SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
No bio...
User ID: 853
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
At least for me, accepting HBD was the first domino in a much larger chain of insight. At first, the IQ gap seems like the most important aspect of HBD and a lot of HBDers only really beat that dead horse of race and IQ. IQ is obviously relevant in weighing policy decisions like the extent of the Welfare State or understanding income inequality. In my classical liberal days, I became interested in HBD because I considered it to be a solid rebuttal to the argument that Capitalism is unjust because market conditions have led to persistent racial inequality. With the HBD premise, persistent racial inequality in social outcomes is not necessarily a market failure.
The IQ argument also helps the sort of Caplan-esque economic libertarianism. If you advocate for open borders with minimal welfare state, you can argue the former is a positive selection for IQ in the absence of a welfare state, but a negative selection for IQ in the presence of a progressive welfare state. It's a strong argument against the welfare state in the presence of relatively open borders.
I would call this sort of discourse HBD Level 1.
But the next step in the pipeline is to acknowledge what some have referred to as the "Iron law of heritability." It's not a question of whether or not a psychological trait is heritable, it's only a question of how much it's heritable. So well beyond IQ, we are now talking about all aspects of our personality including conscientiousness, conformity, religiosity, political inclinations, aggression, etc. which collectively should be considered vastly more important than the IQ question alone.
It also raises uncomfortable questions and leads to the "demographics is destiny" argument you'll see from the alt-lite or MAGA. Let's say you're a libertarian, and your ideological values are important to you - even more precious than your own children. You support open borders because it's economically efficient and a big step towards the ideal of free association. Well, with HBD we have to contend with the fact that open borders will bring people to your country who may simply not have the sort of personality that cares about your precious values. Are Hispanics, Africans, Indians, and Chinese going to realize the greatness of libertarian ideology with the same propensity as white and Jewish men? Probably not.
I would call this level of discourse HBD Level 2, and frankly I think most of the rationalist-sphere is stuck at this level of understanding of HBD. I say that because when it comes to the question of, if HBD is obviously true, why the hell are we denying it and acting the way we are as a society?, they will be far more likely to say, as you suggest, that this is simply an overcorrection of the moral lessons of the 20th century.
But that's still ultimately a Whig view of history and progress. "We learned the right moral lessons, we just haven't implemented them optimally. Sure, we've lost some knowledge along the way, but we can delicately integrate these rediscovered truths into the moral paradigm that has served us well." This is the mistake theory view.
HBD Level 3, which only a small number of people reach, and basically everyone I have seen at this level of discourse is in the Dissident Right, becomes conscious of the fact that HBD-denial itself, like all the highly regarded moral revelations of the 20th century, are the product of political competition and racial conflict.
The "great lie", as you put it, is not race and IQ; the "great lie" is much more all-encompassing and far-reaching in all corners of society. Looking back at history since the 1960s and before: the Sexual Revolution, Civil Rights, Holocaust Remembrance, the Cold War, War on Terrorism, Psychoanalysis, Anthropology, Diversity & Inclusion - all of it can and should be reinterpreted as contextual to political competition and ethnic conflict. Because tribalism is a coded behavior, and HBD pulls back the curtain on why society believes these particular "great lies" and shows that this tribalism is never going away. Even out greatest overtures towards moving away from tribalism have only been motivated by tribalism on the highest order.
That's not to say -everything- is a lie, but it is to generally move from mistake theory to conflict theory in rationalist parlance, and following the thread of HBD very well may get you there eventually.
Sure. HBD denial was established by and is maintained by the motivations of political actors, not random mistakes made by scientists and anthropologists. Those political motivations that gave rise to HBD denial are derived from ethnic conflict. That ethnic conflict is itself explained by HBD. Accepting HBD uncovers a deeper level of ethnic conflict than is generally understood.
Accepting this exposes other such movements which have presented a veneer of universalist principles, but scratching the surface reveals similar, particularistic motivations.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
What is the evidence for this?
This could go in a lot of different directions. But it should just be sufficient to acknowledge that accepting HBD is tarred as racist and therefore highly immoral. So the opposition to HBD frames their position in terms of ethnic conflict.
The concern is that accepting HBD will alter the relations between ethnic groups. The greatest concern is that racially conscious whites will mistreat other groups based on this information. But ultimately, the observation that HBD denial is rooted in the concerns of anti-racism is sufficient for my point.
