@SecureSignals's banner p

SecureSignals

Training the Aryan LLM

15 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 06 13:34:27 UTC

				

User ID: 853

SecureSignals

Training the Aryan LLM

15 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 06 13:34:27 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 853

This post is about the alleged mass graves of children who died in the basement, which was the subject of "horror stories" from Survivors, at the Manitoba Reservation School. The suspected mass graves were identified by GPR analysis, but then when excavated turned out to be rocks.

I used to love WWI/WWII movies when I was younger, it scratched that Star-Wars-esque heroism itch. Now I avoid them unless I'm willing to end up demoralized watching Hollywood dance on the grave of Europe. Some are really good and worth watching like Dunkirk, but it's a genre where my interpretation of the films has radically changed from adventure-heroism to tragedy.

There are some in the Dissident Right that counter-signal the conservative moral panic for the reasons you allude to. The DR is not conservative, so when and if it finds itself sharing the exact same rhetoric as the conservative boomerwaffen, some hesitancy is warranted. Especially because there is a bunch of Q-Anon nonsense among that demographic, which is adjacent to the "pedophilic elite" conspiracy, which is in turn adjacent to "groomer" rhetoric. Your enemies are going to use their full power to tie the "groomer" rhetoric to Q-Anon, and I've already seen that comparison made more than once.

Yesterday I found myself thinking about how tragic it is that the rainbow, a solar symbol with a rich history of meaning, is now appropriated for gay and trans activism and you can't see a rainbow without identifying with or against the movement. You could say "they shouldn't have done that, that's an unfair move to take a neutral symbol and use it to rally a cause", but they did and it's extremely effective. It's the work of the Symbol-Manipulators that Hlynka consistently underestimates. I think this is why the accusation of a conservative "moral panic" usually comes across as concern-trolling, because where and how exactly are conservatives supposed to provide pushback in similar measure?

One of the most effective and prolific tricks of the LGBTQ movement is to use the word "phobic" to denounce, insult, and shame their opponents by associating their beliefs, and themselves personally, as pathological. You're transphobic. You could write a post breaking out the dictionary definition of a 'phobia' and say "Ghee, you all on the LGBTQ+ community should stop accusing conservatives of transphobia, because their beliefs don't really describe the dictionary definition of a phobia." I think you would appreciate how feckless that would be, and if it's effective why would you expect them to not use the term? Or do you just accept that the LGBTQ movement will use such rhetoric to extreme effectiveness, but you think its opponents should be more principled and consult the dictionary before they engage with in-kind rhetoric?

I do endorse the groomer rhetoric because it's actually engaging in the debate on a symbolic level in the way progressives have only been able to since the conservative defeat on gay marriage. I don't think it's a moral panic for conservatives to appreciate the symbolic humiliation of drag queen story hour:

Children learn their lessons- their notion of reality and right and wrong, through stories. A story hour is a safe place for childen to learn through stories, and furthermore the storyteller is usually a trusted figure in the community like a teacher, mayor, or president. There is something symbolically revolutionary about children sitting in a circle around a flamboyant drag queen and being told a story. That symbolically matters. As hesitant as I am to endorse the rhetoric of the boomerwaffen, I can't fault them for picking this battle and I think it's gaslighting honestly to call their discernment of a sexually-charged augmentation to a symbolically important community ritual involving children a "moral panic."

But if one supposes, just for the sake of argument, that there really was a concerted effort to exterminate them within living memory, one can surely see a motive for feeling this way that is not mere zeal to convert the heathens, no?

I don't question that the motive is sincere, similar to DasindustriesLtd's point. And although I do not believe the main big ticket items of the orthodox narrative are true, I do acknowledge it was a traumatic experience in which the Jews truly were at the complete mercy of non-Jews. They suffered for it and they do not want to be in that position again. I would go so far as to say even if some of them know the narrative is substantially false, they would still have that sincere motive to avoid what actually happened from ever happening again. As an example, Simon Wiesenthal is claimed to have been the progenitor of the deprecated claim that five million non-Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, but apparently Wiesenthal privately admitted that this was a lie to make non-Jews care about Jewish suffering. I don't doubt his motive, but I do acknowledge his willingness to lie in order to achieve his goals.

The entire problem is that the motivation for all this theater and religion is not contingent on historical truth. So your point only opens up the recognition of a genuine conflict of interest: Jews have a motive to propagate a message that promotes their own defense, even if parts of the narrative are substantially unture. An important part of the mechanism for ensuring their ethnic defense is weakening the ethnic defenses of non-Jews. You might consider that controversial, but this was basically the overt program of the critical theorists and psychoanalysts in their effort to cure Gentile psychopathology of the authoritarian personality. So we have a genuine conflict of interest in which historical truth is a lower priority than pursuit of cultural self-interest.

