SecureSignals
No bio...
User ID: 853
The policy is not aimed at convincing the existing European power apparatus but on fostering opposition parties. If migration were so great for Europe, why is all the censorship and political suppression of the opposition even necessary? Why is opposition growing in Europe if it has all these great benefits? Europe being replaced by foreigners is not in Europe's interests or the security interests of the United States. I do not care if the average European is in denial of the fact, it has to be overcome. The EU Regulatory framework is by far the greater barrier to economic growth than not having enough Arabs and Africans, who have not ushered in economic prosperity.
Also, you are not European, you are Indian, so the "you need us" perspective should be inverted- you are the one who needs us, not the other way around.
SecureSignals
28d ago
The Elevation of Fringe Theories to Official US Foreign Policy
Rewind 10 years, and the only ones expressing dire concern over racial demographics in the US and Europe were very fringe, low-status, rag-tag group of political radicals called the "Alt Right". At the time it seemed scandalous that anyone would have much concern over European civilization becoming majority non-White, at best it was just crazy-talk but more commonly it was denounced as an indictment on someone's character for advocating for any sort of political or cultural initiative to stop or reverse this development. Although that is still the median interpretation, since the 2020 Great Awokening there's been a rapid expansion and a mainstreaming of these political views- the greatest indication of that yet is the release of the official 2025 National Security Strategy that directly identifies these concerns, as well as actually stopping and reversing them, a matter of US foreign policy. My emphasis:
C. Promoting European Greatness
American officials have become used to thinking about European problems in terms of insufficient military spending and economic stagnation. There is truth to this, but Europe’s real problems are even deeper.
Continental Europe has been losing share of global GDP—down from 25 percent in 1990 to 14 percent today—partly owing to national and transnational regulations that undermine creativity and industriousness.
But this economic decline is eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure. The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.
Should present trends continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less. As such, it is far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies. Many of these nations are currently doubling down on their present path. We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation.
...
American diplomacy should continue to stand up for genuine democracy, freedom of expression, and unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history. America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism.
Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.
America is, understandably, sentimentally attached to the European continent— and, of course, to Britain and Ireland. The character of these countries is also strategically important because we count upon creative, capable, confident, democratic allies to establish conditions of stability and security. We want to work with aligned countries that want to restore their former greatness.
The long-standing political strategy of "Democratic" Europe has been to form whatever coalition of center-left/right parties is necessary to prevent far right parties who oppose this from attaining power, while at the same time engaging in strong censorship and political suppression of right-wing parties- an artifact of the psychological warfare against Europe which we called Denazification. This is behavior is identified as a national security threat in this document, which advocates the United States "Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations."
The devil is in the details of implementation, but this document represents the codification of fringe Alt-Right views from 10 years ago. It's no longer a "conspiracy theory" or "White Supremacy" to identify the political forces actively orchestrating the demographic replacement of European nations, it's directly identified as a foreign policy issue of the United States, which is a major step forward, with mainstream publications now openly acknowledging the issue without the usual trappings of denouncing racism or White Supremacy:
President Donald Trump echoed similar warnings during a visit to the United Kingdom last year, saying mass immigration would "destroy Europe" and that the continent was "not going to survive" unless governments dramatically change course.
The White House defended the warning, saying Europe is already suffering the consequences of mass immigration.
"The devastating impacts of unchecked migration and those migrants’ inability to assimilate are not just a concern for President Trump but for Europeans themselves, who have increasingly noted immigration as one of their top concerns," White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "These open border policies have led to widespread examples of violence, spikes in crime, and more, with detrimental impacts on the fiscal sustainability of social safety net programs."
Some observers have noted the relative deemphasis on preparing for conflict with China and pivoting towards Western-hemispheric control, a revitalizing of the Monroe Doctrine. Although I am a critic of Trump, I have to say I am supportive of this national security strategy- although implementation is ultimately what matters and in all likelihood a Democrat administration would strike much of this. But it's a major step forward in acknowledging an existential crisis that until very recently was completely taboo.