But on a deeper level, it's hard not to notice the history of HBD denial broadly falling along the lines of Protestant Darwinists versus immigrant Jews. Nobody is more responsible for the hegemony of HBD denial than Franz Boas, and his crusade against Madison Grant is understood as an expression of an ethnic conflict. This was not a clash of unbiased scientists who merely had different interpretations of data. They were, both, heavily influenced by their identities and their own inherited proclivities. The Boas academic takeover of anthropology in the Academy was the direct result of this conflict, which continues to this day.
If HBD denial was not a result of this conflict, why do you think HBD denial became hegemonic in academia and public consciousness? Do you think scientists were just trying to find the truth without respect to their own identities and personal proclivities or ethnic interests, and they just happened to get it wrong at the global height of the eugenics movement? Or did they win a conflict underpinned by ethnic motivations?
It really isn't, given that this concern can also stem from a universalist worry about the consequences of white race politics.
You've conceded the entire point. That HBD denial is rooted in a concern for the consequences of white race politics (and it always has been, even pre-WWII). That is an ethnic conflict. A scientific issue is transformed into political dogma because of ethnic conflict. Rationalists aspire to approach HBD without regards to the underlying ethnic conflict. Level 3 approach HBD with the appreciation that they are entering the political arena of an ethnic conflict, as they are in the analysis of a large portion of other cultural phenomena that are generally regarded as bottom-up and emergent.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
No it isn't, given that most of the concern is coming from gentile whites.
It depends on what you mean by "most." Those most responsible for its hegemony in the academy have been Jewish. Franz Boas and his disciples who took over anthropology departments across the country, and opposed white Darwinists and eugenicists, were engaging in an ethnic struggle against those concerns of white racial politics. You admit to all the individual parts, you just don't accept the whole.
You asked me for evidence that HBD denial is the outcome of ethnic conflict. Then you say it's the result of "universalist worry about the consequences of white race politics". But it was not universalist. There was a conflict, which followed strong ethnic trends between Jews and Gentiles, in which the side dominated by the Jews won hegemony in the academy. The hegemony is now "universalist" because the Boasians won the conflict and fortified their hegemony using every dishonest, dogmatic, anti-scientific, and authoritarian tactic in the book.
HBD denial wasn't a scientific error, it was a political triumph.
You can have the last word, as far as I'm concerned you have conceded the point I was trying to make and now you're splitting hairs.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
PMC progressive whites advocate literally nothing that (they believe) would actually hurt themselves in the medium term (at least according to their own beliefs; complexities around the long term effects of eg. mass immigration and defunded police don’t feature in their political imagination).
You said it yourself. What kind of people stand by and cheer on their racial demographic replacement in their own countries? Can you cite other historical examples where demographic replacement wasn't the result of conquest, colonization, or atrocity? And that it was cheered on by the natives? The "too many white people" is just another expression of the same ideology that leads them to cheer on their own demographic replacement, and it's not just signaling. It's anti-white and has real-world implications.
You are influenced by this ideology such that you can't see very much wrong with this extremely unusual pattern of behavior or the real-world implications of its existence.
If instead of "too many white people", the fashionable statement was "too many brown people", you wouldn't say that they were signaling. Your downplaying of anti-white rhetoric and self-hatred is just another expression of this phenomenon.
Accepting real-world demographic displacement is the ultimate, real, terminal impact of that kind of psychology.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
You're equating subversive intellectual and cultural influence with "conquest." Obviously you do so because it's easy to argue that Jews haven't conquered Gentiles, and it's very hard to argue that Jews have not had strong cultural and intellectual influence on issues like HBD.
Why don't you actually make an argument? Just say that Jews have had no particular strong influence in opposing HBD in anthropology and the sciences. You're too afraid to argue that, so you instead opt for spouting this cowardly garbage that has no content to respond to.
I’m saying that the MacDonald thesis and your “stage 3” go way, way beyond discussing the impact of Jewish academics on early evolutionary psychology
The argument is indeed generalizable. That is a testament to its strength. It's an argument that gives both Jews and Gentiles agency, unlike your suggestion that Jews have just been beholden to Red Tribe / Blue Tribe politics within the fixed liberal framework, without having any agency to frame the culture or debate in a way that they perceive to be in their ethnic benefit.