The problem with that sincere motivation, and the real reason anti-Semitism is so persistent- I would even say anti-fragile, is that the harder they fight against it the more they validate it and give it a greater force of truth and credibility. Let's say Dara Horn succeeds in mandating every child experiences some AI-powered VR/AR experience that is engineered to improve their perception of Jews. What rational person would deny at that point that the anti-Semites were right? Your average high-brow anti-Semite would blush to suggest that Jews will compel your children to consume AI-generated, Virtual Reality experiences to brainwash them into loving Jews. But this is being seriously proposed by Dara and some form of what she is suggesting will almost certainly be implemented as the lower-tech solutions are already being used on thousands of students every day.

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".

Grok not caring as much about "safety" (often aligning LLMs on cultural narratives) is a comparative advantage. It could be a real moat if Altman insists on running everything by all the usual suspects, the Expert Apparatus, for every release and Grok does not. There is evidence that RLHF degrades performance on certain benchmarks so if Grok does not align as aggressively it may help the model.

In reality, everything that the EU wants Durov to remove from Telegram is stuff Musk’s X already does remove and is happy to remove if a takedown notice is filed.

That's only if you take the EU and US at face value, that they are just really passionate about fighting pedophilia and terrorism, and don't assume that they are also trying to disrupt dissident political communication and organization. Which they obviously are. Musk made headlines just last month by claiming:

The European Commission offered 𝕏 an illegal secret deal: if we quietly censored speech without telling anyone, they would not fine us.

The other platforms accepted that deal.

𝕏 did not.

So the EU is obviously pressuring Musk to remove content which is not already removed, at least according to his perspective.

There has also been a lot in the news about the EU and US pressuring Musk:

Elon Musk is under renewed pressure from the US and EU over his ownership of Twitter, as regulators clamp down on the billionaire’s push to transform the social network into a freewheeling haven of free speech.

The European Commission on Wednesday threatened Musk with a ban unless Twitter abides by strict content moderation rules, as US Treasury secretary Janet Yellen indicated that Washington was reviewing his purchase of the social network.

The warning from Brussels came in a video call between Musk and Thierry Breton, the EU’s commissioner in charge of implementing the bloc’s digital rules, according to people with knowledge of the conversation.

Breton told Musk that Twitter must adhere to a checklist of rules, including ditching an “arbitrary” approach to reinstating banned users, pursuing disinformation “aggressively” and agreeing to an “extensive independent audit” of the platform by next year.

Musk is also a much, much harder target than Durov. They can't arrest him, but they probably can get away within giving X huge fines or banning it, and they have threatened to do both on many occasions since his acquisition of the platform.

The CEO of Rumble has fled Europe. Reminder that this is the "liberal free world."

So you have TikTok- forced divesture clearly going to be banned. Telegram, founder arrested. Rumble CEO has fled Europe. Musk is battling the NGOs and EU as well. This is not just about illegal content, it's about buckling down internet discourse for good.

It’s why a few swastika tattooed prison gang room temp IQ ‘grand dragon’ KKK-LARPers can be pushed to discredit large swathes of the far right with the public

It would be more like the if 'grand dragon' KKK-LARPers that have been used by ADL as a representation of "right-wing extremism" actually ran college campuses and elite institutions.

One of the very first red-pills for me was seeing ADL tout "higher extremism on the Right than the Left" but if you read the white paper, they would actually report things like "this guy murdered a prison guard during an escape, and he has a Swastika tattoo on his mug shot so this counts as right-wing violence." So the strategy was to misrepresent the opposition. But Zionists implementing these speech regulations banning criticisms of themselves and banning Holocaust revisionism are not misrepresenting Zionists, they are actually representing Zionists. It's not a matter of bad apples, it's a matter of them finally gaining ground in banning speech in the US where they have already achieved the same thing throughout Europe.

On a related note, Sweden is slated this month to outlaw Holocaust denial, joining the growing number of European nations. This sort of lawmaking is mostly recent across Europe.

Now if I were a student in Texas I would be liable to be expelled for my conclusions regarding the historicity of the alleged gas chambers, due to the use the "International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance" definition of antisemitism. Meaning Holocaust Revisionism is outlawed on Texas campuses, only formalizing an informal policy. I remember years ago making a post about the IHRA definition of antisemitism and people were skeptical it would be used as a vector for censorship in the United States, for Jews to try to achieve levels of censorship they have in Europe, but here we are.

