SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
No bio...
User ID: 853
That's funny, it's the inverse of a common Revisionist joke about why people are so upset over the good news that ~3 million Jews weren't gassed inside shower rooms. "Rabbi, good news..."
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
18d ago
They are going to couch it mostly as voluntary emigration, but if you blockade a region and completely level the cities and make intolerable conditions, and then set up offices to facilitate "voluntary emigration" that is an expulsion as far as I'm concerned. The extent of the destruction of Gaza doesn't point in a different direction with respect to longer-term plans.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
20d ago
I don’t believe that this is what he meant by “anti-Semitism”! I believe he meant a far more quotidian antipathy towards individual Jewish people as a result of their religion or ancestry.
Ok, well let's just take a look at the undefeated Uno Reverso.
If I said: "The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the Jewish race" do you think Ignatiev would regard that as anti-semitism? Obviously he would. So you just switch "White" from "Jew" in his own rhetoric and it goes from "moral good" to "crime against humanity."
Again, why would Ignatiev waste his time writing books and giving speeches about “abolishing blackness” when he knows full well that this would simply introduce massive friction and mutual recriminations within his political coalition? Just to prove to you that he’s not a hypocrite? It’s not like you’d hate him or oppose him any less if he did so. So why should he care about appeasing your sensitivities?
This is funny Hoffmeister. Firstly, I never accused Ignatiev of hypocrisy, he's a Jew who is hostile to White Identity. That's not hypocritical. Ben Shapiro is not hypocritical for strongly opposing White Identitarianism while strongly supporting Jewish identitarianism. He's not being a hypocrite, he's being a Jew who is strongly motivated by his religion and ethnic identity.
But secondly, you were the one who said "In that sense, it is also true that he wants to 'abolish the black race'" without providing a shred of evidence.
In fact, the situation is worse. You, Hoffmeister, accuse me of being an equal-offender racist- racist against everyone, while I accuse you of being even worse- only racist against blacks. It's telling then that you are defensive of Ignatiev who defends Black Identity on the basis that it musters resistance to White Identity. So his real position is the precise opposite of what you imagine. He supports using Black Identity as a tool to undermine White Identity, which is why his ideas found such prominent reception during the BLM Great Awakening. In this way, his position is basically equivalent to the anti-semitic conception of the conniving Jew who wants to manipulate Blacks to get back at whitey. This is literally Ignatiev, but you remain totally blind to this pattern of behavior and the writ-large alliance between Jewish intellectuals, Blacks, and the Civil Rights movement.
You appear to see him more as the consciously-vindictive aggrieved minority who wants to be the next one to hold the whip hand. Is this an accurate characterization?
He hates White Identity, he wants to destroy it- and there's no evidence for hatred of Black or Jewish identity, in fact precisely the opposite. That is my characterization of his beliefs.
I have denied being a "neo-Nazi", although I accept that in common parlance "anti-Semitic White identitarian" is the operative definition of neo-Nazi, and if that's the definition then sure? National Socialism is a defunct pan-German nationalist movement, I don't identify with it and I don't support German nationalism or any petty European nationalism.
Yes, everybody here does know my views because I don't hide them. The accusation that I secretly want all the Jews killed just because I give cultural criticism towards Jews in a similar nature as Jews like Ignatiev constantly levy against whites is simply your attempt to enforce a social consensus making any criticism of Jews taboo. I reject your social consensus, I have and will engage in critique of Jewish identity in behavior in similar nature and measure as Jews do towards Whites. I'm not hiding any beliefs.
The notion that I criticize Jewish identity and behavior and people like you hysterically yell that I secretly want to kill all the Jews is a byproduct of the exact cultural forces I am criticizing. You can't accept that I just have a political and cultural opposition to their influence in politics and culture, that's impossible in your mind. And instead of arguing against my opposition you attack positions I don't hold and claim I secretly hold them.
I mean, the US has never invested ground forces in taking out any military group directly opposing Israel.
