SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
No bio...
User ID: 853
Holocaust Denial is receiving the most engagement at this moment than it ever has since it was formulated in the 1970s. By far. Yes it is going mainstream too.
Some of the keystone claims of the Holocaust narrative are plainly absurd and will be Revised as well. Many already have been Revised. It was claimed 4 million were killed in Auschwitz until the 1990s, when the death toll dropped to 1.1 million. It was claimed 2 million were killed in Majdanek at the Nuremberg Trial and the most recent estimates by the Majdanek Museum estimate the death toll from all prisoners from all causes was about 70,000. It was claimed 5 million Gentiles were killed in the Holocaust, but that has been Revised and acknowledged to have been a deceptive lie. The Holocaust has already been revised a lot and it has a long way to go.
One of the most infamous claims, that the Nazis manufactured bars of soap out of the fat of Jewish Holocaust victims, was Revised not too long ago and admitted to not have been true. The other salacious claim involving shower rooms stands today but it won't for that much longer. Holocaust Revisionism has entailed a steady stream of victories but it hasn't penetrated the public consciousness although it is clearly beginning to do so now.
New Harvard class of 2028 Demographic data just dropped
Predictably, the Supreme Court decision hasn't changed anything. Whites are not even represented in the demographic statistics, they are an implied residual.
Harvard's data indicates that at least 68% of the class of 2028 is non-White. That leaves 32% of the class as categorized as "White", but the best data we have suggests that Jewish population of Harvard is about 10%, so Gentile Whites, who make up over 60% of the country and founded this country and these institutions, have probably about 20% representation in the Harvard class of 2028, certainly being by far the least represented group by population.
Far-right parties on the rise across Europe.
That's a headline we've all read many times in the past decade, is now really different? There are many clips around the internet of the race riots in France, with this Reddit thread showing a compilation of some. It's hard to gauge how serious the riots are, or if it's relatively isolated to a few blocks in a couple cities and these compilations make the situation appear worse than it actually is. The words of Eric Zemmour paint a dire picture:
We are in the early stages of a civil war. It’s an ethnic war. We can see clearly that it’s a race war. We see what forces are involved. We need someone determined and firm. … The problem, above all, is the number [of immigrants].
The reason I think the BBC article is noteworthy, most of all, is because it observes that contrary to the previous bouts of nationalistic populism that inspired Brexit and Euroskepticism, this surge in far-right political support seems to be dovetailing with support for the EU:
While at the same time, a number of far-right parties in Europe have intentionally moved more towards the political centre, hoping to entice more centrist voters.
Mark Leonard cites far-right relations with the EU as another example of their 'centrification'.
You may remember, after the UK's Brexit vote in 2016 that Brussels feared a domino effect - Frexit (France leaving the EU), Dexit (Denmark leaving the EU), Italexit (Italy leaving the EU) and more.
Many European countries had deeply Eurosceptic populist parties doing well at the time but over the years those parties have felt obliged to stop agitating to leave the EU or even its euro currency.
That seemed too radical for a lot of European voters...
Polls suggest the EU is more popular amongst Europeans at the moment than it has been for years.
And so far right parties now speak about reforming the EU, rather than leaving it. And they're predicted to perform strongly in next year's elections for the European parliament.
Paris-based Director of Institut Montaigne's Europe Programme Georgina Wright told me she believes the far-right renaissance in Europe is largely down to dissatisfaction with the political mainstream. Currently in Germany, 1 in 5 voters say they're unhappy with their coalition government, for example.
Wright said many voters in Europe are attracted by the outspokenness of parties on the far-right and there's tangible frustration that traditional politicians don't appear to have clear answers in 3 key areas of life:
- Issues linked to identity - a fear of open borders and an erosion of national identity and traditional values
- Economics - a rejection of globalisation and resentment that children and grandchildren aren't assured a better future
- Social justice - a feeling that national governments are not in control of the rules that govern the lives of citizens
I do not agree with Mark Leonard that far-right relations with the EU are an example of the centrification of the far-right, it rather represents a change in strategy.
I've seen it asked here, what would be the pathway for political or cultural victory of the radical right? This is it- these energies being transformed into a positive and ambitious political project that surfs the wave of globalization and European integration. In hindsight it seems like such a bad strategy for the far right to advocate stepping away from a project like this, and the failure of Brexit to produce any meaningful change is, along with Trumpism, proof of the failure of petty nationalistic populism. If you blame the EU for immigration you don't leave the EU, you go for European parliament.
Journalists have spent many years hand-wringing over the Euroskepticism being influenced by right-wing politics, but I think they will find the prospect of the EU being reformed by a pro-EU radical right to be much more worrisome- and effective at bringing real change.
Edit: Police Unions are also describing the situation as dire:
Faced with these savage hordes, asking for calm doesn’t go far enough. It must be imposed.
Re-establishing order in the republic and putting those arrested somewhere they can do no harm must be the only political signals to send out.
Our colleagues, like the majority of the public, can no longer have the law laid down to them by a violent minority.
This is not the time for industrial action, but for fighting against these ‘vermin’. To submit, to capitulate, and to give them pleasure by laying down weapons are not solutions, given the gravity of the situation.
They said: “Today, police officers are at the frontline because we are at war.” And they warned the government that, unless officers are given yet greater legal protections and more resources in the future, “tomorrow, we will be in resistance”.
The Roman Pantheon was highly representative of subjugation and hierarchy, no doubt, but it integrated the idols and symbols of others into its order. The mandate to remove idolatry from the land and "cut off" the false gods points to Yahweh as a singularly jealous god. So a Jewish mandate to drive out the false gods of the Gentiles, or Ōr laGōyyīm, relates the systematic behavior of Jewish influence in Gentile culture. Yes, I do think, as in all religion, there is an HBD-understood influence between the mythos that has formulated the people, the genes of those people, and the behavior of said people. Same is true for Christians, Arabs, Hindus.
If we properly understand Yahweh as a metaphor and synonym for the Jewish people, then the mandate in Tikkun Olam to "utterly cut off" the false gods points towards an inscrutable cultural hostility. A hostility towards the national idols and traditions and even the very ethnic identity of Gentiles is openly professed under the banner of Tikkun Olam today.
Edit: Here's an interesting article from a Jewish group corroborating the importance of Tikkun Olam to the behavior of the Jewish people:
One can say a lot about our infatuation with Tikkun Olam, and I will. But let’s start with what the critics get wrong, which is most of it.
