SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
No bio...
User ID: 853
I never said that.
Come on. This is exactly what you said:
No, the plan was to culturally assimilate the more Aryan looking ones (huge genetic overlap between Czechs and Germans etc) and exterminate the rest.
With Russians, Germans openly planned to starve to death all Russian urban population as a food saving measures. (look up Hunger plan). They never managed that due to bureaucratic ineptness and unwilligness to go through with it on lower levels.
You said:
-
They had a plan to assimilate the Aryan looking ones and exterminate the rest of the Slavs.
-
As part of that plan, they planned to use hunger as the extermination method to achieve their goals.
-
The plan wasn't carried out due to lower level officers not following orders.
None of this is true. The reality is that there are some documents that assessed the logistical reality of the situation, and concluded that the Wehrmacht could only be fed from Russia in the third year of the war, and there was no alternative. This assessment soberly predicted mass starvation and regarded the situation as catastrophic. You can say that the Germans should have prioritized feeding the locals above feeding their army. Or that they should have surrendered at this point upon realizing the human cost of continuing the war. But that is all very different from the ahistorical claims you have made in your post.
These documents that historians use to spin a "Hunger plan" actually described the pragmatic concerns of the food situation rather than an implementation of some plan to exterminate the Slavs.
Lastly, Germany prioritized feeding locals based on those employed in the German war effort. Your notion that they went around giving food to those they thought looked Aryan enough and let the rest starve in order to exterminate them is a testament to the abysmal failure of mainstream historiography to move beyond ethnic hatred in interpreting history.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
Do you think the agitation today from groups like the ADL to fight "hate" and accept refugees and such is also cover for an underlying profit motive? Why don't you believe their own stated reasoning for encouraging that morality? They don't say we should accept refugees because we get access to more profitable labor. They say that to deny them is hateful and racist, which are sensibilities that enable antisemitism. Do you think their criticisms of White identity are driven by profit motive or ethnic anxieties? Why don't you believe them when they say it's about ethnic anxiety?
I agree that many on the DR overstate the practical impact of Hart-Cellar, but I think OP is actually emphasizing the symbolic impact here by comparing it to the poem etched on the Statue of Liberty after-the-fact, which completely changed the interpretation of that symbol.
In the same way, Hart-Cellar was a symbolically important moment that marked the retcon of American history. The motivations for that retcon, and the motivations for enforcing that interpretation with authoritarian measures, goes beyond profit motive.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
They compare a McDonalds in Tokyo to a McDonalds in Manhattan and conclude that the differences between the US and Japan are superficial because they lack any wider frame of reference. They judge on skin color because skin color is easy to see/measure. It's the old streetlight fallacy.
This doesn't make sense. A racialist would interpret far deeper meaning to the differences between a McDonalds in Tokyo and a McDonalds in Manhattan than a liberal would.
I think the question is to what extent it was actually the case that Jewish immigration activists in the 1950s and 1950s advocated for the Kennedy-Hart-Cellar immigration reform because they genuinely feared that if America retained its demographics it would result in (or would result in a higher risk of) another Holocaust? This argument doesn't even necessarily make sense.
Well, that is a much stronger form of the argument I was making. They simply viewed it in their ethnic interests, and they viewed opposition to it and the motivating ideas behind that opposition to be threatening. With that said, they have certainly invoked the Holocaust to blame part of it on America for refusing to accept immigrants before the war. That is a narrative which is continued to this day. So, yes, they do use the Holocaust as a moral lesson for why Gentiles should accept immigrants.
Firstly, the Holocaust wasn't central to American Jewish identity until the 1980s and onward when more started to be written about it, it became a larger subject in schools, the first larger memorials and museums opened in the West and so on. The entire public consciousness about it tends to date back only about 40 years.
I absolutely agree with this. The Holocaust is interesting precisely because, unlike most historical events which are most salient in the public consciousness in the immediate aftermath but fade over time (like September 11th), the Holocaust didn't peak in saliency in the public consciousness until the 1990s, although it could be argued we are still at that peak. How exactly did that happen, if not the same cultural forces driving these other cultural changes at this same time? It was another major shift in the symbols we worship as a nation, and it can't be explained exclusively by profit motive.
"If we import a bunch of Latin American Catholics, antisemitism will go down and we're at less risk of anti-Jewish prejudice rising" doesn't really make sense as a strategy, especially given that some of history's harshest persecutors of Jews were Iberian Catholics and that pretty much all the serious antisemitism in the New World happened in Latin America.
I don't necessarily think that was the conscious strategy of the most influential Jewish groups advocating for these changes. I largely take them at their word when explaining their motivations:
-
Racism leads to antisemitism.