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.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
16d ago
You don't count that conflict as war between Iran and Israel? That's just bad faith. Even Trump is lobbying to call it the "12 day war." America undeniably was drawn into the war, both defensively and offensively. Syria falling was directly related to the conflict between Israel and Iran's proxies, Hezbollah in particular.
"Solve the Gaza Question" is undeniably underway, he didn't say it would be resolved immediately he said the attack gave the Israelis cover to solve it, which is ongoing. Basically Iran regime change is the only thing that hasn't happened yet, even though that was clearly an objective of Israeli aggression.
Do you think Ignatiev's ideology is that "all white people are awful?" I don't think that's his ideology. I think he's hostile to White Identity.
It's so telling that you are so charitable to Ignatiev when I have never spoken rhetoric nearly as inflammatory as Ignatiev in his statements on the White race. But you still interpret his philosophy openly calling for the end of the white race with so much more charity than my cultural criticism of Jewish behavior in American society.
When it comes to Jews, it's not possible to simply oppose them politically and culturally. You have to be an exterminationist if you oppose Jews politically. You can't just oppose their influence in culture and academia and foreign policy, if you criticize them it means you want them all killed. Only for Jews though. This is the hysterical bullshit standard you enforce in every single reply to me Amadan, but don't at all apply to a Jew who openly calls for ending the white race by any means necessary.
Let me then ask you straightforwardly: do you object to being characterised as anti-semitic? Do you disagree with the statement "SecureSignals hates Jews"?
I don't accept your definition of "anti-semitism". "Anti-semitic" is an emotionally-loaded slur intended to denounce and pathologize any criticism of Jewish identity, religion, or culture whether it's rational or irrational, true or false.
So when Gentiles, like me, engage in radical criticism of Jewish behavior and identity that's "anti-Semitic," which makes the criticism intrinsically irrational according to the popular understanding. But there's no similar term for when Jews in Academia or Hollywood engage in radical criticism of Gentile racial identity, culture, and religion.
For example, my criticism of the very broad pattern of behavior of Jews in academia and popular culture engaging in criticism of White identity while also strongly denouncing any criticism of Jewish identity is a rational and true argument. This pattern of behavior is seen across the political spectrum, from secular Communists like Ignatiev, to Conservative religious Jews like Ben Shaprio, to politically heterodox/rationalist-adjacent like @2rafa. They all oppose White identitarianism and support Jewish identitarianism, meaning this pattern of behavior cannot be reduced to communist vs capitalist, liberal vs postmodern, secular vs religious, because this pattern of behavior dominates the entire spectrum of those other categories.
Conservative talk show host Mark Levin, who has been cartoonishly pro-war on the Iran question and extremely vitriolic towards everyone opposed to war with Iran, accused a White man on twitter of having antisemitism in his family's DNA. What's the word for that? If I accused Levin of having subversion in his family's DNA (someone in the Twitter replies did that), that would be "anti-semitic."
Anti-Semitism can be rational or irrational, true or false. All it requires is engaging in criticism of Jewish behavior, culture, and identity, and there's no word for when Jews do the same to Gentile race, religion, or culture. And I do those things, so I accept the label, although I don't accept that label denotes irrationality- that's just a vain attempt to pathologize rational criticism as being crazy-talk. What people call "anti-Semitism" is a rational response to this behavior of Jews in American politics and culture spending decades undermining white racial identity and political interests while strongly promoting Jewish identity and political interests, and especially the geopolitical interests of the state of Israel. Look at this clip of Greenblatt from the ADL:
What I'm focused on is how the fringes like the woke right, the TuckerCarlson, Steve Bannon... have been fermenting antisemitism. Blaming this war on the Jews, on the Zionist, on the Neo-cons.
You really don't think there's a "there" there?