You also attribute extremely strong claims that nobody makes. MacDonald and others fully attribute liberalism to the Puritan Anglo tradition and to the particularities of that ethnos. MacDonald has an entire book on the evolutionary psychology of Europeans and how that led to individualism and liberalism. They perform the same mode of analysis in understanding the emergence of liberalism and individualism as being a product of evolutionary psychology. What you take issue with is when they generalize that analysis to movements with substantial Jewish influence in the development of liberalism in the 20th century.
Suffice it so say that as I’ve said before I have a broadly Churchill-Solzhenitsynesque view on the matter and think both ‘sides’ are dealing with motivated reasoning in a bout of interethnic hostility in which ‘science’ is just a tool to shore up the persuasiveness of one’s own preset position.
Not sure what you mean by "Churchill" view on the matter. Churchill, for his part, attributed Jewish influence as being the most decisive factor of the Bolshevik revolution that outweighed all other factors. I agree that the MacDonald/Cofnas debate is an expression of interethnic hostility. That's yet another example of these conclusions generalizing because they are true.
You will acknowledge the MacDonald/Cofnas debate as an expression of interethnic hostility. What about the feud between the Grantians and Boasisans? E.O Wilson vs Gould? Charles Murray vs Erich Turkheimer? These are all expressions of interethnic hostility, and that is the entire conclusion of Level 3 as such. That is not as strong a claim as you are trying to frame it as being "conquest" or universal blame for every single idea or movement.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
At least make your argument internally consistent. Hitler considered the Anglos to be cousins from a common Germanic stock, i.e.:
Friendly relations continued between the two countries the next year with former prime minister David Lloyd George visiting the Fuhrer at his Bavarian retreat in September 1936. Lloyd George was very impressed with the very pro-English Hitler. He claimed that, “Germany does not want war and she is afraid of an attack by Russia”, something that many British politicians were also concerned about. He practically apologised for the First World War and said, “There is a profound desire that the tragic circumstances of 1914 should never be repeated”.
This was music to Hitler’s ears. More than anything else he dreamed of an alliance with Saxon England. A nation, he believed, that was made up of and run by people of “excellent Germanic stock”. He was not too sure about the Celtic races that made up the rest of Britain though, and always referred to the UK as “England”. Hitler proclaimed that, “the English nation will have to be considered the most valuable ally in the world”. He added, “England was a natural ally for Germany and an enemy of France”, plus the latter’s communist friends in Russia, no doubt. Relations became even more cordial with the Fuhrer, referring to ‘Mein Kampf’ and other publications of his, when he asserted that the English are, “our brothers, why fight our brothers?”.
So those "Mongrel Sons of Quakers", as I remember you calling them awhile ago when explaining the pleasure you took from thinking about German cities being firebombed by the Allies, were of a very similar racial stock as the Germans.
The Anglos and Russians beating the Axis powers is not exactly an indictment of HBD. Unless you're trying to presuppose the History Channel level of analysis which may suggest that the Allies won the war because of the Tuskegee airmen or something.
You can plug bananas in your ears because conflict theory predicts that the enemy will lie
Conflict theory predicts that the enemy will try to act in its interests. If you have a smart enemy, that enemy may tell the truth 99% of the time to build its trust and credibility, particularly in an environment where most are not conscious of conflict, and only lie or manipulate when it's truly important do so.
I appreciate the attempt to steel-man mistake theory, but I think you are falling into the pattern that dominates the liberal sensibility against "hate." Hate has critical failure modes, that's true. So liberals will use those failure modes to altogether deny the friend-enemy distinction, or rather to formulate its own conception of the friend-enemy distinction in a way that is in their interests. They portray everyone that makes the friend-enemy distinction (except themselves) as barbarians that will genocide their enemies at a moment's notice.
The friend-enemy distinction is racist. It's hateful. It has these horrible failure modes. So the only friend-enemy distinction we should recognize is that those who dare draw the lines of friends and enemies are enemies. It (intentionally) throws the baby out with the bathwater while reserving it for its own hegemony.
Your post follows a similar pattern where you conflate a failure mode, a false model of a conflict, as an indictment of conflict theory in itself. But there are false models in mistake theory. In a similar way, I wouldn't say that a mistake theorist being wrong about a certain fact would disprove mistake theory. Rather, it may be that the direction of the mistake theorist's error can be explained by an underlying conflict, and that would be evidence for conflict theory.