First, the phrase “Tikkun Olam” is at least as old as Rabbinic Judaism itself. It appears already in the Mishnah, where it refers to social policy legislation providing extra protection to those potentially at a disadvantage. The “Aleinu”, one of the oldest Jewish prayers, contains the phrase “repair the world” (letaken olam). Critics love to grouse that liberal Jews “forget” the context—Aleinu envisions that God (not us) will “repair the world in the Kingship of God”—but the more important point is that “Tikkun Olam” wasn’t some phrase invented in the 1970s by Rabbi Michael Lerner and other hippie Jews.
Nor are the concepts of Jewish social justice and universal morality, to which Tikkun Olam has come to refer. Virtually all the prophets talk tirelessly about the need to create a just and ethical society, many of their words sound pretty much like a 21st century Tikkun Olam manifesto. Needless to say, they draw from the Torah, which speaks endlessly about loving the stranger and the poor. The idea that Jews have a universal mission also appears insistently from the Torah onwards. When God blesses our patriarch Abraham, God states that “through you, all the Nations of the Earth will be blessed”. The prophets often focus on Israel, their purview also extends to all Peoples. This includes the prophet Jonah, whose story we read on Yom Kippur and whose mission was exclusively directed at the gentile city (an enemy city, in fact) of Nineveh.
It would take gallons of ink to list all the traditional sources that encourage us to embark on what we call today Tikkun Olam. Considering how many of these sources are traditionally understood to be directly and authoritatively quoting God, whoever has an issue with Tikkun Olam needs to take it up with the Boss Himself. So no, it’s not a marginal idea that evil liberals brought to the forefront of the Jewish agenda; it’s been central to Judaism for millennia. And it’s not a perversion of a Kabbalistic term; if anything, the way in which we understand Tikkun Olam today is more faithful to the original mishnaic meaning of the term (pragmatic legislation to protect the vulnerable and preserve the integrity of society) than to the mystical interpretation of Lurianic Kabbalah, in which the world has lost its original harmony after the “breaking of the vessels”, and fulfilling mitzvot (whether ethical or purely ritual) can “repair the world” from its spiritual wounds.
If we understand Tikkun Olam to relate to a psychometric quality like g then of course HBD would suggest that this idea which has been central to these people for millennia is both a reflection of and influence on their psychology, even atheistic Jews. Even Jews, proudly, relate a long history of radical agitation to the concept.
Holocaust memoirs are the ultimate double-edged sword in the Holocaust industry. They can become immensely popular, commercially succesful, have huge cultural influence, and greatly increase the public perception of the Holocaust, especially among children, but they are often riddled with historical inaccuracies, contradictions, exaggerations, and outright fabrications that can put historians in an uncomfortable position of contradicting the experiences of the survivors.
Many authors of Holocaust memoirs are those who remained silent for decades, but finally decided to come out and tell their story for the first time. An example is Irene Zisblatt, who decided to break her silence and tell her story in her memoir, The Fifth Diamond published in 2008. Among other things, Zisblatt claimed that she escaped from a gas chamber, had her Auschwitz prisoner tattoo surgically removed by Dr. Mengele, that Ilse Kolche had selected her to be turned into a lampshade, and that she constantly swallowed, defacated, and re-swallowed diamonds given to her by her mother during her internment in the camp.
This also just wasn't a one-off book, Irene Zisblatt is one of the most prominently-featured survivors in Steven Spielberg's film The Last Days, which won an Oscar. Revisionists had a field day with exposing the absurd lies that Hollywood honored as their best output. I was surprised to come across this recent Times of Israel article that, finally, indicates mainstream skepticism for her obvious lies and laments that the deniers are asking good questions.
There are many other instances of Holocaust memoirs, like The Painted Bird (1968) being exposed as literary fraud, and the author of that bestseller eventually committed suicide. There are a lot of exaggerated and false memoirs.
Elie Wiesel's Night (1958) is another example- he doesn't mention gas chambers in his famous memoirs but he describes truckloads of babies being burned alive, which is not claimed to have happened by mainstream historians today.
But Herman Rosenblat takes the cake for the most iconic memoir fraudster who, after a couple appearances on Oprah, a book deal, and movie deal, was exposed for being a fraud. In an interview he did with ABC News, he was asked why he lied to so many people, and his response was "it wasn't a lie, it was my imagination, and in my imagination it was true".
There's a lot of commercial incentive for survivors to "tell their stories", with all the problems that come with perverse incentives and "recovered memory" syndrome. This also presents a problem because "the case" for the Holocaust entirely relies on witness testimony, so embarassing displays of prominent witnesses lying weakens the most important body of evidence that historians rely upon in lieu of documentary and physical evidence. Holocaust historians almost never reference the authors of these memoirs.
With all that said, there is one memoir that is extremely important to Holocaust historigraphy, and that is Yankel Wiernik's A Year in Treblinka (1944). Wiernik's memoir was published by the Polish Underground in 1944, making it an extremely early purported eyewitness account to the alleged Treblinka atrocities. Owing to the lack of documentary and physical evidence, Wiernik's memoir is heavily relied on as a primary source by Holocaust historians. But I encourage anyone to read it and decide for themselves. It doesn't come across as very credible, which is why it hasn't become "required reading" so-to-speak.
The most famous "memoir" of sorts is Anne Frank's diary, which does not claim to witness gas chamber extermination. Anne was deported with her family to Auschwitz, but then transferred to Belsen where she died in a hospital of Typhus. So the diary, while famous, does not enter into discussions of the authenticity of gas chambers and extermination camps.
In short, for a memoir to enter into the discussion it has to: 1. be relevant to the extermination and gas chamber claims, and 2. be credible (i.e. early accounts). There are not very many memoirs that fit this criteria, Wiernik is really the best they can do on that front, and his credibility is seriously lacking.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
11mo ago
Why are the jews your only issue?
The bigger question is why am I the only one to notice Vance advocating for war with Iran, and complaining about Biden not doing enough for Israel? Why am I not dazzled by Vance's flirtation with NRx which is giving others cause for optimism? Because I know better, that's why. I can see what's going on, and it's the trajectory that has been predicted by people that know better for some time. The Thiel network is finally bearing real fruit, and it is already showing itself for what it is.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2yr ago
Such that it is now a biological imperative among anyone with Jewish DNA to try to subvert and destroy the society in which they live.
Don't you see you are misrepresenting my point in the exact same way others misrepresent HBD: "Oh, so you're saying because of HBD there are no intelligent people in such-and-such group, and absolutely everyone from this group is smarter than that group." You are just using the exact same strategy here.
If you have truly internalized HBD you would recognize the question is not if a psychological quality is inherited, it's only the extent to which it's inherited. So it's basically tautological to ask if there's an HBD explanation for the behavior of Jews- of course there is, just like everyone else.