-
White people advocating for their ethnic interests is inherently racist (a premise which they themselves have been influential in establishing and maintaining).
-
Therefore, White people cannot be allowed to advocate for their ethnic interests.
Anti-immigration is the single most important policy expression of White people advocating for their ethnic interests. So Jewish influence in promoting immigration can simply be interpreted as them fighting racism, which is the motivation that they openly own. That doesn't resolve the criticism embedded in OP's argument.
Where I do not take them at their word is that their anti-racist sensibilities are motivated by the fact that they are just morally upstanding citizens of the world. I think a lot of them have deceived themselves into believing that. But looking at Israel and their ethnocentric tendencies in the rest of the world should dispel any notion of that.
They are gravely concerned about controlling immigration to Israel and the demographic composition of their Holy Land.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
To clarify, the entire rest of the world places profound emphasis on racial differences, both implicitly and explicitly. You are one of the very few who can claim to not place strong emphasis on racial differences and treat them as superficial. You can let that be your legacy and cling to it until the bitter end, if you want.
But again, even if we accept the premise that racism nebulously leads to antisemitism, why does importing a bunch of Latin American Catholics challenge racism?
Nobody is claiming that there was a plan from the beginning to import a bunch of Latin American Catholics. To be fair, I do not think anyone involved in Hart-Celler fathomed the current trajectory of demographic change in the United States when that bill was made into law. And for that matter, the importance of that one bill is overstated. For example, Hart-Celler IIRC was actually the first bill to put any sort of restriction on immigration from Latin America. The immigration rate was very low before that (and Mexican immigrants had been forcibly deported in prior roundups). The idea of Whites being demographically eclipsed by Mexican immigrants would not have registered to have been remotely within the realm of possibility among lawmakers at the time. It was not a salient issue within the broader immigrant question.
One can say that the technical impact of the bill is overstated, but I agree with OP that the bill more importantly marked a symbolic shift in American culture and retcon of American history. This was one component of many other cultural shifts which were also influenced by Jews and directly or indirectly advanced Jewish interests, with Holocaust remembrance being another example as you have mentioned.
The assertion is not that influential Jews planned to import Latin American Catholics in particular. The assertion is that influential intellectual and cultural movements spearheaded by Jews pathologize normal and healthy ethnocentric behavior among Whites. And, they use those same institutions to protect their own ethnocentric tendencies from criticism and to invoke Gentile support for their own ethnic interests. This is the same dynamic that endures to this day:
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.
...
“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.
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.
So a White American average Joe who maybe has anxiety about the neighborhood he grew up in becoming Mexican or Haitian cannot be allowed to have any ethnocentric preferences that would be considered "hate" by Jews like David Myers. Something must be wrong with his brain if he wants his neighborhood or his country to remain White, and David Myers is going to do everything he can to fix them. Tikkun olam.
This is not a natural state. It did not happen on accident, either.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
House of the Dragon makes it clear to me it's easy to cast nonwhite people in a white story if you actually care about world building.
I actually got the opposite impression. The casting of the Velaryons as black actually ended up being more calculated than it seemed at face value because it signaled a far higher level of diversity casting than what we've actually seen.
I think the showrunners understand that the Medieval court politics and dynamics portrayed by Game of Thrones are fundamentally white, and they could not capture the same energy as Game of Thrones if they haphazardly cast every other person as every other race. Looking at the most iconic scenes from the first season, the "diversity casting" does not really exist beyond the notable exception of the Velaryons. If they diversified the Targaryen family or noble families as heavily as they did for, say the Hobbits in LotR I do not think these scenes would have the same impact.
As a corollary to your post, I would say this shows it's possible to have diversity casting if you fundamentally respect the Whiteness embedded in the source material. And HoftD has done so thus far.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
This is by far the most egregious part of these revelations. It confirms the most bearish allegations of NGOs acting as domestic spy organizations.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
Twitter belongs to Elon now. He can basically do what he likes, and there isn’t much the left can do but pound sand. I don’t think any of the above scenarios will transpire. The federal government is either unwilling or unable to do anything, even if it wanted to.
Counterpoint: the federal government is only a small part of "the regime" and not even the most influential part in setting the platform boundaries of acceptable discourse. Recent leaks of DHS domestic-information control proposals verify this, and this will continue to be the dynamic to a growing extent.
Musk has already signaled cooperation with the Regime. Maybe he's just trying to placate them so they let their guard down (time for more 4D chess cope?). But if the ADL is optimistic about Musk's ownership of Twitter, which they say they are, that is strong signal that the regime views it as a threat that is managed.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
I don’t understand fight antisemitism movement.