A conflict theorist being wrong about a conflict is a failure mode of conflict theory, but it's not inherent to conflict theory.
Third, and most importantly, it excuses ignorance.
I would say it's the complete opposite. If you're a conflict theorist you have a self-justification for avoiding these failure modes and analyzing the conflict with a sober-headed view. Giving in to "resentiment" or failure modes, like assuming your enemy is always lying when the enemy is not going to pursue that strategy, is going to hurt your side of the conflict. So if you recognize a conflict, you have a responsibility to not cause scandal in a way that undermines your struggle.
Even if those artists are wrong about the tech-bro opposition, are they going to care if they get what they want politically? Mistake theory says yes. Conflict theory says no, and my chips are on "no."
Mistake theory excuses ignorance. It ignores the patterns we see in mistakes. In the absence of conflict theory, mistakes should be random. But they are not. They follow the lines of political actors. Mistake theory excuses ignorance on the friend-enemy distinction which is fundamentally required to build a model that explains the patterns of errors we see all around us.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
Yes, they have. Almost exclusively in Europe but now in Canada as well since Holocaust denial was outlawed just this year. This lawsuit may portend the beginning of similar lawsuits against Holocaust deniers in the United States.
This is my biggest concern from the Jones trial. The billion in damages potentially anchors future juries and courts on what is essentially a political reprisal. In a world where a billion in damages is considered justice, it's easy to image a world were a million dollar in damages is demanded from a Holocaust denier.
Probably the most relevant example is the various organizations and individual literary scholars who have questioned the authenticity of the Anne Frank diaries - many have been successfully sued by Otto Frank and the Anne Frank House for defamation abroad.
Historically, in the United States, Revisionists have been able to get away with questioning the authenticity of the Anne Frank diaries. But with a billion in damages against Jones, it won't be surprising to see the Holocaust industry emboldened to bring civil lawsuits against Holocaust deniers for questioning the Anne Frank story.
It so happens that in August, Revisionists published another work on the Anne Frank diaries which I am reading now. Maybe I'll write a review, it's an interesting controversy.
It wouldn't surprise me if in the future we see lawsuits against Revisionists.
As for me, I would certainly satisfy the standards of @KnotGoel (if I had reach). There are famous survivors and witnesses I would call major liars - like Irene Zisblatt who featured prominently in Steven Spielberg's film The Last Days.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
That's a contradiction that just exposes classical liberalism as self-defeating.
If:
-
you believe that civil liberties are intrinsically valuable
-
and you are an individualist
-
but individualism loses the culture war and loses political power to groups that cooperate to achieve power
-
and losing in turn compromises the civil liberties you care about
How is the classical liberal going to respond? He could maintain faith that individualism will win, despite the fact that individualism is an asymmetrically-distributed personality trait predominantly held by the declining demographic of white men, and not a universal value. Or, he could just decide to lose gracefully. But there's no path to victory there.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
Cowen has a lot of good points, but he ultimately turns a blind eye to the race problem which is the fatal flaw of classical liberalism (a flaw which was not shared by their 18th century counterparts- who failed in their own way, but they did not deny the problem like classical liberals of today). Cowen even acknowledges "the Brazilianification of the United States... Brazil being a paradigmatic example of a low trust society and government."
But he invokes Brazilianification as purely a political failure of trust rather than an outcome of a race problem. This is what Brazilianification looks like Mr. Cowen, and it's not caused by pessimism from would-be classical liberal idealists. It's caused by the type of power dynamics that the "New Right" appreciates and accepts as being a premise that any aspiring ideology must operate within.
There does seem to be a growing influence of Alt-right/dissident-right/New Right/Deep Right/Whatever right on the more mainstream right discourse which is very interesting to see. Cowen does seem to grasp the big picture, he just leaves out a few pieces of the puzzle.
Cowen's best point is that "the stupider version" of the New Right could threaten to be worse than the status quo:
Very recently we have seen low trust lead to easily induced skepticism about the 2020 election results, and also easily induced skepticism about vaccines. The best New Right thinkers will avoid those mistakes, but still every political philosophy has to be willing to live with “the stupider version” of its core tenets. I fear that the stupider version of some of the New Right views are very hard to make compatible with political stability or for that matter with public health.