I would simply summarize: HBD would suggest Jews have a penchant for supporting radical causes and, surprise surprise, those radical causes that rally their support tend to prioritize the interests of Jews over non-Jews, and they tend to come into confrontation with Gentile culture. When Jews are telling you they are promoting anti-racism because of Tikkun Olam why don't you believe them? I do.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2yr ago
Update on Felony Charges for Tiki Torch Marchers
A month ago I mentioned the announcement that several people from the Charlottesville 2017 torch-light march were indicted on felony charges for "burning an object with the intent to intimidate." There was a lot of skepticism that this would stick given that the statute is being stretched quite far from its incarnation as an anti-cross burning law. @netstack wrote "For the record, I don’t expect the Charlottesville tiki-torchers to be convicted."
Last Thursday it was reported that a South Carolina man entered a guilty plea, the second one to do so. He was sentenced to five years in prison / four and a half suspended:
A South Carolina man has pleaded guilty to a charge in connection with a torch march that occurred at the University of Virginia in 2017.
Tyler Bradley Dykes entered a guilty plea to burning an object with the intent to intimidate on Thursday.
He was sentenced to five years in prison, with four and a half years of that suspended.
Dykes is the second person to plead guilty.
Earlier this month, Will Zachary Smith of Texas also pleaded guilty to a charge of burning an object with the intent to intimidate.
As part of his plea deal, another charge associated with the Unite the Right rally was dropped.
Smith is scheduled to be sentenced in August.
The significance of this is that it's now precedent for "intent to intimidate" as an avenue for outlawing hate speech, which has traditionally had first amendment protections. I noted that Ron DeSantis's hate speech law signed in Jerusalem also contained verbiage surrounding an intent to intimidate, allowing for protestors to be asked to leave or be arrested/charged if they demonstrate on a university campus for the purposes of "intimidation." There was skepticism that "intimidation" could be stretched so far- but here we are, and it's already happened.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
1yr ago
Kurt Caz: The Physiognomy of Colonization
Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go send your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need
I don't follow travel vloggers in general, but there's one who is more anthropologist than tourist, documenting a phenomenon that no modern academics would dare acknowledge in this day in age. Kurt Caz, the Aryan Wanderer, mostly travels alone, sometimes accompanied by a beautiful woman of the local variety. He only visits non-tourist locations, strides the peasant countryside like a colossus, shows up uninvited and unannounced where the locals have likely never seen a tourist, and is instantly treated with respect by the men and admiration by the women. This is a pattern which is perfectly consistent in his videos across all continents and villages he has traveled through.
Once he visited a village in Papua New Guinea, and I'm not sure how to describe what happened other than they started worshipping him, declaring his visit as the fulfillment of some local prophecy of a white man coming to the village.
Kurt is clearly aware of the racial dynamics at play (and drops hints that he's secretly Based), but he leans into them in the best way. He uses his physical presence and charisma to engage with the locals, who immediately show admiration and respect, and Kurt reciprocates with a genuine racial tolerance that is more real, but completely unlike, what passes for it today.
You see, today "racial tolerance" means fixing the dynamics which are obviously at play in Kurt's content. Don't believe your lying eyes, beauty is relative and the engrained reactions we seem to have is a conspiracy of White Supremacy. Body physique is just a trait with an attractiveness that is brainwashed into us by an intolerant culture; the indigenous reaction to a White Man showing up uninvited and unannounced is just an artifact the legacy of colonization.
And to be sure, there are many factors at play here. Conventional wisdom would likely point to these factors exclusively:
- Kurt's content is just a demonstration of rule #1: Be attractive, and rule #2: Don't be unattractive. He would have a similar reception if he were on the equally "attractive" point of the Belle Curve as an Africa, Asian, or Indian.
- The local women are attracted in particular because they associate him with Western wealth.
- The locals have consumed Western media so they are primed to welcome such a person into their homes.
- The locals are aware of Western cultural customs, so even if Kurt is this physically large stranger they have no fear inviting him into their homes or granting a baseline level of trust.
These factors surely come into play, but they also beg the question. White Colonization could not have happened in the first place without a much smaller number of White Men subjugating a much larger population of indigenous peoples in all cases. India, relative to its population size, was controlled by the British with an extremely small elite pool. Much ado is made about technological supremacy and the violence of colonization, again there's a lot of truth there, but the uglier reality is that the colonization was in many cases more peaceful than existing cultural practices and conflicts if the locals had been left to their own devices.
There's a myth that the Aztecs interpreted the arrival of Spanish Conquistadores as fulfilling a prophecy of the return of the Aztec's gods. That dynamic can be seen as a microcosm in Kurt's interactions throughout his travels. In general, the phenomenon of a race of people regarding another race as divine is much more common than we would expect at first glance. Many people who would laugh at the idea of the Aztecs believing the conquistadores to be emissaries of the Aztec gods also themselves believe in the literal truth of the Jewish covenant, that Jews are a people Chosen by god and they are a race of god-creators vis-a-vis the ancestry of Jesus Christ.
This dynamic also serves an important counterpoint to IQ supremacy. Imagine being a short, weak, ugly nerd with somewhat higher IQ than Kurt. The Rationalists would tend to regard that person as the Superior Being, taking for granted the relativity of Beauty and dismissing the importance of a Noble physiognomy and charisma to civilizational achievement.
This dovetails with @naraburn's post about the Pokemon Go avatar changes being designed, apparently, to challenge conventional beauty standards- especially the sub-question in that thread regarding a conspiracy to promote ugliness. That conspiracy exists, in its declaration that there is no Noble Physiognomy, and our attractions are just manipulated by White Supremacy. Whereas Kurt can just show up and use his physical presence and charisma to exert command, they are trying very hard to engrain - "don't believe your lying eyes, ugliness is beautiful." But in the same way educational interventions constantly fail to close the IQ gaps, these cultural initiatives will also fail because our brains have been tuned to perceive a person's physical attractiveness as a proxy for genetic fitness.
While they will never make Ugly become Beautiful, they absolutely can and will destroy Beauty through Ressentiment. Culture War has fomented a large amount of hostility towards White People from non-white people in the West, but it will never be able to reproduce the racial dynamic that Kurt is able to tap into in his content.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2yr ago
Of course I believe that, but that doesn't say any of the things about Jews, or even Judaism, that you are extrapolating.
Anti-racism: White people have no ethnic identity, they do not get to ethnically advocate for themselves, they do not get to oppose demographic replacement in polite society, they do not get their own ethnic spaces. At the same time, criticizing Jews is strictly prohibited.