I also don't accept "you hate the Jews" that's just a proto-woke slur also intended to intrinsically attach irrationality to a critical perspective of Jewish behavior and identity. I don't hate Jews, I don't remember who said something along the lines of "when Jews are great they're amazing and when they're bad they're really terrible." That's been my own experience with Jews personally, and I do have an adversarial-level respect for what I see myself as opposing. I see them as political and cultural opposition in how they behave politically and culturally, it's not an irrational hatred although this statement is not going to stop you or anyone else from accusing me of that. Which is why I don't respond to it, those accusations very conveniently derail from the arguments I'm making (by design), so if you just get bogged down in trying to convince everyone you aren't a neo-Nazi or you don't want to kill all the Jews you are just operating within the same consensus that I reject.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
19d ago
Seriously, like @Hadad said, I'm not your dancing monkey. I'm not going to denounce something I have never said. I stand by everything I have said, but I'm not going to play this game where you just invent positions that you claim I hold and demand I denounce them in order to try to convince you I don't hold them.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
19d ago
But come now, SS, you tactically hide your power level but your agenda is not merely JAQing about why so many Jews.
The notion I hide my power level is absurd. I'm very open that I view the dynamic between Jews and White Gentiles to be a very profound, long-standing cultural and political conflict that is even deeply rooted in the Jewish religion itself. Ignatiev is just a figment of that conflict. But what gets annoying is that you won't allow me to simply recognize a political or cultural adversary as such. I have to be an exterminationist hiding my power level. Yes, they are a threat obviously. But acknowledging and engaging a threat is not the same thing as being an exterminationist. I don't think the USG wants to kill all the Iranians even though the USG considers them to be a threat.
I wouldn't even say about Jewish identity what Ignatiev says about White identity. I don't call for the end of Jewish identity but the renaissance of European identity, and that's not simply because I'm hiding my power level. I do accept the reality that Jewish influence in politics and culture is a huge counterforce to any political or cultural effort to achieve that, with Ignatiev only being one of many examples of Jewish academics pathologizing White racial identity while declaring strong opposition to anti-Semitism. But on the other end of the political spectrum you have Ben Shapiro who is also opposed to White identity.
What are we to make of the fact that two figures so politically divergent as Ignatiev and Shapiro still oppose White identity and strongly support Jewish identity?
The Dissident Right is bigger now than the alt-right ever was in its heyday in terms of engagement with ideas and content and influence. Matt Walsh is only the most recent of a long list of big-C Conservative influencers who now essentially adopt 2017 alt-right talking points on race and increasingly, maybe Israel even.
The irony of those like Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray trying to spread moral panic over the platforming of "Woke Right" is that it actually describes themselves better than it does the DR. Peterson, Murray and Woke alike are in alignment over high values like anti-racism and individualism, they just have different criteria for how those values are achieved. But both the Woke and Peterson will be scandalized by the DR critique of those values and the DR's rejection of this Boomer moral paradigm which they all pretend is centuries old but only goes back to, like the 60s at the earliest.
The Boomer consensus is essentially an anti-fascist dialectic- fascism is the most evil thing in the world and whether Right or Left, the operative question is how do we optimize to prevent Fascism, and both Conservatives including Peterson and Douglas Murray and the Woke are playing their part. What neither of them can stand is the Dissident Right which openly flaunts the anti-fascist norms enforced by both the Conservatives and Woke. The DR is a rejection of the Boomer Consensus and a rejection of the entire "Conservative v Woke" dialectic.
There's no going backwards. The "Conservative v Woke" dialectic that Peterson desperately wants to save is going by the wayside thanks to an Avant-garde Right wing which is terrifying to both Conservatives and Woke.
Edit: Just a few days ago, Matt Walsh reposted a crypto-Swastika on X (if you don't see it at first, try squinting). I believe he knew what he was doing. Not to say Walsh is a Nazi or anything, it's the flirtation with the edgy right-wing humor and symbolism that is novel compared to the Conservative puritans who call the DR "woke".
