truth plan for geopolitical policy in 1940? Various memos have been leaked from the Israeli camp with plans for Gaza, it would be like picking a memo from a single meeting and saying the Israelis absolutely plan to do this 3 years from now. The situation changes, the idea that memo sinks the Revisionist case for WWII is wishful thinking.
The mainstream constantly ignores these kinds of rhetoric and memos coming from Israeli leaders, but then treats a memo from a single meeting in 1937 as a be-all-end-all plan. The memo also validates that Germany did not want war with Great Britain and France, which would validate an important Revisionist position.
The military history community, of course, doesn't even consider Nazi-sympathetic views revisionist - it prides itself on being able to separate the concepts of "competent/incompetent general" from "fought on the good/evil side".
This is true but they still ban Holocaust Revisionism, at least on places like Axis History Forum. It's understandable, they don't want their intellectual curiosity in the Axis powers conflated with antisemitism so they police their own community vigorously on that question as far as I can tell. But outside the military forums any sort of Revisionist treatment of the Axis powers or WWII is scandalizing, as you can see from the various reactions of WWII Revisionism being platformed on Tucker Carlson and soon to be on Joe Rogan. Sure the military history community will ponder a question like "What if Britain had remained neutral in the German-Soviet war?" but the powers that be will be apoplectic to hear that question platformed seriously on Rogan.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
4mo ago
Don't know why johnfabian alludes to "vague offers", Hitler offered to evacuate from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norway in exchange for Britain's neutrality in the war against the Soviet Union. This was after Hitler conquered France and after Dunkirk, so when he was in his strongest bargaining position. Churchill rejected the offer.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
4mo ago
The idea that the war was justified because contemporary articles compared Hitler to Napoleon is just absurd, as absurd as all the contemporary articles you can point to which endlessly compare X with Hitler to justify some war, whether it's Ukraine (with both Zelensky and Putin invoking Hitler to justify the war effort on the other) or Iraq or Iran. Britain lost its Empire, Europe was destroyed, tens of millions dead, half of Europe gifted to the Soviet Union including Poland.... oh but contemporary articles said it had to be done because of Napoleon, right.
Strong War on Christmas vibes- conservatives complain "the cashier didn't adequately say the thing, there's a War on Christmas" while Christmas continues to grows bigger than ever in the culture. I was driving in the South last year and, I kid you not, I saw a billboard off a rural highway that said I miss hearing you say 'Merry Christmas' - Jesus.
How many people of influence have bent the knee to Jewish remembrance in the past couple days, but to retain power you need to find the people who don't correctly participate in the civic ritual and publicly make an example of them, right? That's how it works.
As a Holocaust Denier I don't see evidence of Holocaust denial on the Left, just public punishment for non-compliance to the small number of people who make the mistake of disrespecting the Holiday.
The entire consideration of Gentiles as Holocaust victims at all has been a very fluid matter; for a time it was claimed that there were 11 million victims in the Holocaust, 5 million Gentiles and 6 million Jews. But the figure of 5 million Gentiles being killed in the Holocaust was a number totally fabricated by Holocaust studies advocate Simon Wiesenthal. According to people close to him, he invented the number in order to manipulate Gentiles into having more stake in the Holocaust narrative.
Incidentally, the article is another attempted dressing-down of Sean Spicer for not correctly acknowledging Jewish victims:
It’s a statement that shows up regularly in declarations about the Nazi era. It was implied in a Facebook post by the Israel Defense Forces’ spokesperson’s unit last week marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day. And it was asserted in an article shared by the Trump White House in defense of its controversial Holocaust statement the same day omitting references to the 6 million Jewish victims.
It is, however, a number without any scholarly basis.
Indeed, say those close to the late Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal, its progenitor, it is a number that was intended to increase sympathy for Jewish suffering but which now is more often used to obscure it.
The White House statement sent waves of dismay through the Jewish community, including among groups that have been supportive of President Donald Trump.
By mentioning the “victims, survivors, [and] heroes of the Holocaust” without mentioning the Jews, said a host of Jewish organizations, the January 27 statement risked playing into the hands of the European right, which includes factions that seek to diminish the centrality of the Jewish genocide to the carnage of World War II.
In defending the omission of Jews from the statement, a White House spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, sent CNN a link to a 2015 Huffington Post-UK piece titled “The Holocaust’s Forgotten Victims: The 5 Million Non-Jewish People Killed By The Nazis.”
The “5 million” has driven Holocaust historians to distraction ever since Wiesenthal started to peddle it in the 1970s. Wiesenthal told the Washington Post in 1979, “I have sought with Jewish leaders not to talk about 6 million Jewish dead, but rather about 11 million civilians dead, including 6 million Jews.”
...
Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar who chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, said he warned his friend Wiesenthal, who died in 2005, about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims – 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews.
“I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’” Bauer recalled in an interview Tuesday. “He said, ‘Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential.’”
Bauer and other historians who knew Wiesenthal said the Nazi hunter told them that he chose the 5 million number carefully: He wanted a number large enough to attract the attention of non-Jews who might not otherwise care about Jewish suffering, but not larger than the actual number of Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust, 6 million.