Wow, it turns out that influential Jews in the culture support this radical social idea that disenfranchises white people and provides social and legal protection to Jews, who would have thought? And they do perceive it as following the Jewish principle of Tikkun Olam, that's not a sham. They actually believe it.
I think you have to willfully ignore the tribalistic behavior at play to pretend that HBD cannot explain any of this, it's just the randomness of Jewish IQ influencing the chips to fall where they may and, it turns out coincidentally, they fall on the social movements where White people have no ethnic advocacy and Jewish identity is protected in all areas from criticism.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2yr ago
Do you think that anti-racists, and particularly Jewish anti-racists, would agree with you that that is an accurate description of what "anti-racism" means?
They oppose white ethnic advocacy, in many cases deny the existence of a "white" identity altogether, uniformly oppose protest to demographic change, and uniformly oppose anti-Semitism. They wouldn't describe "anti-racism" in these same words but I think we can drop the charade that anti-racism isn't opposed to white ethnic advocacy.
Bonus question: Since you claim being "anti-racist" and believing in "Tikkun Olam" is a tribal, HBD-determined behavior, how do you explain all the Christians and atheists and agnostics and people of other faiths who are also fully immersed in "anti-racism" (and other liberal projects you ascribe to the Jews)?
Politics are downstream from culture, the culture-creators have enormous influencing in guiding the reality-perception of the masses. We are all heavily influenced by the myths we believe in (theistic or otherwise) and the stories we internalize and the public narrative we see when we turn on the TV, that is the human condition that nobody is immune to, least of all Jews.
What I believe, and what HBD would suggest, is that some peoples have more talent than others in wielding cultural influence. They are able to create stories, myths, and narratives that provide cover for more esoteric meaning. This takes the form of Biblical myth but also prevailing cultural narratives like "We have to fight Saddam Hussein to make the Middle East safe for Democracy", which hide an esoteric motivation with exoteric form of artistic expression or propaganda. I don't think it's a coincidence that Jews dominate Hollywood or that it's just a matter of IQ. They are good at crafting stories and narratives that influence the masses. Asking "how do I explain Christians" is just hilarious in the recognition of this fact...
Under the assumption that Jews have relative advantages in creating influential culture, and that the prevailing culture is extremely anti-white and philo-semitic, it's hard to pretend that HBD provides no insight at all into the behavior of Jews and the prevailing culture.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2yr ago
Biden-Harris Administration Releases First-Ever U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism
Last week the Biden administration published the anticipated national strategy to counter antisemitism.
This national strategy sets forth a whole-of-society plan that both meets this moment of escalating hatred and lays the foundation for reducing antisemitism over time. Informed by input from over 1,000 stakeholders from every sector of American society, it outlines over 100 new actions that Executive Branch agencies have committed to take in order to counter antisemitism—all of which will be completed within a year. The strategy also calls on Congress to enact legislation that would help counter antisemitism and urges every sector of society to mobilize against this age-old hatred, including state and local governments, civil society, schools and academic institutions, the tech sector, businesses, and diverse religious communities.
To support the whole-of-society call to action, today the Biden-Harris Administration also announced commitments to counter antisemitism and build cross-community solidarity by organizations across the private sector, civil society, religious and multi-faith communities, and higher education.
The Full Report starts with a legal disclaimer that it does not supersede any existing regulation or law- it should be viewed as a blueprint and aspirational. However, the 100+ "calls to action" touch every corner of government, even the USDA and and Department of Forest Services. One of the main architects of the initiative is Kamala Harris's Jewish husband, Dough Emhoff.
The first question you may have is "what's antisemitism?" I have discussed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in the past, and it is acknowledged in the report as the most prominent definition which has been adopted by the US:
There are several definitions of antisemitism, which serve as valuable tools to raise awareness and increase understanding of antisemitism. The most prominent is the non-legally binding “working definition” of antisemitism adopted in 2016 by the 31-member states of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which the United States has embraced.
The IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes:
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
The Biden administration's strategy to counter antisemitism includes censoring criticism of "the power of Jews as a collective", even while there exists a whole-of-society effort to engage in mendacious criticism of the power of white men as a collective.
There are indeed well over 100 calls to action, which includes things like:
- AmeriCorps will distribute resources on antisemitism and countering antisemitism through its national service programs. (By September 2023)
- Federal agencies will organize or participate in communications or events marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day (January 27) and Jewish American History Month. (By May 2023)
- The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) will launch a campaign featuring artists who engage, unite, and heal communities through the arts, and who incorporate themes of countering antisemitism and other forms of hate in their artistic practice. (By September 2023)
- IMLS will increase learning opportunities in rural libraries and museums on both Jewish American history, such as Jewish contributions to agriculture, and histories of antisemitism, including the Holocaust. (By March 2024)
The most tangible impacts of this strategy in the short term are the mandated propaganda initiatives described here and in many more "calls to action" in the document. By my view, the most alarming dimension of the strategy is in combatting online antisemitism (emphasis in original):
The Biden-Harris Administration also encourages all online platforms to independently commit to taking several actions that will counter antisemitism, including: ensuring terms of service and community standards explicitly cover antisemitism; adopting zero-tolerance for hate speech terms of service and community standards and permanently banning repeat offenders of these policies; investing in the human and technical resources necessary to enable vigorous and timely enforcement of their terms of service and community standards; improving their capabilities to stop recommending and de-rank antisemitic and other hateful content; increasing the transparency of their algorithmic recommendation systems and data; treating antisemitism as a distinct category in transparency reports; and more.
In today's day in age, where something like Twitter is unambiguously the public square, this call to action is clearly intended to abridge the freedom of speech even though it wouldn't run afoul of constitutional checks in the court system. In particular, the call for permanent bans from the public square in the face of a "zero-tolerance" policy is chilling. If you rob a Walmart, or assault someone, even if you are a repeat offender, you will go to jail but then eventually be released. A permanent ban from the public square is tantamount to a worse punishment than faced by many criminal offenders.
The Call to Congress is even more alarming:
We call on Congress to hold social media platforms accountable for spreading hatefueled violence, including antisemitism. The President has long called for fundamental reforms to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and Congress should remove special immunity for online platforms. This should include removing immunity if an online platform utilizes an algorithm or other computational process to amplify or recommend content to a user that promotes violence, or is directly relevant to a claim involving interference with civil rights or neglect to prevent interference with civil rights.
...
We call on Congress to pass legislation requiring platforms to enable timely and robust public interest research, including on the spread of antisemitism and other forms of hate, using platforms’ data and analyzing their algorithmic recommendation systems, while maintaining users’ privacy.