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
24d ago
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
2mo ago
It's banned on YouTube and every single streaming or music hosting service (Spotify etc.). X is the only place that allows hosting it.
It cannot be denied that it's a truly transgressive song, and a genuine act of rebellion, given it warrants this response. Can anyone else think of a single song that has received this treatment despite the ubiquitousness of explicit material in that genre?
Columbia Student Hunted by ICE Sues to Prevent Deportation
A 21-year old, third year Columbia student is wanted by ICE. She's a legal permanent resident who has lived in the United States since she was 7 years old. This is different from the case of Mahmoud Khalil in very notable regards:
- Chung is herself Korean and not Arab like Mahmoud Khalil, there is no accusation that Chung herself "supports terrorism" which was the justification that was going around when Khalil was arrested.
- According to NYT the Trump administration justification is:
The Trump administration is arguing that her presence in the United States hinders the administration’s foreign policy agenda of halting the spread of antisemitism...
The involvement of federal prosecutors was particularly notable. According to Ms. Chung’s lawsuit, agents apparently seeking her searched two residences on the Columbia campus with warrants that cited a criminal law known as the harboring statute, aimed at those who give shelter to noncitizens present in the United States illegally.
That signaled that the searches were related to a broader criminal investigation by federal prosecutors into Columbia University. Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, has said that the school is under investigation “for harboring and concealing illegal aliens on its campus.”
- So the arrest/deportation order is based on the accusation of antisemitism and not support for terrorism. If you are wondering what Chung did that the US government would consider antisemitic- the DHS and United States has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of Antisemitism.
- There is no accusation that Chung organized the protests or was a leader of the protests in any form, and did not speak to reporters, she was merely a participant.
As someone who has been very aware of the growing body of European hate speech laws making antisemitism illegal, and the regulatory and legal tactics which are being pursued to tacitly put Americans under the same rules, even I underestimated the extent to which antisemitism would be overtly criminalized in the United States. Although I warned of the US adopting the IHRA definition of anti-semitism years ago on TheMotte, even at the time I didn't think it would form the basis for arresting protestors.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
3mo ago
Hillel reports that 22.8% of Columbia undergraduates are Jewish, by the way.
There will be no investigations regarding the decline of Gentile Whites at Harvard, who only make up 20% of the Harvard class of 2028 despite making up over 60% of the country. And despite being the people that actually founded the institution and the country in its entirety.
How did the people who founded these institutions get kicked out of them within a single generation? Hmmm, there will be no investigations there. Let's investigate why Columbia is only 22.8% Jewish, should be higher...
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
19d ago
That's a thing SS is good at: finding a lot of evil Jews. The problem is they're mostly evil Jews, whereas he thinks they're evil Jews.
Do you think Ignatiev is motivated by his Jewish identity to any significant extent, or that his cultural output is influenced by his cultural and genetic heritage? If so, then it's not just- he's evil and he happens to be a Jew. My position is that he's neither good nor evil- he's a Jew.
All Jews who do not denounce the Jewish race, Jewish behavior and any Jewish identity or culture with extreme fervour (Unz is, as far as I know, the only one to meet Fuentes’ standard) are the enemy.
Wow isn't it crazy that somebody would just outright demand that you denounce your racial identity if you want to be considered an ally? That must really be terrible. Jews would never do such a thing to Gentiles. /s
But your post is missing the most important bit of context, which is that both MartyrMade and Dave Smith were on Joe Rogan's show. This might on the surface appear shocking and scandalizing because WWII Revisionism and anti-Zionism are ostensibly being platformed on one of the most important shows in the world. But what Nick Fuentes and many others outside his orbit among the "anti-semitic Dissdent Right" are perceiving is heterodox political perspectives previously monopolized by the DR become appropriated and platformed but stripped of actual criticism of Jews.