SecureSignals
29d ago
I was thinking about buying some shares of Paramount at that price but the conditions:
This market will resolve to "Yes" if it is announced that Warner Bros. Discovery will be, has been, or is being acquired by or merged with the listed entity by 11:59 PM ET on May 31, 2026. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".
Yes a hostile takeover is going to take longer than that. If it were by May 2027 Paramount would be trading much higher. Market makes sense with these conditions where it resolves with the "expected" company.
An official announcement will qualify for a "Yes" resolution, regardless of whether the merger or acquisition is ultimately completed.
SecureSignals
29d ago
I'm seeing a lot of indications though Paramount is going to move for a hostile takeover. Trump is friendly to Ellisons and hostile to Netflix. I would put it at least 33% chance Paramount does hostile takeover instead of Netflix.
Piers' and the general Conservative, boomer, narrow loyalty to certain propositions, legal documents, and historical institutions is a thinly veiled expression of loyalty to socially dominant Memes- in particular Hitler and the Holocaust. "I don't care about race I care about the Constitution" is not misguided loyalty to Thenetics it's compliance with socially dominant memetics which demand that this ambivalence towards genetic replacement compose the right-wing side of the cultural dialectic. It makes racially-oriented thinking taboo.
Amazingly, Piers Morgan strongly and emotionally denied that his proud ambivalence towards the erasure of his own people is the product of this Hitler/Holocaust-centric memetic structure... and then a few minutes later Morgan literally calls an old Jew into the show to lecture Nick with a sob story about family killed by Stalin and Hitler! This is similar to my dispute with @2rafa, who constantly cites other factors as formulating the center of this memetic structure while the Priestly caste of that memetic structure incessantly and without fail invoke Hitler and the Holocaust to justify their moral advocacy for ambivalence towards genetic replacement and racial thinking. At what point do you just believe them when they cite these symbols as inspiration for the center of their moral perspective toward these extremely import issues facing the United States and Europe?
Hitler and the Holocaust is the secular religion that Nick challenges with his shock and humor (and he is a Denier too, although he wisely avoids engaging in Revisionism directly). The way you contest a religion is by subverting and destroying its idols.
Genes are downstream from memes. Think about how the tokens constituting an oral tradition and written to paper literally direct the ethnogenesis of the Jewish people. The myths created the people, so it is in Europe and the United States today. The dominant mythos is required to understand the direction of the people.
This crucial insight of the interaction between the two is embedded even in the Book of Genesis, in which Jacob is promised speckled sheep (mixed black/white sheep) as wages for guarding Laban's flock. Jacob then does something odd. He takes fresh branches (from poplar, almond, and plane trees), peels stripes into them so the wood looks streaked and speckled, and sets these peeled sticks in front of the animals at the watering troughs when they’re mating.
He only does this with the stronger animals, not the weak ones.
Genesis says that as a result, the animals that mated in front of the striped bark bore sheep that were streaked or speckled. Jacob claimed those as his wages. The weaker animals (who weren’t given the rods) mostly stayed Laban’s. Jacob uses visual media, a symbolic technique (the rods at the troughs) to direct the breeding of the sheep and he wins the flock. In the bible, flocks of sheep are a motif representing people.
Of course all cultures share the feature of using memes to direct the genetic evolution of the flock, while Genesis is unique in demonstrating consciousness of the functional relationship between symbols and ethnogenesis. Piers is a sheep. His hangups over Hitler, the Holocaust, prosecuting Nick for all the -ists and the -isms is directed by the symbols and memes of his generation.
That's the impetus for blaspheming this secular religion. It's not just about being edgy, it's about tearing down the symbols that are directing the behavior of the flock in a suicidal direction. Piers is a product of that memetic structure, and so is his apparent, shallow loyalty to what you cell Thenetics.
More options
Context Copy link