The Right Wing has naively supported changes to Section 230 that would prohibit politically-motivated content censorship, on the logic that if they aren't publishers they shouldn't be censoring political speech. The more likely changes to Section 230 would be that social media companies will be required to have strict content policies and moderation against antisemitism and other forms of hate speech in order for social media companies to have legal protection.
This call to action doesn't seem unrealistic, I noted last month that Ron DeSantis travelled to Jerusalem to sign a hate-speech law which was described as "the strongest antisemitism bill in the United States". Likewise, this all-encompassing initiative by the Biden Administration has sparked absolutely no opposition of any note, indicating it's one of the rare areas of bipartisan consensus among "our" representatives.
Generative AI is only mentioned in one part of the fact sheet:
The ADL will partner with the Interparliamentary Task Force to Combat Online Antisemitism to convene a meeting in the fall to examine the impact of artificial intelligence and generative artificial intelligence on online antisemitism.
No doubt AI will be more prominent in the Second-Ever U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism.
One of the most tired memes is "replace 'Jew' with 'white' in this article and look how 1488 it looks loool", but I have to say if this document were a whole-of-society effort to combat anti-white hatred online, among our society, and institutions, it would be unambiguously identified as fascist, white supremacy.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
4mo ago
So the Hebrews teach that they are God's chosen people, but they are not chosen to rule the Earth. God does that. The Hebrews are chosen to receive God's law and proclaim it to the world, and in doing that to be held to a higher standard -- being especially blessed when they do right, but also especially cursed when they do wrong. It turns out people of every sort, Hebrew or otherwise, do wrong often enough this is no enviable bargain. As Tevye (Jewish main character in "Fiddler on the Roof") put it, I know, I know, we're the chosen people. But once in a while, could You choose someone else?
This is entirely wrong, as the Hebrew conception of God is simply a metaphorical and symbolic representation of themselves as a tribe.
Hebrew teaching is that they have a divine mission to heal the world, and it so happens that "healing the world" means driving out all worship of all idols offensive to Yahweh. Yahweh is a metaphor and synonym for the Jewish people themselves. Their Chosenness is not a cosmic burden, it's a declaration of ethno-supremacism that coheres them in the face of ethnic conflict.
You get close to identifying a real differentiation between pagan and Hebrew worship. Pagan worship did entail baseline respect for the idols of foreigners whereas Hebrew lore does not. The Hebrew mission is to destroy the idols of everyone else in the entire world in favor of sole worship of the Jewish tribal god Yahweh above all else.
I see where you are going with this, that German National Socialism is more Hebrew in spirit than Aryan in spirit. That could not be more incorrect, but I'll wait until you actually present that argument to respond.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9mo ago
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2yr ago
These words like "genetic impulse to destroy all members of their outgroup" and many others you've scattered through your posts is just your own weak-manning, feel free to copy + paste anything I've said that you object to because you aren't characterizing my position accurately.
The only two premises is that they have an HDB-explained talent for influencing culture and an (also HBD-explained) in-group preference. That's not goalpost shifting, that's what I have always said, and if I said something you think is particularly stronger than these claims then what was it? Tikkun Olam is relevant here because it shows how they construct moral preferences, which safeguard them and weaken the position of white people, as a universal "healing" of the world, which is a very convenient conception of healing the world.
Can Conservatism assimilate the Dissident Right?
Recently Matt Walsh, conservative commentator from the Daily Wire, had a monologue on white identity that was basically word-for-word pulled from DR standard fare.
Conservatives have long used the "Democrats are the Real Racists" retort, which is an easy target for the DR to mock and differentiate itself from conservatism with a more radical viewpoint that has a stronger force of truth. Only very recently has "anti-white" migrated from DR to Conservative lexicon in its denunciations of progressivism. But this clip goes much further than both and does seem to indicate a sliding window on acceptable thought around race within the Conservative movement. It starts with rhetoric that you've probably heard from conservatives before, but it moves into territory that you do not see from conservatives, and this is clearly a scripted monologue rather than off-the-cuff comment. The end of the clip explains:
Black and brown can and should have a sense of racial identity, white must not- I mean that's the rule. It's why segregation can be promoted and instated as policy but only to give non-whites their special spaces, never to do the same for whites. Because to do the same would be to acknowledge the existence of white people as a group and to give that group permission to care about its own wellbeing.
The "Democrats are the Real Racists" (DR3) rhetoric is essentially a complaint of progressive hypocrisy in an effort to discredit progressive concern over racial issues and progressivism's own crypto race-essentialism which Hlynka equates with the DR.
Conservatism has traditionally used progressive hypocrisy on race in order to denounce progressive racial advocacy. The DR uses progressive hypocrisy over race to advocate for white identity. But I think Walsh's monologue here indicates a potential conservative assimilation of the DR position. It could be said that Walsh does not directly endorse white identity, but he describes it in positive terms that are exactly what you would read within the DR. His monologue here is clearly more in the DR ethos of using progressive framing of racial conflict in order to provide rational justification for white identity: "... Because to do the same would be to acknowledge the existence of white people as a group and to give that group permission to care about its own wellbeing" is essentially an endorsement of white identity rather than a typical conservative denunciation of racial identity altogether.
Particularly in the past 15 years, if you were a young conservative or libertarian or something and basically came to the conclusions of Matt Walsh without hearing those words ever be said by anyone in the conservative establishment, where would you gravitate to? The circles where you'll be handed Culture of Critique, circles where Nietzsche is looked to rather than John Locke or Milton Friedman, circles where WW-II and Holocaust Revisionism that would make a conservative faint is conventional wisdom.
It's possible, and potentially a threat to the DR, if Conservative Inc were able to assimilate an overtly pro-white platform into its rhetoric and ideology. One thing that is inseparable from identity, and is the primary reason why white identity has been taboo since the end of the war, is the friend and enemy distinction. If the Daily Wire for example were able to be the outlet for pro-white inclinations in the conservative movement, then it would also have much greater power in framing the friend and the enemy with the traditional shibboleths rather than losing those people to radicalization. Think of Rush Limbaugh, who could constantly lambast the Drive By Media and Hollywood to build credibility in order to ultimately keep everyone on the reservation.
It's not sustainable for the Conservative movement to completely ignore and denounce white identity. They have to acknowledge it eventually if they want to avoid being eclipsed by a more radical movement that offers that bundled with a lot more radical thinking. They do need to figure out how to assimilate white identity and advocacy with conservatism, and if they do that effectively then the DR is going to lose an important monopoly which has driven many to that sphere. Walsh's monologue here is an indication that this is likely going to happen.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2yr ago
Menorahs on Public Lands
The Windows OS has a new feature that displays a small icon in the Desktop search bar. The icon rotates every few days based on the calendar, similar to Google's tradition of customizing their search page. I never paid attention to it until I noticed a Menorah displayed on my Desktop. Presumably subsequent icons would show presents or a Christmas Tree. Certainly, though, it will never display a Nativity or Christian Cross.