But I think this argument could have been made 15 years ago, where anxiety over Obamacare or something was the most polarizing issue of the day. But political polarization has gone so far that these values have lost credibility. If more intelligent people like Cowen accept the core tenets of the New Right then that would reduce the risk of "the stupider version" having a monopoly on crucially important premises in the political discourse.
Ultimately though it's encouraging to see classical liberals acknowledge the criticisms that have created this demand for an "alternative" Right.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
Ah yes, who could forget the mid-90s. Truly the peak of political polarization and Brazilianification. I'm glad the country is so much more unified in comparison to those dark times.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
The past decade has its own list of similar tragedies and shocking, violent acts. But if we're talking about political polarization, we have ways we can measure that and the notion that the country is more politically united today than it was in the mid-90s is clearly not true.
Adidas has dropped Kanye West following growing agitation from organized Jewish groups. The move is expected to reduce Adidas revenue by about $250 million.
@freemcflurry is pessimistic that white people will wake up to what's going on. Maybe the prospect of the average person getting any sort of red-pill from this is overly optimistic. But I think there are smart, high-agency people closer to the fringes, and in communities like this one, that may increasingly realize they can't turn a blind eye to this dynamic in the culture war. I even think there are many good-faith Jews in communities like this one who may increasingly be willing to admit to this toxic dynamic between Jews and Gentiles in the West, rather than just dismiss it as the isolated behavior of a few fanatics and interest groups that they don't endorse.
In the past, highly public and economically costly sanctions like these were not even necessary. The fact that Jewish interests find it increasingly necessary to exercise hard-power to eliminate any sort of criticism of their behavior is a sign that these criticisms are not going away. These criticisms, which Jews call "anti-semitism", are anti-fragile. The more they tighten their grip in the form of economic sanctions, online censorship, social credit sanctions, and lawfare, the more they are validating the claims they are fighting against.
I can't remember which, but there's a mod around here who uses the "da Joos" thing to basically try to neutralize criticism of Jews in conversation. I have to think that he or she is going to think twice before dismissing criticism of Jewish influence as some insane conspiracy theory. This $250 million sanction against Adidas for having the unfortunate luck of having its influencer direct his criticism towards Jews instead of exclusively white people must make it harder for smart and honest people to dismiss those criticisms out-of-hand.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
Power wins, but not all power has the same nature. Xi projects power, and I don't think he wants to leave doubt as to where power in China lies. But if you watch the Lex Fridman interview with Kanye, Fridman refuses to even acknowledge any factual basis or underlying reality to what Kanye describes as the "Jewish media." Fridman doesn't dispute the fact of the matter, he just invokes the Holocaust to assert that it's wrong for Kanye to call Jewish people Jewish.
Overt exercises of power like this are contrary to the strategies that have served them well throughout history. Jews cannot exert a Xi-level of power projection in the West, for a number of reasons. At the same time, they cannot allow anti-semitism to grow in public consciousness. It's a delicate balance, and one that is made much more delicate when you get goofy Gentiles like Kanye West and Whoopie Goldberg who do not understand the game they are playing.
Its exercise validates protests, but only up to the point where it can be plausibly resisted; past that, people fall in line and learn to excuse the blatantly inexcusable, or perish.
The other option is to neither protest nor fall in line, but to silently join a growing set of noticers who are unhappy with what they perceive as an unfair arrangement. Kipling's poem captures that mode well.
But this entire affair should not be overstated, I don't think it's going to change anything except slightly grow the set of noticers. Noticing is not the same thing as acquiring power, that's very true. But history shows it only takes a surprisingly small portion of a population to accept a taboo before it inevitably becomes mainstream consensus.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
That tweet doesn't strike me as even coming close - within the same universe - to justifying the reaction to it. We are talking about costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Cancelled projects, dropped contracts, boycotts, calls to ban his music on Google and Spotify.
You can use the old 4chan trick of replacing "white" with "Jewish" and asking yourself if the reaction would be remotely similar if that had been his tweet instead.
I find it reasonable that the market would react accordingly.
Who says I find the market response unreasonable? Adidas for example is responding to market forces. It's the market forces that are the problem. On the contrary, I find it to be a useful quantifier for demonstrating the market cost of criticizing Jews.
There is a gigantic market cost to criticizing Jews. At the same time, there is a giant market benefit to criticizing white identity- with Jews themselves often investing the most money and influence in signal-boosting those criticisms of Gentile culture within popular culture.