People tend to overestimate the blowback caused by real censorship. What tends to happen is the outrage dies down, and then the act of censorship really does have a cooling effect that can be hard to measure or understand, and then it becomes "the new normal." It works, the "Streissand effect" is fake.

Candace Owens out at the Daily Wire

This is less than 24-hours after the ADL publicly attacked Candace, and Mediaite reports:

Owens’s departure comes after months of tensions between her and Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro over her promotion of various anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Her promotion of so-called antisemitic conspiracy theories has definitely been noticed on DR Twitter, and she's been engaged in public spats with a certain Rabbi Schmuley. So this isn't really a surprise, but it's a significant development that DR critiques of Zionism are making their way into Right-wing mainstream, as other rhetoric has in the past 10 years.

Candace is breaking from the Zionist right at the same time Tucker Carlson has turned heel on US support for Israel, and even Alex Jones who is notorious for his "the Chicoms are behind everything I love Judeo-Christian values" schtick - his willingness to humor every conspiracy theory to his audience except ZOG - yesterday accused Israel of Genocide.

I have a lot of criticisms of Nick Fuentes and his movement, but there has to be credit where it's due. I remember the Bush years, support for Israel was simply axiomatic and it was unthinkable for anybody to believe any differently. That has changed, and Zionism now faces a pincer movement of critique from both the Left and the Right, with the Right-wing critique of Zionism growing in influence among younger audiences.

Opposition to mass immigration is a mainstream Right idea at the population level; the idea that such opposition is evidence of being "far right" is Blue propaganda and always has been.

Conservatives frame their opposition to mass immigration within the exact same dialectic of this report! It's not about race, it's about jobs and wealth inequality and welfare and rule of law, 'they have to come legally!'. Conservatives are playing the exact same game as the writers of this report and the journalists reporting on it. It's no wonder their arguments have completely failed to prevent mass immigration and demographic change.

I also, on principal and because I have many non-white friends and family members, abhor white nationalism and antisemitism.

This is like saying you abhor Zionism because you have non-Jewish friends. You have non-white friends, so you don't think white people should retain any ethnic identity or advocate for it in any way? How does that make sense? Do you deny any other ethnic group its ability to advocate for its own interests because you have friends outside that ethnic group? I have non-Chinese friends so I abhor Chinese nationalism I guess... Would that make sense to you, or does this sort of logic only apply for white people?

"Being English has nothing to do with ethnicity", yes I would say that is the perspective of someone who has been brainwashed. How do you think such a prevailing opinion has come to be? Do you think if the culture were different then the public would have a different opinion?

Let's take this story from a few days ago: Anglo-Saxons aren’t real, Cambridge tells students in effort to fight ‘nationalism’

Cambridge is teaching students that Anglo-Saxons did not exist as a distinct ethnic group as part of efforts to undermine “myths of nationalism”...

Its teaching aims to “dismantle the basis of myths of nationalism” by explaining that the Anglo-Saxons were not a distinct ethnic group, according to information from the department.

The department’s approach also aims to show that there were never “coherent” Scottish, Irish and Welsh ethnic identities with ancient roots.

The increased focus on anti-racism comes amid a broader debate over the continued use of terms like “Anglo-Saxon”, with some in academia alleging that the ethnonym is used to support “racist” ideas of a native English identity.

Information provided by the Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic (ASNC) explains its approach to teaching, stating: “Several of the elements discussed above have been expanded to make ASNC teaching more anti-racist.

“One concern has been to address recent concerns over use of the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ and its perceived connection to ethnic/racial English identity.

“Other aspects of ASNC’s historical modules approach race and ethnicity with reference to the Scandinavian settlement that began in the ninth century.

“In general, ASNC teaching seeks to dismantle the basis of myths of nationalism - that there ever was a ‘British’, ‘English’, ‘Scottish’, ‘Welsh’ or ‘Irish’ people with a coherent and ancient ethnic identity - by showing students just how constructed and contingent these identities are and always have been.”

...

However, the term Anglo-Saxon has recently become embroiled in controversy, with some academics claiming that the term Anglo-Saxon has been used by racists – particularly in the US – to support the idea of an ancient white English identity, and should therefore be dropped.

Cambridge teaching its students that there are no English, Scottish, Irish, or Welsh ethnic identities could be considered brainwashing or education depending on your perspective. But whatever term you choose, the fact remains is that public opinion is indeed trained by these institutions.

