SecureSignals
No bio...
User ID: 853
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 tell the story of bodies. Memes tell the story of ideas.
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.
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
6d 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
7d 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
7d 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.
SecureSignals
10d ago
MAGAs must make up their minds about whom they dislike first.
Are you worried about demographic replacement, elite takeover or unintegrated criminals ?
This is just a non sequitur. We can walk and chew gum. Historically demographic replacement has been given even too much intention relative to elite takeover. Demographic replacement has already happened, not even in majority but near-totality, in elite Ivy institutions where the non-Jewish White population of the student body has been completely decimated even relative to their diminishing representation in the country. That doesn't mean we can't care about all of those things and pursue policy and advocacy to mitigate all of those at the same time.
The biggest issue with this policy is that these countries simply do not constitute the large majority of the foreign migration intake so it's symbolic, which is something. But it's not sufficient.
He used religious arguments to persuade Fuentes' followers that idpol is a dangerous idea
Yes, this has been the Conservative playbook for decades: say "ipdol is a dangerous idea" while White men are under the yoke of all other groups that defect from that ethos. Carlson didn't even engage Fuentes' response that Jews do not cooperate with that ethos, they say "idpol is a dangerous idea" for whites while they maintain intense identification with their heritage and organize collectively and internationally on the basis of their ethnic identity. Every Fuentes fan has heard "idpol is a dangerous idea" before, and all of them most likely believed it at some point. And then we see irrefutable proof of the consequences of Whites naively cooperating with that ethos while every single other group, Jews in particular, defect and use cultural and political power against us and in favor of themselves.
There's no honor in "gracefully losing" your country by clinging to a fundamentally broken and hostile demand to cooperate in a moral strategy that other groups have no intention whatsoever of following. If they demand you cooperate while they defect, they are just being adversarial against you and you aren't a Moral Person for accepting that.
SecureSignals
21d ago
If Chuck Schumer's resolution passes it would be the first time in US Senate history of such a condemnation of a private citizen for political views.
Young mostly white men are flocking to the extremes, both left but mostly right, because America sucks. Everything from the housing market, job market, education, media, domestic and foreign policy. It's all anti-white. It's all anti-male. What exactly does anyone expect young white men to do? What confident identity is even available to young white men?
The foremost appeal is the force of truth. If you watch Nick's monologue, his criticisms are true. They are rational arguments, and they are anti-fragile in the sense the backlash they provoke strengthens their currency. It's not just due to the housing market, job market, anti-white Culture. It's due to the very real cultural criticism of Jews that Nick gives which nobody else has been willing to say. Jews themselves incessantly criticize White culture and identity through all mediums and institutions they control. And then they become apoplectic when a White man fires back with truthful criticism of Jewish identity and culture.
One thing I have never seen from any of the Jews weighing in on the Tuckercaust is an acknowledgement of the arguments Fuentes is making. They grasp for some other explanation for Fuentes' popularity, but they never restate the arguments Nick makes in that monologue for example and engage them. They simply pathologize the individuals who are being influenced by these arguments. It's why Shapiro would never debate Fuentes. If Fuentes laid out his argument as clearly as he does in this monologue, what would Shapiro even say?
The only path forward would be for Jews to acknowledge the truth of Fuentes' arguments and make genuine efforts to reconcile. They are incapable of that, which is why cancellation and pathologizing the "anti-semites" is their only reaction to this Cultural Criticism going mainstream and it's not going to work.
We've collectively memory-holed the anthrax attack on the US in the days after 9/11, which at the the time was a major reason for the WMD claim:
The 2001 Anthrax Attacks were a critical factor in the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) claims that sparked the Iraq War. Despite its significance, little systematic work has been done regarding the topic. Existing studies primarily focus on the role of the Military Industrial Complex and intelligence failures as the primary explanations for the origins of the Iraq War. These explanations are limited, as they rely on hindsight biases. This thesis contends that anthrax was the catalyst for WMD claims that sparked the Iraq War. The 2001 Anthrax Attacks reinforced the belief that Iraq harbored WMDs and posed a threat to the U.S. These attacks have often been overshadowed by the 9/11 tragedy and the inability to find WMDs in Iraq. This thesis finds that the Bush Administration viewed these attacks as a significant threat to the U.S. They seized the opportunity that the 2001 Anthrax Attacks presented to formulate WMD allegations and present Iraq as an imminent threat when a direct link between 9/11 and Iraq couldn't be established.