This behavior of influential Jews- wherein they invest heavily in patronizing all manner of criticism Gentile culture, history, and morality, and then act hysterically when any measure of criticism is directed towards themselves, is on full display for everyone to see. You can do what Fridman did and just invoke history to try to justify the behavior. And you can try to justify it, but there is no longer any room to deny that this behavior exists and is a powerful undercurrent in the culture war.
If such a scenario arises, civilizations such as China, India and Iran may have to make the crucial choice about whether or not they want to stand with Europeans, in a united Eurasian front - a Fortress Eurasia, if you will - to repel the invaders, or whether to actively join or facilitate the invaders as they overwhelm and annihilate the already weakened and degenerated peoples of Europe and the Anglosphere.
If such a scenario arises, I want these civilizations on my side. (“I never thought I would die side-by-side with an Arab.” “What about a friend?”) Under such conditions, a criterion of “White enough” will necessarily be sufficient. Jews are well within the “White enough” category, as far as I’m concerned, and I wish that others on the White Right would not be so cavalier about continuing to ignite the already-burning bridge with an ethnic group that still has the capacity to become a powerful ally, but which also had the possibility to continue its development into an equally powerful and implacable enemy.
As I understand, your political concerns and goals include: white racial consciousness, racial solidarity in the face of upcoming geopolitical pressures, unified opposition to invaders especially as we get demographic explosions in the global south over the next century. All of which I agree with. Do you think Jews have thus far been constructive or deconstructive in these goals?
If you think they have been deconstructive towards those goals, and if you are DR-adjacent I have you think you agree that they have been highly destructive to those ends in the ongoing culture war, why do you expect them to change?
The Anglos built a beautiful bridge for Jews to cross into American culture and intellectual life. If that extreme act of good will and equality given by the Anglos to the Jews has only resulted in the current state of culture-war and the role of Jewish influence with it, how can you accuse the DR burning that bridge? If America couldn't make them allies- in the sense of Jewish racial solidarity with Aryans, then what will? A migrant crisis? Does recent history support that hope or prove how backwards it actually is?
If such a scenario arises, I want these civilizations on my side. (“I never thought I would die side-by-side with an Arab.” “What about a friend?”)
And it's the DR who is the most open to that sort of cooperation with the Arab world. They broadly support Assad precisely because they view the Arab world as gatekeepers to mass migration (a role which has explicitly been acknowledged by Arab leaders). But there is a group that would never allow such an alliance, and has its own interest in destabilizing all these Arab regimes which are a bulwark against mass migration... And you know as well as I do who ends up with the refugees. It's the European world, with Jewish interests exerting heavy political and cultural influence in the European sphere to compel them to accept these migrants.
So, the Jewish Question is actually a series of questions, and some of those questions need to be answered by Jews themselves. I don’t know how many Jews, or what percentage of Jews, see themselves as my enemy, or are likely to act as my enemies as worldwide racial conflict begins to boil over.
I do not know either. All I can do is look at the current state of the world and set my expectations based on that. If you do that, where do you land on the question? Do you expect the next migrant crisis to elicit Jewish racial solidarity with Aryans, and for them use their considerable talents for the well-being of the white world? I do not. All indications are that the present course is accelerating.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
I don't necessarily disagree with the points you are making... The Catholic/Protestant dynamic is another expression of ethnic differences resulting in macro-impacts on American culture.
Assigning retrospective blame isn't even the most important question. It's how we should move forward. If you think that a level of white racial consciousness and solidarity is going to be necessary to maintain (or ideally, rejuvenate) Western civilization, then you have to identify potential allies and potential adversaries in moving towards that end. Would you identify Jews as being a potential ally or potential adversary in realizing that significant change in public consciousness?
There is very little evidence that Jews have any interest whatsoever in nurturing white racial solidarity. As part of that UCLA "Initiative to Study Hate":
Under the direction of David Myers, the Sady and Ludwig Kahn Professor of Jewish History at UCLA, the initiative will feature 23 projects in its first year, supported by $600,000 in internal research funds. Additional projects will be funded in years two and three of the pilot.
Researchers will convene in a monthly seminar to discuss their research findings and hear from other experts. The initiative will also host public programming and engage with relevant policymakers, practitioners and NGO leaders in order to explore how to translate theory and research findings into potential applications in educational curricula, health care and public policy.