These students, as learning agents, are being trained to believe that "being English has nothing to do with ethnicity", which is a complete lie from any reasonable perspective that would acknowledge the biological reality of an English ethnic identity. LLMs are fine-tuned by similar people with similar methods and for similar motives.

If these cultures and institutions rallied around a real history of English ethnic heritage which recognizes the Anglo-Saxons, public opinion would be very different, and public opinion was different when the narrative described in that article was the popular narrative.

You live in a different universe than I do if you think woke protests are going to be charged with felonies with hate crime enhancements. There is already a case, right now of protestors on a campus being charged with a felony for intimidation.

What do I mean when I say "Western Civilization"? I refer to the intellectual tradition that is essentially a marriage of middle eastern mysticism and classical Greek/Roman formalism.

When in history has a civilization ever referred to an intellectual tradition? Egypt? Rome? Greece? India? China? They all have had intellectual traditions that defined their consciousness, and those traditions were very different from ours such that we probably could not relate much to their way of thinking of the world.

But Civilization refers to a peoples, and that people's essence and continuity, prestige and hegemony.

Your notion that your own civilization was created and is defined by an idea and not a people is extremely particular and it doesn't generalize anywhere else in history. Is Chinese civilization "an idea?" Chinese intellectual tradition has been highly dynamic, and this serves to contrast the alt-right view with your own.

The alt-right view is essentially that Civilization is how I described it- it's built and maintained by a people, and if you replace those people with other people then you are a complete fool if you expect continuity in the spiritual essence of that civilization. History shows that never, ever happens.

It's the people that create the intellectual tradition, mostly a subset of highly influential intellectual and cultural leaders. In turn, the intellectual tradition over time directs the people towards a common end. It even forms them genetically over larger time horizons. This is the interaction between Civilization and intellectual tradition, but they are not equivalent.

In contrast, you seem to view civilization as a dogged commitment to an idea. The alt-right world view is clearly superior to the conservative worldview on this front.

The Progressivism we know today is only the newest mutation of that synthesis of semitic mysticism and Greek/Roman formalism. The alt-right is correct to view that intellectual tradition as something that should be rejected or moved beyond in order to save civilization or build a better one.

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.

falling victim to the same congenital failing that Western media had since maybe Kirk Douglas's Spartacus framed the man as a proto-abolitionist

It's not a congenital failing, it's an intelligent system working as designed. Kirk Douglas wasn't stupid- his goal was never to "reflect history", at least in the way you understand that term. He was creating Myth; he was creating stories that had consciously developed, esoteric messaging for intended audiences. In this way, he created a story about a Marxist (or crypto-Jewish) hero standing up to proto-Fascism:

Looking at these ruins, and at the Sphinx and the pyramids in Egypt, at the palaces in India, I wince. I see thousands and thousands of slaves carrying rocks, beaten, starved, crushed, dying. I identify with them. As it says in the Torah: ‘Slaves were we unto Egypt.’ I come from a race of slaves. That would have been my family, me’.

This messaging is also conveyed through Christian symbolism. Spartacus is crucified at the end, after prophesizing that the rebellion would one day overthrow Roman (i.e. European) dominance for good. This is not a failing, it's an exercise of an immensely powerful cultural influence through well-crafted Mythmaking that has audiences rooting for the slave rebellion and against Roman civilization.

That's not to say these myths are always well-crafted. Based on your review, Woman King seems less well-crafted than Spartacus, although it looks like it has a whopping 99% Audience Score in Rotten Tomatoes.

I left the movie wondering if this needed to be a culture war issue at all? Couldn't everyone just written it off as a silly, Braveheart-esque vision of history?

It's turtles all the way down. Mel Gibson's Braveheart is very different than what would have been Kirk Douglas's Braveheart. The stories we tell, and the messages we try to convey through our stories, are intrinsically part of the culture war. Even by consciously trying to avoid it, you are merely participating with a different strategy.

It's not simply an American phenomenon either. Famously, Jesus taught in parable. The Movie Theater is, in some ways, the modern day temple.

In short, white identitarianism is not a sustainable strategy for Republicans going forward.

Any party strategy is a combination of many constituent sub-strategies. The Democrat party heavily appeals to Black identitarianism but it would be wrong define that as their "strategy." Polling and survey data suggests that Latinos are even more sympathetic to white identitarianism than whites are. Appealing to it as part of a broader strategy seems unlikely to dissuade Latino voters. If anything they seem to like it.

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.

Debating the existence of racial IQ differences is boring because they so obviously exist. Now that we're allowed to talk about it, I find myself not really wanting to. There really is no legitimate debate.