Dave Smith and Douglas Murray argue over Israel, but the only thing they agree on is that antisemitism is the most evil thing in the world and Jews can never be criticized as such. This is significant because it follows the dialectical approach that antisemites allege is used to manufacture consensus. You don't maintain consensus on a topic like anti-semitism by just making the pro-Israel side win the debate. You do it by making sure that both the anti-Israel and pro-Israel positions are aligned on opposition to the Jewish Question. So these figures like Dave Smith coming to represent the "anti-Israel" side of the debate is, by their interpretation, a manifestation of the approach used to build consensus on something like the JQ. It's in other words a false opposition. A true opposition would be an anti-Israel perspective that is likewise critical of Jewish behavior as such, but that won't be represented in the public debate because it's supposed to be beyond debate.
With MartyrMade also renouncing the "JQ" it contextualizes the fact he was platformed. And likewise Curtis Yarvin, himself Jewish, also gets platformed as ostensibly the most edgy intellectual on the Internet. He has said, nearly exactly, "everything about WWII was a lie except the Holocaust." Oh really, everything was a lie except the abusrd story of millions being tricked into walking inside death showers? As a result, whether you are on the "most extreme" end of WWII Revisionism as represented by someone like Yarvin or MartyrMade, or on the most extreme end in the orthodox narrative, both sides agree on the critical aspects of the Holocaust narrative and the imperative to denounce the JQ.
Of course BAP is himself Jewish, and he was not upfront about that fact. He adopted a hyper "Bronze Age" and Aryan aesthetic and notably, as you mentioned, he is also essentially opposed to the JQ. It's reminiscent of the biblical story of Jacob putting on a disguise of hairy fur to trick his blind father Isaac into believing he was Esau. BAP, Jewish, presents as Aryan to acquire a certain audience but then is sure to steer his followers away from antisemitism.
The point being, the backlash against MartyrMade is not simply because some Twitter dude stepped out of line on the JQ, it's people like Fuentes correctly pointing out that these historical and social critiques of the WWII narrative and Zionism are being appropriated but stripped of any critical analysis pertaining to the JQ- so we are witnessing a new "boundary" in the debate on these topics but they remain a false opposition meant to protect a social consensus around the perception of Jews.
Korherr, with unfettered access to all SS documents, definitively concluded that as of the beginning of 1943, slightly over 2.4 million Jews had been killed in the Reinhard camps
It should be noted that the Korherr report says no such thing at all. The Korherr report says explicitly that the 1.2 million Jews were resettled through the camps of General Government, which is what the Revisionists say happened. And Richard Korherr himself wrote a letter to Der Spiegel in the 1970s clarifying that he specifically asked what that number referred to, and was told it referred to resettlement.
So the document directly states what the Revisionists say happened, Richard Korherr confirmed that was his own interpretation of that number in the 1970s, and the "2.4 million Jews had been killed in the Reinhard camps" is not stated in the report whatsoever, that's just the mainstream position begging the question.
David Cole is just relying on the fact that his audience doesn't know better, so they'll believe him when he just lies about what the Korherr report says.
David said "Deniers never cite Korherr either" is his typical style of outright lying when he knows his audience won't have background knowledge to verify what he's saying. Here's the Revisionist work on Treblinka Ctrl + F "Korherr"- 17 results with good discussion.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
1mo ago
David Cole denies the Auschwitz extermination camp story, that makes him a Denier according to any mainstream position. His position on Auschwitz would be illegal in Europe for example.
Another interesting shift is the left beginning to adopt the term "ZOG", which has long been a catchy phrase from the Far Right. The Grayzone Podcast, which is hosted by progressive Jews Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate, admitted that although they had always dismissed the term as being a ridiculous conspiracy theory, recent events have proven it to be true and they now use that term directly in their podcast.
The criticism of Israel simultaneously coming from the Left and Right from different angles is absolutely a catastrophe for Israel. Sheer hypocrisy makes no friends in the long run.
Pro-Israel Americans need a feasible game plan for dealing with this shift which doesn’t fall victim to the Streisand Effect.