“Hate is so pervasive in our world that it almost seems too daunting to take up,” said Myers. “But we believe that this is exactly the kind of big question that a great public university like ours must seek answers to. This new initiative aims to understand how and why hate functions as it does.
“We’re interested in hate as it takes rise in groups and is transmitted from generation to generation, but we are also exploring how hate takes rise in the individual’s brain. Our ultimate aim is to do all that we can to mitigate or minimize hatred in individuals and groups,” added Myers.
One team, involving economists, health care professionals and historians, will study hate directed at people who experience homelessness. The project will identify the beliefs, stereotypes, and fears that fuel hatred of homeless people, and it will examine the stigma, discrimination, and hatred they experience.
Another team is examining how certain brain mechanisms might create a sense of dehumanization toward others. They’ll study participants with healthy brains as well as those with frontotemporal dementia.
The comprehensive initiative comes at a time when expressions of hate appear to be increasing both in frequency and intensity - in the United States and globally. And college campuses have recently seen a disturbing increase in incidents of antisemitism, attacks on ethnic minority students and LGBTQ+ youth, and other hate crimes.
The Protestant/Catholic dynamic is real. But it's not exactly a mystery why WNs see the above as overtly hostile and a far greater threat to their project than Irish Catholics.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
In WN circles I have never seen anyone suggest slavs are not white. Slavs were even regarded as Aryan under the Third Reich.
The so-called "Generalplan Ost" referred to around 5 different iterations for plans of resettlement after German victory. Similar mass resettlements of ethnic Germans in areas conquered by the Allies also followed German defeat. None of these plans called for the extermination of the Slavs and none of those plans moved beyond the ideation stage. The mainstream historiographical interpretation of "Generalplan Ost" is one of many fabrications made by the Allies to post-hoc justify the destruction of Europe and Soviet conquests.
Alfred Rosenberg comes to mind as perhaps the most prominent Nazi racial theorist, and he regarded Slavs as Aryan. Slavs were even acknowledged as Aryan in law, i.e. in German racial laws:
Aryan descent (German blooded) is thus a person who is free of foreign blood, as seen by the German people. The blood of Jews and Gypsies also living in Europe, that of the Asian and African races and the Aborigines of Australia and America (Indians), are considered as foreign. For example, if a Englishman or a Swede, a Frenchman or a Czech, a Pole or an Italian, is free of such foreign blood, he must be regarded as Aryan, whether he lives in his native country or in East Asia or in America or he may be a US citizen or a South American Free State.
Two Slavic groups are used as examples of Aryan in the racial law: Czechs and Poles.
There is a popular lie that "Aryan" only referred to the blonde haired and blue eyed phenotype. The lie that "Aryan" only included ethnic Germans is just a weaker version of the same lie made for the same reasons as the other lie.
They never managed that due to bureaucratic ineptness and unwilligness to go through with it on lower levels.
This is not true. The so-called "Hunger Plan" is yet another fabrication that takes a grain of truth and spins it into a plan of genocide. That so-called "plan" just referred to an estimate for the number of deaths of starvation that would happen as a consequence of German occupation of Soviet territory until the end of the war.
This starvation was estimated as a consequence of provisioning their own army through the end of the war. For example, from the wikipedia article:
1.) The war can only be continued if the entire Wehrmacht is fed from Russia in the third year of the war.
2.) If we take what we need out of the country, there can be no doubt that tens of millions of people will die of starvation.
This is not even close to some secret plan to exterminate the Slavs because they were not considered Aryan. It was an estimate of the effect of provisioning their army to continue the war.
Edit: There is also the fact that the Germans fielded one of the largest volunteer foreign armies in history, composed predominantly of Slavs. The volunteer rate of Ukranians to the German side rivaled the volunteer rate of British for the war effort. I know it's fashionable to think that the Germans had plans to turn around and genocide the people that were helping them, but there's no evidence for that. The best the mainstream narrative can do is misrepresent things like the "hunger plan" to assert genocidal plans that did not exist.
I was riffing on your tongue-in-cheek reference reference to reproduction as a cheap immortality. I suppose it's more similar to reincarnation. In religious myth, the quality of your reincarnation is determined by your deeds in the current life. The same applies to reproduction. Breeding habits and mate selection have either beautiful or disastrous consequences based on how society is organized and how we behave on an individual basis.
More options
Context Copy link