It caught on: President Jimmy Carter, issuing the executive order that would establish the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, referred to the “11 million victims of the Holocaust.”
Nowadays, it is not fashionable to emphasize Gentile victims in the Holocaust, now that the "5 million" figure is acknowledged to have just been a symbolic propaganda figure intended to manipulate Gentiles into having more stake in the Holocaust narrative.
Of the 6 million Jews allegedly killed in the Holocaust, it is claimed that about half of that figure (approximately 3 million, give or take) were killed by being tricked into entering shower rooms that were actually gas chambers in disguise. It is not claimed any significant number of Gentiles were killed in these gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. Likewise, the alleged "Final Solution" which purportedly ordered the extermination of the Jews is a cornerstone of the Holocaust narrative.
Given that these particularities of the Holocaust, and which define it really, are said to only have been applied to Jews it doesn't really make sense to include Gentiles as being victims of the "Holocaust" as such, and the current meta is more around emphasizing the Holocaust as a Jewish experience. But it should be noted that it was the Jews themselves who originally emphasized Gentile victims of the Holocaust in order to influence their perception of the narrative.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
6mo ago
Feel free to keep wasting your time grandstanding, I'm just going to ask you the same question again:
Can you Amadan, parse for me why a Romanian Nationalist praising a Romanian Nationalist leader constitutes Holocaust Revisionism?
Why would the Rabbi from the AJC make this claim? Explain that to me, and if you decide to continue whining about me talking about "da Joos" I'm just going to ask this same question again in response.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
6mo ago
This is unfortunately characteristic of all your replies to me, you just grandstand with irrelevant jabs and don't even engage the point I'm making.
Can you Amadan, parse for me why a Romanian Nationalist praising a Romanian Nationalist leader constitutes Holocaust Revisionism? That's a serious question I expect you to answer. You just take the double-speak in stride and don't even think to question it.
Sadly you devolve to the same baseless accusations of dishonesty even though I'm extremely upfront about what I believe. The core controversies surrounding Holocaust Revisionism are not directly even related to the WW-II narrative surrounding Antonescu, so why would I bring them up? Your accusation that I'm being dishonest by not mentioning those other matters is just another of many examples of you being extremely uncharitable instead of engaging my argument.
You didn't even quote the most operative part of my comment:
So some on the DR perceived a return to normalcy with Swift's fame, dubbing her Aryan princess as a playful acknowledgment of a sort of reversion from the pop-culture dominated ressentiment towards the jock and the prom queen that is foundational to wokeness
You have admitted that backlash against Swift is influenced by resentment towards a White archetypical beauty and social type that resonates in particular with White girls and seems to be threatening in some way to a non-white audience. When I mentioned "the worship of the weak and ugly and broken" I was referring to Wokeness as a whole that elevates ugly and broken people. You are overstating your disagreement.
The DR is correct to interpret Swift's fandom as a latent celebration of "whiteness" as it were, in a way that does not apply to other pop stars, and correct to interpret the resentment towards it as having a racial undertone that the Right Wing should perceive and not support just because Swift endorses a Democrat.
You still have to explain why Swift is getting that backlash, and other comparable popstars do not get the same backlash, despite not doing any of the things you claimed it’s necessary to do - uglifying oneself, “worshipping weakness”, making a postmodern critique of femininity - to avoid backlash.
Can you just acknowledge that Katy Perry's "persona" is not the same as Taylor Swift's? And that the latter is playing a straight archetype of popular white girl? Katy Perry is not going for that, she has her own image and look. I don't think Katy Perry plays the "popular girl next door" persona like Swift does. I don't think Perry goes for the "Prom Queen white girl vibe" like Swift embraces. Do you? If you agree with me then I'm still struggling to understand why you take such issue with my comment.
You are engaging in a composition fallacy. My argument was that Swift's persona is "popular, conventionally attractive white girl." You think that pointing out that there are other conventionally attractive white pop stars is a counterargument to this where it isn't. Swift's persona is as the white popular girl, that's her "character." She reminds me of girls I knew growing up, very much a Prom Queen / Girl Next Door sort of character. That is different from the other examples, and how they try to create and refine their image, even though they are also examples of conventionally attractive white pop stars. With Miley Cryus for example showing that just because she's white and conventionally attractive doesn't mean her persona is the same as Swift's. Miley Cryus is also flat, but her persona is not white-coded so it doesn't lead to the same dynamic.
Swift is actually going for the "popular, white, girl next door" vibe and it resonates with a huge number of white girls. Just pointing to other attractive pop stars is not responsive to the argument I'm making.
I think she triggers a ton of the neuroses and insecurities of non-white women in this country; I’m hesitant to speculate on the deep psychological reasons why.
I of course agree with this, and that's why I relate the backlash to Swift's fandom as a ressentiment against the archetype of the conventionally attractive white girl. So I don't know why you are accusing me of inappropriately applying a political lens when you basically agree with me that backlash towards her fandom is driven by resentment towards Swift's white-coded attractiveness and persona.
There are of course episodes like Kanye West upstaging Swift to defend Beyonce against Swift's rising star. Yeah, there is actual political and culture war in these sorts of events.