It's too late, "pro-Israel America" made its own bed with its incessant hatred and abuse of its most important base of support in the entire world- White Americans. They had it perfect- they blew it, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory while they were holding all the cards. All they had to do was be benevolent towards their most important base but they couldn't do it.
It's worth noting that Churchill does not, in this passage nor anywhere else in writing- including Churchill's six volumes of Second World War, reference Nazi gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. The Holocaust is not referenced at all in any concrete terms either in Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe, nor in Charles de Gaulle's memoirs.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
1mo ago
True, the Polish resistance was operating in the area. Yet there are 0 contemporary reports of a 120-day straight open-air cremation operation. Imagine cremating 5,000 people+ per day in the immediate vicinity of several Polish villages and a civilian rail-line with 0 contemporary reports of such an operation.
According to GPT 4o, the smokestack from an open-air fire large enough to cremate 5,000 people (only a single day's requirement at Treblinka) would be so large it would be visible from Warsaw and even Lublin! But nobody said anything about the 24/7 raging infernos.
It's a silly story.
Cole takes a very rare position held by, maybe, 2 other people, which is that he is an Auschwitz Denier but a Treblinka Believer. He doesn't believe the Holocaust story at Auschwitz, which would make him a Denier according to any mainstream standard. It's also strange because an "extermination camp" at Auschwitz would be fundamentally more plausible than the Treblinka story. For example, Auschwitz at least actually had real crematoria which could be used to cremate large piles of body (according to Revisionists, not nearly enough but still). But Treblinka had nothing like that at all.
There's very scant evidence that "Treblinka" even existed at all. The total absence of evidence regarding Treblinka is beneficial for the Mainstream, because the large amounts of physical and documentary evidence at Auschwitz and Majdanek have made it easy for Revisionists to reconstruct what actually happened. For example, "oh you said this room was a gas chamber at Auschwitz, but according to all these construction blueprints we found, they all say it's a morgue. If this was just a fake morgue where's the real morgue?" The mainstream says it was really a gas chamber that was a fake morgue according to construction documents and also a fake shower room, the Revisionists say it was a morgue which is what construction documents say it was. So Revisionists have it easy at Majdanek and Auschwitz, but there's basically no evidence regarding Treblinka making it harder for Revisionists to make a more solid case. But of course the inverse is true, it's much harder for the mainstream to make a case but they have political power so they don't need to rely on solid evidence to retain hegemony over the interpretation of those camps.
David Cole vastly overstates his own contribution to Revisionism- he never published a single page in the mountains of volumes of Revisionist research, much less on the camps he "Believes" which are the most ridiculous of all frankly. David Cole's hybrid-position was just a convenient way for him to distance himself from Revisionism while retaining his ego with respect to his prior positions. "I was right about Auschwitz but I totally believe the Holocaust story at Treblinka!" There's a reason almost nobody in the world holds that position.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
3mo ago
Let's consider the hundreds of billions of direct US aid to Israel since 1948. Estimates of the cost for sanctioning and isolating Iran are unknown but Grok estimates the figure to be in the range of $300–$600 billion. Joseph Stiglitz estimated the cost of the Iraq war to be $3 trillion, and more conservative estimates put it around $2 trillion.
The cost of Zionism to the United States and Europe is in the many trillions of dollars, and much more than that. NATO, Ukraine, and Europe are infinitely more worthy of the loyalty of the American people than Zionism and the state of Israel, which it looks like may after all drag the United States into war with Iran.
The context is unimportant, and I excluded it because it is unimportant. You can't just say the word "context" you have to explain how "the context" changes what I said- and it does not in any way. So he was against Jews getting their own dining accommodations at Harvard? Can you explain to me how that's relevant at all to what I said? My point was to contrast his call to destroy the white race with his claim that anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity. That point is not whatsoever challenged by his position on Harvard dining.
More options
Context Copy link