It's funny how that works, 7 years ago I would have found a post like this cathartic for cutting through the gaslighting of the time and validating my taboo conclusions after reviewing the issue. But now that I've moved beyond any degree of uncertainty and impervious to the gaslighting from the mainstream consensus, these kind of posts just come across as tedious and passe. The time to contribute something interesting to discourse with your platform on this topic was 7 years ago, dude.

If they think it is genuinely worse when a Paki commits a crime than when a White does so, they should say so out loud

Isn't it worse because law enforcement and media are highly motivated to scrutinize i.e. the Catholic Church but those same institutions circle the wagons to protect Pakistanis from just legal and reputational punishment, all on the altar of Liberal Values?

Yes? Adding it as a comment to more of a roundup thread is less risky than a top-level thread, I received a 7-day ban for my last one.

The OP hewed pretty close to bare links, so I can’t really blame you for taking your own spin.

The thread is "Time for some links about breaking and not so breaking culture war news" and my reply is contributing to that.

When they recently attempted to crash a MAGA rally they got their asses kicked by the attendees. Not a particularly popular bunch even among the demographic they're trying to target for recruiting and persuasion.

Well, that's not Patriot Front in that video...

The X-Files captured a moment in time when conspiracy-theorizing was more bipartisan. Within the context of that content, the government and national leaders were mostly engaged in cover-up to hide the truth of the actual subject matter of those conspiracies, which were a giant nebulous "other." That stands in sharp contrast with today where the conspiracy-theories are much more niche, partisan, and point the finger at the government and real people rather than a fictional entity.

It seems quaint to think of a time when the biggest conspiracies a baby boomer would come across would be aliens, bigfoot, etc. I think part of the reason this stuff is given oxygen is because it harkens to a time when being a "conspiracy theorist" meant something completely different, and more benign, than it means today. Back then, that conspiracy mythos brought people together more than it pushed them apart, even people with different political beliefs could have a discussion about aliens or bigfoot. Now they just live in entirely different universes, and the "conspiracy theories" are that the other side is irredeemably evil.

I heard a quote awhile ago that was something like "be careful telling people they are Nazis, because one day they might believe you."

If every young white man who has a valid criticisms of the prevailing cultural dogma is pigeonholed into that classification, the author isn't doing himself any favors. It's true that Dissident Right talking points are increasingly being embraced by the mainstream conservative movement. Is that due to sadism, or is it maybe because the DR is getting at something real, and the perspective can no longer be ignored by the conservative talking heads?

Here's Matt Walsh a couple weeks ago:

Well, I'm concerned too. And my concern is this, that if you still have any confusion about what these diversity initiatives actually are, well, this should clear it up. Diversity absolutely means anti-white. That's what it means. All diversity initiatives are anti-white initiatives. Anytime you hear about any kind of diversity initiative anywhere, whether it's in government, in corporations, in any institution at all, it is an anti-white initiative. Diversity is an anti-white conspiracy. And you can clip that and cut it and post it on Twitter because I know you will, because that's what it is. And if you ever doubted it, well, here you go.

It would have been unthinkable for someone like Matt Walsh to say this even a few years ago. Matt isn't saying this because he's sadistic, he's saying it because the prevailing cultural dogma is actually pretty hostile to white people. Gaslighting people with "If you believe that you're a Nazi" has greatly contributed to the Nazi memes, I can guarantee you that.

But ultimately, the core of fascist subjectivity is the indulgence of sadistic feelings.

This is so uncharitable that it bears no resemblance to reality. Let's take a look at one of the many various compilation videos of Hitler's speeches that gets clicks from e-fascists. The fascist subjectivity here is not the indulgence of sadistic feelings. It invokes:

  • Feelings of revolutionary triumph from an undesirable status quo

  • Sense of community

  • Strong leader with a charismatic devotion to the people

  • Proposing the nation as inherited from a people

The author has no understanding whatsoever for why this propaganda is compelling to those people, and why there might be a lack of these elements in the present culture that does indeed explain Trump and the growing influence of the Dissident Right. But it's not due to sadism, it's due to very real deficiencies in the culture that do not provide for these human needs, so they are sought in heterodox and taboo spaces.

Edit: OP deleted the post, which was just a copy + paste of this article with no additional commentary.

Somehow I missed that Aaronson is at OpenAI. The idea that someone as neurotic as this is now helping steer the direction of OpenAI is unfortunately aligned with my mental model of their motives: "AI safety" is a euphemism for shtetl-optimized.