I learned recently that Allegheny v. ACLU ruled that a Nativity on public land, as a religious symbol, violates the Establishment Clause but a Menorah on public land does not. According to the logic of the ruling, the Menorah and Christmas Tree are secular symbols of the winter holidays and do not constitute the endorsement of a religion while the Nativity does so. The logic is on its face patently absurd as the Menorah is not a secular symbol in any sense. It is a sacred symbol honoring a miracle upon the successful Jewish revolt against the Hellenists. Reading various opinions from Jewish publications, it is clear that many Jews continue to interpret the public lighting of the Menorah from an adversarial perspective:
The policy argument against public menorah lightings is that we, as Jews, are a tiny minority, surrounded by a dominant religion with a missionary agenda. If the majority religion were given free reign to display its symbols publicly, the results could be disastrous. At best, we would be made to feel like outsiders, a tolerated minority. At worst, we would find ourselves victims of overt proselytization or even anti-semitic attacks...
The dominant religion surrounds us with its symbols anyway. Our children see it and are inevitably affected. The gentile "holiday spirit" touches almost every Jew's life.
We, as Jews, can react one of two ways. We can ignore it, hoping that this yearly bombardment goes away. Or we can affirmatively counter in a positive, Jewish manner. Public menorahs are the Jewish answer to the gap felt by many Jews during the holiday season. The dominant religion will display its decorations anyway, whether we light our menorahs or not. Why not give a Jewish child the opportunity to feel some pride about his or her holiday, when his Gentile friends are doing the same?
The Establishment of Religion Takes Many Forms
The concept of the Establishment of Religion is tenuous and arbitrary. What is religion except for a unique collection of symbols, rituals, and myths that have an, often consciously-designed, psychological effect on intended flocks? That psychological effect influences our behavior: it affects our loyalties and our behavior towards the ingroup/outgroup, our code of conduct in society, our mate selection and reproductive behaviors, our politics, our community rituals, and much more.
Myth, Religion, art, politics, and culture all belong under the same umbrella. Religion is everywhere and most people today do not consume their religious messaging through a church but through mass media. Many here have interpreted the BLM movement and protests as a Religious movement, often with the intent to dismiss it or ridicule it. This power of mass media was envisioned by Richard Wagner:
The text is fed into the throat of a singer; the output of this throat is fed into an amplifier named orchestra, the output of this orchestra is fed into a light show, and the whole thing, finally, is fed into the nervous system of the audience.
In other words, Wagner's acoustics is posited as a media invention that employed a large, yet hidden orchestra to produce "acoustic hallucinations" and immerse the audience in a reverberant sound. This account thus determines a "total world" of hearing in the vocal and musical content of Wagnerian music-drama... its sensory overwhelming created an aesthetic experience that we may now see as a "prehistory" for present-day cinema.
Wagner's conception of proto mass-media as Gesamtkunstwerk was preempted by Plato, who two thousand years earlier envisioned the psychological power of the cinematic projection of light. Today, our consumption of Myth: those projections which intelligently orient our view of the world in understanding right and wrong, heroes and villain, are increasingly delivered through mass media rather than traditional religious institutions.
Earlier this week at the lighting of the Menorah inside the White House, not to be confused with the giant Menorah on the White House Lawn, President Biden remarked "Together, we must stand up against the disturbing rise in antisemitism" while touting the December 12th formation of the Inter-Agency Group to Counter Antisemitism, which will be "led by Domestic Policy Council staff and National Security Council staff to increase and better coordinate U.S. Government efforts to counter antisemitism":
The President has tasked the inter-agency group, as its first order of business, to develop a national strategy to counter antisemitism. This strategy will raise understanding about antisemitism and the threat it poses to the Jewish community and all Americans, address antisemitic harassment and abuse both online and offline, seek to prevent antisemitic attacks and incidents, and encourage whole-of-society efforts to counter antisemitism and build a more inclusive nation.
At the ceremony, also emphasized was "securing the largest-ever increase in federal funding for the physical security of nonprofits, including synagogues and Jewish Community Centers".
Likewise, in the recently passed 2023 budget, in addition to at least $4 billion for Israel, over $65 million in federal funds was allocated to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum which, combined with the abundant support from private funds, amounted to a whopping $245 million in support for that museum in 2022. That makes it apparently, and by far, the most well-funded museum in the Nation's capital with well over 3x the funding of the National WWII Museum.
In contrast, the National Museum of American History had a 2018 budget of $40 million despite the fact it received 3.8M visitors in 2016, in comparison to the Holocaust Museum's 1.6 million for that year.
Which of the above should be considered the establishment of religion? All of it.
Christmas is Never Secular
In the same vein, Christmas is fundamentally a Religious festival even in its most non-Christian expression. It's the time of year where the masses practice a form of religious observance that is more comparable to a pagan, pre-Christian form of worship.
We ritualistically build our household lararium next to the hearth. We set out milk and cookies as an offering to a benevolent god who lives in a mystical Hyperborean realm, judges our behavior, and leaves us gifts. We honor his image in our films, songs, and Myth, especially to the delight of women and children. We carry on quirky household traditions which are transmitted ancestrally. Our celebration of Christmas and observance of Santa Claus would be more similar to the way the Romans, for example, worshipped their ancestral or household gods.
In this sense a "secular Christmas symbol" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing, which is acknowledged by the Jewish perspective which remarked on the foreignness and inescapability of the gentile "Holiday Spirit". The reality is that both the Menorah and Christmas Tree are religious symbols, and the government is constructively establishing religion with its display of both.
The "War on Christmas"
The Christians, in a way, get the short end of the stick for not being allowed to display their sacred symbols on public land. But who do they have to blame for that? They have allowed, without much protest, the designation of their own religion as second-class to the financial and legal privileges granted to Judaism. Christians tilt at windmills while sacred symbols of Jewish Victory tower over them during the Christmas holiday at the White House and Central Park, while their own sacred symbols are outlawed on the same land.
To reverse course, Christians would need to adopt the adversarial perspective that motivates Jews to light the Menorahs in these spaces. But given Christian doctrine it is not clear that the religion is capable of asserting itself in that way.