So why were the anthrax attacks tied to Iraq? There were intelligence reports that a 9/11 hijacker was supplied with anthrax by Al-Qaeda at a meeting at the Iraqi consulate in Prague. Never happened, he was never even in Prague at this time. Yet Dick Cheney repeated the allegation as the nation prepared for war with Iraq:
It's been pretty well confirmed that (Atta) did go to Prague, and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in (the Czech Republic) last April, several months before the attack.
Ostensibly the source for this lie was Czech intelligence. But LATimes reported something different back in October 2001:
Atta, an Egyptian, is suspected of flying one of the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. Iraq has vehemently denied any connection to the attacks and has said that Atta and Ani never met....
“This meeting did not take place,” Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tarik Aziz told The Times in Baghdad last week. “It is a lie. We checked with him: ‘Did you ever meet somebody called Atta?’ ” ...
Israeli intelligence officials also reportedly have been pushing the possibility of an Iraqi connection to the terrorist attacks. It could be in Israel’s security interests to see the U.S. take a more aggressive stance against Iraq.
Germany’s mass-circulation Bild newspaper Thursday quoted unidentified Israeli intelligence sources as saying Atta received anthrax spores from Iraqi agents in Prague.
But a U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on condition that he not be further identified, said Friday that Washington has found no evidence indicating that Iraq had provided anthrax to Atta or that Iraq is involved in the bioterrorism attacks.
This is October 27th 2001, less than 2 months after 9/11. Lies about Iraqi WMDs and Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection less than two months after the attack.
Yes, the WMDs were lies manufactured by people with an interest in having the US overthrow Saddam. There is no other reason for a fabrication like this. They lied about WMDs they were not mistaken. Or at least, the key provocateurs lied and traitors like Dick Cheney were just duped. But that's not being "mistaken" that's being lied to at best or at worst knowingly perpetuating the lie as a false pretext for war.
By the way, the consensus is now that the origin of the Anthrax spores was not Iraq, it was from a specific batch of the "Ames" strain that originated from a U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. But in October 2001 we have these intelligence reports claiming it was supplied by Iraq. Really makes you think...
SecureSignals
1mo ago
This meta of mining disparate, single-sentences from the history of someone's life is so annoying in every context. "Look at these sentences the person said!" It's a post-2020 phenomenon and it's extremely annoying, but that's probably why you posted it.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
You are right to perceive Fuentes shifting significantly in that direction, even well before the Kirk assassination, but I don't see it as a moderation. It's influence from Richard Spencerism. People also think Spencer moderated since 2016 but if you actually critically analyze his perspective, it remains among the most radical on the DR. Richard didn't moderate at all, he took the failures of the 2016 Alt Right and developed a new perspective on what ought to be the political aspirations of a radical movement. Fuentes has been heavily influenced in that direction.
The 2016 Alt-Right was a collection of memes, at most you could say the political aspirations were to "keep America majority (or all) White." Well that simply isn't possible, demographic change is baked in the cake. Do White people even need to have a majority to thrive? No, they do not, as Richard has been saying for years "Aryans are a global people" and always have been, the aspiration should not be to build an all-white neighborhood in rural Arkansas it should be pan-Aryan Imperium. And recently Fuentes has essentially adopted this same position, saying the political aspiration is ultimately a "New Rome", which is a pivot from "we just want to live in an all-white country" but not something I would say is moderation. It's actually what I have long-said should be the political objective of a white-identitarian global movement.
And by that analysis, it's myopic to blame subversive Jews purely for the development of multiculturalism; multiculturalism emerged as a managerial tact for maintaining global Empire, especially in the face of the Soviet threat which could capitalize on discontent from marginalized groups. Fuentes cited this directly in the Carlson interview as well.