Earlier today there was a post on the front page of Reddit: Let's not forget that Meyers Leonard atoned for his hate speech by visiting the Holocaust Memorial, befriending rabbis, learning about Jewish culture, and joining basketball camps for the Jewish community.
That video shows the pitiful display of a former NBA player groveling to the Jews begging to have a career after he had a gamer moment during a Twitch stream. Reddit has forgiven him, deeming his groveling sufficient, but his career is long gone.
You can compare Leonard's groveling to Irving's defiance and see it's no surprise that Irving has been suspended for daring to insinuate that God chose the blacks as his Chosen People instead of the Jews.
Given that this is the second top-level post in a row that has asked the exact same question, and it's a question I bet a lot of people are wondering, I would suggest reading The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald. This book provides the most definitive examination of the place of Jewishness in the culture war. MacDonald's observations consistently generalize to help explain these behaviors which are driving controversy today.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
You can endlessly debate whether or not MacDonald over-exaggerated the influence. It is very easy to argue until the cows come home whether or not that influence is over-exaggerated or under-exaggerated given any particular perspective.
The point is MacDonald establishes directionality of that influence and the motive for that directionality. Arguing that the impacts of MacDonald's argument are overstated is a lot easier than disputing those two things, which are the main focus of the book.
But when it comes to things like The Authoritarian Personality, which is a big part of MacDonald's book, you can say that he overstated the impact of that intellectual body of work. But that body of work is still regarded as hugely influential. So saying that his case against that body of work is overstated is just splitting hairs.
The important question, as far as I'm concerned is: is the idea of Jewish influence necessary for the changes mentioned (and opposed) by MacDonald to happen? ie. if there were no Jews at all, would something like these developments still take place?
MacDonald demonstrates the obvious double-standard that you are appealing to here. You are placing on MacDonald an isolated demand for rigor, demanding that he debunks some Alternative History that was absent these Jewish influences but led to similar outcomes. He doesn't venture to do that, nor should he.
Creating Alternative History is so insanely arbitrary. You could just say that Protestantism without Jewish influence would have led to Wokeism x 10 and the Jews have reigned them in! You could also say that without Jews the Grantians would have won the immigration question and America today would be 95% Nordic and America would have fought on Germany's side in the Second World War. It's not MacDonald's job to debunk your alternative history, it's his job to establish the motivations behind intellectual movements which are universally regarded as influential in the cultural developments of the past century. He's not supposed to speculate on intellectual movements on some alternative historical timeline, which is completely impossible. Obviously his opponents are motivated to try to place that burden on him because then that becomes the arena of pure speculation, rather than simply observing the evidence for what has actually transpired in this historical timeline.
When it comes to building models to explain anti-Semitism, one thing MacDonald points out is that academics never even consider the behavior of Jews to be in the hypothesis space for explaining anti-Semitism. The anti-Semitism question from their perspective always revolves around trying to explain the pathologies of Gentiles. Your criticism of MacDonald is another example of that. If we want to accept that Jews were influential in twentieth century intellectual movements, and in significant part motivated by their Jewish identities, it's not enough to prove that, you also have to disprove some alternative historical timeline that would have similar outcomes without Jews. It's an absurd demand for rigor, and to me it basically shows that there's not a great argument against MacDonald's core observations.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
If you're not in the Eugenics business, you're in the Dysgenics business. You don't get to not play the game.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
There are a lot of interesting racial subtexts in NTTD (SPOILERS BELOW FOR NO TIME TO DIE):
Counter-Currents has an excellent review which interprets the film as the ultimate and final affirmation of Bond's whiteness. In part because of the reasons you describe: the "black 007" was not actually a replacement Bond in the film and never will be. Most notable is that Bond's ultimate redemption/peace comes from his daughter, who it's emphasized has inherited his blue eyes. There are also some other low-key lines in the film that acknowledge an underlying race reality, like when the Russian scientist quips that he could exterminate the West African race with his super-weapon.
Bond is, in essence, an avatar of the Anlgo spirit, and NTTD symbolically set that in stone.
Yes, "Negro" was once used neutrally, on census forms, and used by many Black Americans themselves, but language evolves, and this post from 2021 was clearly making a conscious choice to stick to archaic language.