There was nothing political or controversial about being a Katy Perry fan, or a Kelly Clarkson fan, or any of it.
Admittedly I don't know much about the Kelly Clarkson fandom, but I'm 100% sure if I studied that fandom for a few hours I would absolutely be able to identify political issues underlying the fandom, Clarkson's image, etc. The idea these issues just apply to Taylor Swift but don't apply to Beyonce is just really illogical.
The point isn't that she's a white pop star or she happens to be more famous than the others, add to your list someone like Miley Cyrus, and certainly Lady Gaga, those pop stars play a persona that's basically a postmodern critique of their conventional attractiveness. They make themselves look disgusting as part of their act, maybe they even get an audience by appealing to ugly people through uglifying themselves and yet attaining fame and acclaim. It certainly isn't the case that Swift even has more natural beauty than some of the other examples.
Taylor Swift's persona is "The Popular Girl", which all those other pop stars you mention try to subvert by dressing and acting in a way that openly defies conventional attractiveness or how a girl is supposed to behave. She doesn't appeal to her audience by making herself look or behave ugly, which does stand out among those other pop stars. Probably sans Britney Spears in her prime, but that would only solidify my point of a "return to normalcy" where girls want to be the prettiest and most popular rather than the most... Lady Gaga.
Taylor Swift fandom is white-coded in a way that is unlike any of those other pop stars because Swift plays the "white popular girl" archetype. I happened to be watching Ocean's 8 today and one of the characters made a quip that the Indian character was "so white" because she was excited Swift was going to be at the Met Gala.
If Swift behaved like Miley Cryus or Lady Gaga you would have a point, but she behaves very differently from them and it's meaningful that young girls are looking towards a Swift- the "popular girl" archetype rather than the contrived acts of those other pop stars which ham up ugliness to appeal to an audience.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
7mo ago
The fundamental disconnect is that you don't see what Nietzsche interprets as a continuity between the ancient barbarian conquerors and noble classes of civilization. You play the game of "oh I love the United States but I disavow the Anglo-Saxon conquest of the Indians, sorry we were sooo barbaric for doing that!" Nietzsche related the future aristocracy with barbarian conquerors. The Pirates were not a "future aristocracy" they were a bitter underclass! The Romans, the Greeks, the Anglo-Saxons, they were Noble and the pirates were not Noble. Simple as.
The word "Aryan" denoted and was synonymous with "Noble", pointing towards an ethnic self-conception of these barbarian conquerors as Noble. The point being, the "barbarian conquerors" should be viewed as proto-Aristocrats, because they were across everything we regard as Civilization: the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Aryans, etc. They actually became the upper and ruling classes of the civilization you hold in high regard.
The armies of illiterate savages who sacked Rome were actually a civilizing force
Not so much a civilizing force as a cleansing force of a civilization that decayed under dysgenic forces. And yes, those barbarians warlords did become the future aristocracy, particularly in Northern Italy.
The entire idea of a Pirate is as an inversion or ressentiment towards The Aristocract. The Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Greek, Roman, etc. is the aspirational aristocrat. Their genealogy actually composed the forces of civilization.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9mo ago
The term came into existence to describe the bombs made by the IRA, which was based on a preference of presentation. Things like suitcases boobytrapped to explode were what gave IED its name. A boobytrapped pager with hidden explosives is obviously comparable to a boobytrapped suitcase with hidden explosives, and the name "IED" was made to describe those things as opposed to conventional weapons.
This isn't just a wordplay either- the US and CIA haven't done anything like this. The IRA has. The insurgency in Iraq has. It obviously falls under that category of mode of waging warfare.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9mo ago
All IEDs are "deliberately manufactured".
An improvised explosive device (IED) is a bomb constructed and deployed in ways other than in conventional military action. It may be constructed of conventional military explosives, such as an artillery shell, attached to a detonating mechanism. IEDs are commonly used as roadside bombs, or homemade bombs.
The term "IED" was coined by the British Army during the Northern Ireland conflict to refer to booby traps made by the IRA, and entered common use in the U.S. during the Iraq War.[1][2]
The term came into existence to describe IRA's boobytrapped explosives, like suitcases that would explode when you opened them. This operation is obviously on the level of "send a boobytrapped explosive suitcase" to someone, which is unambiguously an IED.
What specifically is the issue? Risk of collateral damage/deaths? Being sneaky and underhanded? Being unfair? Lack of targeting? Something else?
Boobytrapping goods which are shipped internationally with explosives is a terrible precedent. Explosives which can detonate anywhere, anytime, regardless of the target in the area.
What if peace had been brokered in the months since the distribution of those explosives? Then you are just left with a bunch of untracked explosives in civilian areas? It beggars belief that you struggle to find the issues with this practice.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9mo ago
These aren't "IEDs" any more than a hand grenade is an IED.
The purpose of an IED is to deceive people into thinking a bomb is an ordinary object. A hand grenade is a weapon of conventional warfare. Why are you so loathe to admit that this is obviously an IED, and not a hand grenade? Why detach yourself so much from reality? To pretend like this is just another chapter in the military history of hand grenades is just laughable. It's unprecedented.
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