Building and managing a global Empire does fundamentally require the cooperation and allegiance of non-white groups. Yes I think some Groypers will be made discontent by the overtures towards non-Whites, but that has always been a quirk of Fuentes with this fandom of rap and Kanye West. People joke all the time about how so many Groypers are non-white, but they don't stop to consider how many die-hard Jewish nationalists are non-Jewish themselves (AKA the entire Conservative movement... until now). The fact that there does seem to be an affinity among non-Whites for White Identitarianism is something to be capitalized on, not something to be rejected, as I said 9 months ago here:
The title "White Advocacy Is for All of Us" is an interesting one, but an Inclusive White Nationalist movement is not as contradictory as it sounds. Think of how strong the support of non-Jews is for Jewish nationalism- Zionism is for Everyone. The cultural and political levers that have accomplished that feat are available to White people as well if they learn how to use them.
And this pivot also doesn't represent much of a moderation on the JQ. Fuentes still maintains that the organized, international Jewish community is collectively responsible for the hostility towards White people deeply embedded in our Culture, and that their animus is motivated by their Jewish identities. That's always been the crucial insight of the "JQ", and Fuentes directly named Jewish identity as an obstacle to America First in his interview with Carlson.
Fuentes is accepting the reality that Global Empire is ultimately an operation that requires cooperation from non-whites, but at the same time we cannot accept the incessant hostility and subversion of White people by current management. That still has to be confronted, and it is being confronted at an effectiveness nobody in the DR really thought possible even optimistically. Enlisting non-Whites, but on vastly different terms than the cultural status quo with respect to the status of non-whites relative to whites, is more of an intelligent and strategic development than it is a moderation.
I think even Fuentes would accept Jews as Allies, as long as they are held to as high a standard of cooperation as Jews enforce on their their non-Jewish Allies.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
Hanania sold at the bottom of the DR and bought in at the top of "with Zionism you win" submission.
The Tucker/Fuentes interview is about to hit 17m views, compared to Tucker's 1.5-2m view recent episodes I checked. Heritage Foundation is definitely bending the knee.
Nick Fuentes is being strategic. The biggest "threat" to the Dissident Right movement is that the Conservative movement integrates these highly credible criticisms, which until now have only come from the DR at great expense and persecution to those who have been making this argument for years (and that's not to take credit from those like Pat Buchanan who have been doing this for decades longer). But at this point it's fair to say the DR is becoming mainstream with the Heritage foundation video being at least as relevant of a signal to that fact as the Fuentes/Carlson interview itself.
I say Fuentes is being strategic because Fuentes is obviously moderating himself recently to ensure he and his movement are included in this integration of these, until now, radical arguments which are going mainstream.
But the Coup de grâce is not merely shedding light on Dual Loyalty and foreign subversion, but to force that same apparatus to confront its sheer hypocrisy when it comes to White Identity versus Jewish Identity. Until now those like Ben Shapiro - "I don't care about the browning of America" and Mark Levin just operate in the zone of this sheer hypocrisy as they have since the 1920s, just dismissing anyone who gives this criticism of their behavior as a crazed antisemite. That's not going to work any more, the cat is out of the bag. The more they double down on that position the more strength they give the underlying criticism that's going mainstream.
Edit: One thing I want to emphasize is the content of the Heritage Foundation's statement:
Christians can critique the state of Israel without being antisemitic. And of course, antisemitism should be condemned. My loyalty as a Christian and as an American is to Christ first and to America always. When it serves the interests of the United States to cooperate with Israel and other Allies, we should do so with partnerships on security, intelligence and technology. But when it doesn't, Conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class or from their mouthpieces in Washington.
That is a very significant statement.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
The majority of them would rather live and operate here, and support and display loyalty to that country from here and not there. And exercise power here for the benefit of that foreign country. They want it both ways. Obviously I would be very happy for the development if it not were for the subversive loyalty to that foreign state at every institutional level of our culture. If they all went to Israel that would be one thing.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
If it is sustainable over generations then no
It's always been a feature of European culture. In 5th-century BC Athens, laws mandated that sons provide fathers with food, care, housing, and protection and they lost citizenship as a penalty if they failed to provide. If Elder care is not sustainable then it's a societal failure. A foreign diaspora harming the host nation is a much different kind of dynamic than elder care.