Gemini's Cave
One of the most famous allegories in history is that of Plato's Cave:
Plato begins by having Socrates ask Glaucon to imagine a cave where people have been imprisoned from childhood, but not from birth. These prisoners are chained so that their legs and necks are fixed, forcing them to gaze at the wall in front of them and not to look around at the cave, each other, or themselves. Behind the prisoners is a fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway with a low wall, behind which people walk carrying objects or puppets "of men and other living things".
The people walk behind the wall so their bodies do not cast shadows for the prisoners to see, but the objects they carry do ("just as puppet showmen have screens in front of them at which they work their puppets"). The prisoners cannot see any of what is happening behind them; they are only able to see the shadows cast upon the cave wall in front of them. The sounds of the people talking echo off the walls; the prisoners believe these sounds come from the shadows.
Socrates suggests that the shadows are reality for the prisoners because they have never seen anything else; they do not realize that what they see are shadows of objects in front of a fire, much less that these objects are inspired by real things outside the cave which they do not see.
It is astonishing that Plato imagined the form of cultural transmission through projected imagery thousands of years before the creation of the movie theater: the dark room, the audience facing the screen, the projection of light and sound from a hidden source... Movie-going audiences tend to be oblivious to the esoteric artistic motivations and meaning behind the films they watch and reify, also tracking with Plato's allegory.
One thing that is not clearly defined in Plato's allegory is, who are the people behind the wall controlling the puppets and creating the sounds to manipulate the audience's perception of reality? What is motivating them? What happens when the audience catches on to the game being played? In Plato's allegory, such a person who leaves the cave, perceives reality, and then tries to convince his fellow prisoners of the state of affairs is taken as a madman and killed by the other prisoners.
With the growing likelihood of Generative AI fulfilling this role of the people behind the wall, there are Glitches in the Matrix so to speak. Twitter has caught on to Gemini's apparent refusal to depict White people. Whether it's Popes or "Medieval Knights", or "Vikings", "American Founding Fathers", "White families", "British, America, etc. women", "Glamour shots", etc.
The AI Engineer at Google behind Gemini has responded:
We are aware that Gemini is offering inaccuracies in some historical image generation depictions, and we are working to fix this immediately.
As part of our AI principles https://ai.google/responsibility/principles/, we design our image generation capabilities to reflect our global user base, and we take representation and bias seriously.
We will continue to do this for open ended prompts (images of a person walking a dog are universal!)
Historical contexts have more nuance to them and we will further tune to accommodate that.
This is part of the alignment process - iteration on feedback. Thank you and keep it coming!
There is no doubt that this is the worst Gemini, and all the other technologies, are going to be at this. The nonsense above will, for the most part, be fixed very quickly. The real danger will be when Gemini and other Generative AI become so good at generating cultural images and motion pictures, with their output influenced by this latent anti-White alignment which is called "AI Safety", that the agenda behind the underlying alignment will be nearly imperceptible. It will influence the creation of culture and art in subtle ways, and you will be considered a madman conspiracy theorist if you conclude that there are people tuning this culture to be anti-White in the most effective way possible. Imagine when anti-White alignment doesn't create the nonsense above, but it creates extremely entertaining and compelling movies and stories that actually have plausible deniability, such that you seem like a madman if you perceive an agenda aligning the content in such a way.
But for now, and not for long, we can recognize "no, we aren't madmen conspiracy theorists, they are trying to tune the culture to be anti-White and the newest methods for doing that are simply not completely refined yet" is clear as day, and as clear as it's ever going to be.
You do believe Jews act as they do for reasons that can be ascribed to HBD
Yes, do you not?
You do believe that Jews act to undermine and disempower their outgroup, yes?
Yes, do you not?
If I were to ask you: which open-border supporting Jew provides the absolute steel-man for the rational and economic case for open borders? It would without a doubt be Bryan Caplan, I've read a lot of his work and enjoy reading his perspective. But what are we to make of his admission that "Mormons scare me"?
Occasionally, though, I wonder: What would happen if Mormons were a solid majority of the U.S. population? Maybe they’d be as wonderful as ever, but I readily picture a sinister metamorphosis. Given enough power, even Mormons might embrace a brutal fundamentalism. Despite my lovely experiences with Mormons, they scare me.
To be fair, they’re hardly alone. You know who else scares me? Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and atheists. Sunnis, Shiites, Catholics, and Protestants. Whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and American Indians. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, Marxists, and reactionaries. Even libertarians scare me a bit. Why? Because given enough power, there’s a serious chance they’ll do terrible things. Different terrible things, no doubt. But terrible nonetheless.
If you’re afraid of every group, though, shouldn’t you support whatever group has the minimum chance of doing terrible things once it’s firmly in charge? Not at all. There’s another path: Try to prevent any group from being firmly in charge. In the long-run, the best way to do this is to make every group a small minority – to split society into such small pieces that everyone abandons hope of running society and refocuses their energy on building beautiful Bubbles. As Voltaire once put it:
When people lament the political externalities of open borders, they’re usually picturing an influx of a group with a bad track record of being in charge. In a sense, these critics understate their case; numerical superiority can turn even the nicest groups into a mortal danger. But critics also overlook the open borders remedy: Diaspora dynamics notwithstanding, welcoming everyone is a great way to turn everyone into a minority. And while that hardly guarantees safety, it’s less menacing than the status quo...
Once the members of the group that scares you the most loses all hope of running the show, most will calm down. In time, they too might be nice as Mormons.
I would qualify Caplan's perspective as "undermining and disempowering" his outgroup, wouldn't you?
Anti-racism also specifically seeks to disempower white people, as in it's the overt agenda of the program. If a Jew supports anti-racism, which specifically aims to empower Jews with social and legal protections and disempower white people, would you qualify that advocacy as "undermining and disempowering" their outgroup?
Edit:
You believe Jews are hostile and dangerous to non-Jews, that they are this way for genetic reasons and therefore it is a predilection that all Jews possess, even if they deny it or are unaware of it, and they are, if not uniquely so, then at least unusually energetic and successful at prosecuting tribal warfare
I don't believe it's a predilection that "all Jews possess", sometimes it's a psychology that manifests in different ways, even as Jews who are especially contrarian and themselves anti-Semitic. Many Jews are apolitical altogether. Why is it when we talk about IQ you understand we ware talking about averages and distributions, but when it comes to talking about Jews we can only be talking about every single one at the same time? Why do you insist on pushing this fallacy that is pushed by the IQ deniers all the time?
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2yr ago
Looking through the past CW threads, I'm not seeing it - "ONLY witchy ramblings." This is basically the only space of this kind that doesn't ban critical discussion on Jews or the Holocaust, which are very important topics in the Culture War, so when it does come up it is probably bothersome to a certain type... but:
I personally REALLY don't care about this topic... That topic makes the motte worse for me.