I agree, it's needlessly provocative and comes across as bitter. It's trying to racialize the problems with Lynch's Nomi character. There is some content there- you say:
Harris and Lynch are Black, with Harris having lighter skin tone and Lynch darker... Hollywood tends to write and cast roles against stereotypes, especially ones to do with race and sex. But here, it seemed to have stumbled and made a darker-skin Black woman unfeminine and hyper masculine. Now, I think Lynch's character and casting can be explained by the draw of portraying strong women, and separately a Black woman in a powerful/high-status role like 007. Still, it seems like on net, this was ultimately a net loss for representation for Black women.
You say "Harris and Lynch are Black"... Well, it's not exactly that simple. CC readers acknowledge racial differences between the two, and would attribute Harris's perceived beauty to be derived in significant part from features influenced by her European ancestry. Lynch's Nomi is Jamaican. When you say Harris is beautiful and Nomi is not, you are unconsciously saying something that CC is saying directly and crudely.
The word "Negro" here (although archaic and needlessly provocative) is referring specifically to a racial group and set of racial features that are blurred by just classifying Harris and Lynch as "both Black." They should have said African though (which has its own set of technical problems).
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
I agree, there seems to be something hardwired in us to learn through and act with inspiration from stories. Just because we've drifted from theistic superstitions does not mean those coded behaviors have gone away. EA in this respect should be understood as a non-theistic religion, but a non-theistic religion that doesn't have stories or a culture to inspire loving self-sacrifice or violent hate in acts of self-preservation or expansion. Of course, they would consider that a feature rather than a bug, considering those tendencies to be irrational. But that's why it's never going to be effective, it's not going to inspire truly self-sacrificial behavior in a way more effective theistic and non-theistic religions are able to at a meaningful scale.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
I would consider "outcompeting rival ideologies" to be one of the most important measurements of effectiveness. I would say EA is a substitute non-theistic religion to what we call Wokeism. EA may regard Wokeism as irrational to a large extent, but Wokeism has the parables and myths and symbols going for it while EA is trying to reassert Christian values but without the mythology- or the parts that actually inspire people to act and adopt your way of thinking.
Surely there are people skilled in the dark arts of communication, advertising, and psychology which know how to translate* the sorts of things we discuss into a form consumable by the average person. Given that these disciplines are not new, surely there is a handbook of basic principles for crafting such messages? Do we have any practitioners of the dark arts that can provide such resources?
The people with those talents are the culture creators. Artists, priests, propagandists, filmmakers... But ultimately, it's about the creation of myths and stories. That is how the masses of people will unconsciously internalize the esoteric messaging embedded in the myths they consume.
For a handbook on how this esoteric knowledge can be passed through the generations, you can study the bible. Take the book of Genesis for example. There's the story of Jacob who, working for his father-in-law, makes a deal to receive all the less-desirable spotted or black sheep in the herd as his wages. Jacob then devises a scheme to turn the entire flock speckled. He peels the bark on branches of trees, exposing the inner wood, to create white stripes. “So when the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted” (30:38-39)
The parable demonstrates ancient knowledge of the "dark art" of culture communication. By creating the stripes on the tree, Jacob directs the mate selection of the flock and acquires the herd. Of course, in Christian metaphor sheep are a metaphor for humans. The lesson is that culture, media, and propaganda are themselves the dark art of communicating cultural esotericism and directing the thoughts and behaviors (including the mate selection) of the masses.
There was also a Twitter scuffle last week between Candace Owens and her employer Ben Shapiro.
Candace Owens responded favorably to a Tweet by Max Blumenthal condemning the ADL and calling it out as an instrument of Zionism. Candace said:
You are about to get into a lot of trouble for stating this.
Reminds me of when I said something similar about the NAACP and BLM way back when.
When you disrupt the trauma economy and call out the not-for-profits that benefit from it, you become their next target.
Ben Shapiro did not like Candace's Tweet and called her out publicly. I think Ben Shapiro has basically given up on publicly showing any sort of tact to cover up the contradictions in his disavowal of identity politics for everyone else while very aggressively playing the identity politics game on behalf of his own Jewish identity.
There are was also another message from DR figure parrot arguing against Haz... I don't understand this line of argument.
The line of argument is perfectly demonstrated in the debate between Haz and Richard Spencer which took place earlier this year. The Podcast hosts read a question from an audience donation: "To Haz: How is the West run by Anglo-Saxon elites when even identifying as Anglo-Saxon will get a politician attacked by the entire media?". Haz gives a coherent answer. He talks about the particularities of Anglo-Saxons and how that enables this apparent contradiction. He also talks about how American institutions inherited the power and legacy of the British Empire. He doesn't say anything that Richard or the DR disagrees with. It's the parts he leaves out which are the problem.