Does not follow. There are some topics that come up here frequently that I REALLY don't care about, and I click the '-' button within the 0.5 seconds it takes me to realize I'm not interested in the thread. You should just say that it's a topic that you do care about, and it bothers you when people discuss it with a critical perspective. That would be a more honest complaint, and it would ring true for the vast majority of people.
Allowing those topics (though I personally have posted 0 top-level threads on Holocaust denial (so far)) will lower the status of the community in adjacent spaces like SSC. I get the impression the mods are more committed to the purpose of the community than they are status signaling to other rationalists (and I don't mind the token denunciations from the mods here in that thread).
It is actually not well-documented at all. There are no written orders for extermination of millions, likely none ever existed. The "well-documented killings" amounts to historians tallying transports with the assumption that every single person on them was murdered in a gas chamber disguised as a shower room, which is not documented (and in fact documents explicitly refer to these alleged extermination camps with non-homicidal functions, like "transit camp" or "labor camp." Historians say this was all "coded language" to get around the fact that documents paint a different picture for the purposes of these camp than their own assertions). But there's never been a single excavation of a single mass grave at any of the alleged killing sites, despite the fact they exist in precisely known locations. There was never a single autopsy of a single person killed by one of these homicidal gas chambers. Excavations are in fact forbidden by Jewish authorities using the same reasoning as is being used to refuse excavations of the alleged Kamloops Indian Reservation mass graves. They say that excavations at Kamloops would "disturb the spirits of the children" which is practically the exact same reasoning given by rabbinical authorities. More likely, they know that excavations would disprove the prevailing narrative in both cases.
In essence, "If Holocaust Deniers Don’t Go to Hell, There Is No God" is simply the conservative manifestation of the Holocaust dialectic, with the leftist manifestation being Adorno's infamous quote "To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric."
The allegations of Russian media operations seems to stem from Calin Georgescu's social media success on TikTok. I've previously discussed how the TikTok ban was ultimately determined by Zionist support for deplatforming a source of highly-successful anti-Israel content, with accusations of China manipulating the algorithm to boost pro-Palestine content only being substantiated by pointing to the success of those content tags. China was a scapegoat for the TikTok ban in the US, and Russia appears to be the scapegoat for the cancelled elections in Romania based on a very similar logic, as @theSinisterMushroom pointed out the actual evidence of content manipulation on TikTok in Georgescu engagement is basically non-existent.
On that note, it was only a few days ago that the American Jewish Committee, uh, wrote letters that they were very concerned about the first round of the election:
Rabbi Andrew Baker, Director of International Jewish Affairs for American Jewish Committee, has written a letter to Romanian President Klaus Iohannis and Romanian Foreign Minister Luminita Odobescu expressing concern about the victory in the first round of the Romanian presidential election by Cailin Georgescu.
In the letter, Baker called Georgescu a “person who fuels the flames of anti-Semitism, who personally promotes Holocaust revisionism, and who, through his political views, defies the essential purpose of NATO."
The full text of the letter is below:
...
The first round of the Romanian Presidential elections last week has seen the victory of a candidate who is anathema to everything that we have worked for together. He is someone who fans the flames of antisemitism, who personally promotes Holocaust revisionism, and who by his political views challenges the essential purpose of NATO. Surely, this cannot be indicative of Romania today.
Calin Georgescu's "Holocaust Revisionism" amounts to praise for Romania's WWII wartime leader Ion Antonescu, who was in the 90s still well-regarded among anti-Communist sympathizers. Antonescu's image was dinged some as Elie Wiesel Commission did its relentless Holocaust guilt-tripping campaign. Western-aligned media focused on maligning the Antonescu administration due to deporting Jews to the East in Transnistria without the proper supplies, doing mass reprisal shootings in response to partisan attacks and other stuff, grossly exaggerating the intentions behind it. After a while it had become increasingly untenable to make positive statements about Antonescu's leadership in the presence of the left, in high society or among politicians. (And of course it's illegal "Holocaust denial" too.)
So the question of Russian interference in TikTok is likely the least important question, as that issue is a scapegoat for other problems, as alluded to by Reuters:
Also of concern to European allies is Georgescu describing as national heroes and "martyrs" Ion Antonescu, Romania's de facto World War Two leader, sentenced to death for his part in Romania's Holocaust, and Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, a pre-World War Two leader of the Iron Guard, one of Europe's most violent anti-Semitic movements.
The EU diplomat said Georgescu's views on the pair, as well as on NATO, would increase tensions both at home and abroad if he came to power. "Imagine the discussions in the (European) Council, imagine the polarisation he would bring at home," said the EU diplomat.
EU "Democracy" is just the biggest lie there is. On another note, that Elie Wiesel National Institute for Studying the Holocaust in Romania referenced by the Rabbi in his letter expressing, uhm, concern over the first round of the election? That exact same institute is now, as of last month, a Trusted flagger under the Digital Services Act (DSA) in the EU. The line between Holocaust studies and outright legal censorship of political dissidents no longer even exists, the same "institutes" just have both jobs at the same time officially, now.
It's really crazy how much the discourse is shifting. Tucker Carlson now directly calling out Jewish mega-donors for facilitating "White Genocide" (his words) in contrast with their pearl-clutching over campus opposition to Israel. Even some left-wing commentators like Kyle Kalinski are Noticing at levels never seen in our lifetimes.
There's a Civil War at the Daily Wire, with Candace Owens delivering a scathing endorsement of Nikki Haley as "president of Isreal" and Ben Shapiro responding with bridge-burning insults. Nikki Haley, for her part, has said she would respond to the rise in Anti-Semitism by de-anonymizing social media, for "National Security". With Nikki Haley's own campaign channel considering this clip from the Republican debate to be worthy of actually posting on the channel, Owens isn't far off.
This all does make me concerned for a Nikki Haley surge, although Trump isn't less pro-Israel than Haley, and Biden has proven to be sufficiently pliable and his administration isn't exactly composed of people who are going to threaten American loyalty to Israel regardless of anything Israel chooses to do.
I don't think it's uncharitable of me to suspect that you're making this false equivalence because you hate Jews, Mr SS.
Ok, what's the real equivalence? Is this attack closer to a terrorist attack, or is it closer to something the US has done in decades of waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can you point to any conduct in the US in engaging in those wars that compares to this? It's unprecedented, and the closest base of comparison are terrorist attacks. If you don't agree, you can just point me to where the US has engaged in this in its own "War on Terrorism".
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.
More options
Context Copy link