Watch what happens when Richard gives his response. Richard starts by essentially granting Haz his argument. But then Haz mutes him when Richard starts talking about Jewish elites in the British and American empire. When Richard is done talking while muted, Haz says "I disagree but I'm on Twitch so I can't talk about or I'll get banned."
You have to see why the DR regards this as so hilariously revealing. Haz shows he is perfectly capable of having a frank discussion on the Anglo-Elites, and their ethnic particularities and historical context, and their use of power as it's waxed and waned and changed form over history. But when it comes to Jewish power Haz throws his hands in the air and just says "you're a schizo if you think that matters", without even trying to explain why it doesn't matter. "It doesn't matter. Also I'll get banned if I talk about it. So I'll just stick with my monologue on how the Anglo Elites are running Western civilization." Come on, it's too much.
Saying "Anglo Elites run Western civilization but you're a schizo if you think Jewish power matters" is just so transparently absurd. The DR are the only ones willing to engage in a frank analysis of both Anglo and Jewish ethnic particularities and power. Nobody says "you can't call slavery a White institution because not many Whites owned slaves and a lot of Whites opposed it!" But if you try to talk about Jewish power you will get a bunch of rhetorical nonsense explaining why you are mentally ill if you acknowledge it and criticize it, or that you are merely perpetuating "one of the oldest prejudices in the world".
Expected return is the best decision making tool in this scenario. The problem is SBF insists on risk neutrality. Any mentally sane person would discount the expected value for risk. The only assumption you need to justify that is diminishing marginal utility of social welfare, which is easy to prove empirically. It's confusing why SBF insists on risk neutrality.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
The reason it feels alien to you is because it is alien to you. The theistic superstitions have mostly gone away, but the religious inclinations have not, and the influencers in the EA space are looking for a sort of fulfillment that they feel they can no longer get with traditional religion. Tikkun Olam is interesting though in that it exoterically presents as "healing the world" and social justice, but esoterically is in fact a command to destroy all idolatry and "false gods" offensive to the jealous tribal god, Yahweh.
Translation: "to speedily see Your mighty splendor, to cause detestable (idolatry) to be removed from the land, and the (false) gods will be utterly 'cut off', to takein olam – fix/repair/establish a world – under the Almighty's kingdom"
In other words, when all the people of the world abandon false gods and recognize God, the world will have been perfected.
Among modern liberal movements, A common but more modern understanding of this phrase is that we share a partnership with God, and are instructed to take the steps towards improving the state of the world and helping others, which simultaneously brings more honor to God's sovereignty
EA and AI alignment are interesting to consider in this duality of their conception of "healing the world".
I think the cat's out of the bag. This particular (ever-growing) set of mini-controversies will subside eventually. But awareness/noticing will increase monotonically because once you notice you don't unnotice. The next controversy surrounding this question will have even more prima facie plausibility than this controversy started by Kanye's rant, and so-on. Look at what Elon Musk tweeted yesterday. It's a hop, a skip, and a jump away from anti-Semitism.
The reason I do think that this is symptomatic of a turning point is expressed pretty well in Chapelle's set. Chapelle isn't walking a tightrope because he is concerned about unethically disparaging a people. He's worried about a reprisal for saying true things. That's not a long-term stable state. The long-term stable state is that nobody even thinks about it, or they think it's morally wrong to believe it. What we are seeing is a growing awareness, and people are being quiet and walking a tightrope because they are afraid and not because they are morally on the side of the ADL.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
His, erhm, "personal trainer" was the one who originally made the phone call to have him committed. If you read this recent exchange that Jewish "personal trainer" had with Kanye I think it's hard to not understand Kanye's perspective:
I'm going to help you one of a couple ways... First, you and I sit down and have an loving and open conversation, but you don't use cuss words, and everything that is discussed is based in fact, and not some crazy stuff that dumb friend of yours told you, or you saw in a tweet.
Second option, I have you institutionalized again where they medicate the crap out of you, and you go back to Zombieland forever. Play date with the kids just won't be the same.
This isn't a doctor telling Kanye to take his meds. This is somebody threatening him and his children, threatening to medicate him to send him to "Zombieland forever" for criticizing Jewish people.
The claim that is at controversy is that the Germans had a plan to exterminate the Slavs. Those documents do not support that conclusion. It shows that the Germans considered mass starvation as a dilemma to provisioning their army to continue the war. You can say they should have surrendered and they are murderers for continuing the war. That's fine. But to say that this estimate was part of a secret scheme to genocide the Slavs is just not true.
There was mass starvation in India and Greece as a result of Allied blockades and diversions of food resources. Nobody would call that a planned genocide, even if you want to call it murder.
More options
Context Copy link