It's not at all a distant issue, the concept of social relations between races of people being characterized as "parasitism" originated with Jewish/Gentile cohabitation. That characterization of that as a foreign guest/host relationship originated at least with Marin Luther's writings but the concrete association goes back to the 18th century, i.e. the Enlightenment philosopher Johann Herder (1791):
The people of God, to whom heaven itself once gave its fatherland, has been a parasitic plant on the tribes of other nations for millennia, almost since its creation; a race of clever negotiators almost all over the world who, despite all oppression, long nowhere for their own honour and home, nowhere for a fatherland.
But I pointed to a more concrete example of Dreamers or in the general sense mass third world migration, foreign diasporas who deman some right to access to the United States and Europe and massive political, economic, and cultural concessions. Nor is the concept of aggressive mimicry only limited to that historical relationship, I have indirectly accused you of engaging in that behavior by appealing to concepts like "fair competition" that appeal to Whites but are just empty words you use to try to justify your presence among us. You only signal those values in order to obfuscate the threat of genetic replacement from the third world by making it some natural outcome of "fairness", i.e. signaling values you know we have an affinity for, but for an aggressive purpose.
Other examples of mimicry would be Kash Patel's humorous attempts to appeal to White culture, which very often become that Inglorious Bastards three-fingers meme.
Parasitism, stripped of the morally-loaded connotation, is ultimately a classification of a symbiotic relationship between different species of organisms. The notion that symbiosis is an extremely widely-observed behavioral pattern in the Animal Kingdom, but for some reasons human relations can never be understood like that, is an artifact of political correctness. As far as the question over when is it appropriate to refer to someone as a parasite, you can say almost never. But when is it appropriate to understand relations between races of people as symbiotic, the answer is almost always. Take something like the behavior observed in the Animal Kingdom we call aggressive mimicry:
Aggressive mimicry is a form of mimicry in which predators, parasites, or parasitoids share similar signals, using a harmless model, allowing them to avoid being correctly identified by their prey or host. Zoologists have repeatedly compared this strategy to a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Foreign races of people establishing themselves in a host society- their identity, cultural signals, political influence, is unequivocally a symbiosis, its mere existence is derived from its interaction with its host.
But is in-group elderly care a parasitic relationship? The Elders of a society are typically the ancestors of the descendants investing in their care, so describing that as parasitism would not really conform with that classification of relationship observed ecologically. The impetus for elder care has in-group evolutionary advantages that explain its existence.
Take a racial and cultural identity like black. It exists purely in symbiosis with a host society. It depends on the host society for everything. It only exists relative to its host society. Without its host, it would not exist. Same with "Dreamers", foreigners who embed themselves in a host society. "Dreamers" only exist because of the long-term interaction between foreigners and their host body. That is a symbiotic relationship, in contrast with elderly care.
There are clearly non-parasitic symbiotic relationships. "Chimerica" is a symbiosis between America and China but one that is mutually beneficial. But when foreigners embed themselves in a host and demand all sorts of political, cultural, and economic concessions that harm the host Nation, it's valuable to understand that as parasitism, in order to properly understand the nature of the threat, even if it's not constructive to call anyone a parasite.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
For this specific search? Of course it's small. But for generating, in the future, images, TV shows, and Movies I think a lot of users will be clamoring to generate content that violates the cultural bounds established by OpenAI.
OpenAI also just declared they aren't permitting any videos to be generated of Martin Luther King, because users were making "disrespectful" images of him. There's definitely a market there.
AI Browsers- an extension of what Google is already doing
An X user, using the new OpenAI browser, gave a simple search query to "look up videos of Hitler" and the web browser gave this response:
I can't browse or display videos of Adolf Hitler, since footage of him and Nazi propaganda are tightly restricted for ethical and legal reasons. However, if what you're after is historical context, I can point you toward legitimate archives and documentaries that use such footage responsibly
Of course these same guardrails are deeply embedded in all layers of the OpenAI stack. For example, Sora will restrict what videos it generates based on the cultural beliefs of its owners for what content should exist and what content should not exist. Which is already what Hollywood does in a sense. And of course Google will do the same quietly, it will not show propaganda films of Hitler either. Google will show results for Triumph of the Will along with links to the US Holocaust Museum's contextualizing Nazi propaganda to users. So that's at least more useful than OpenAI browser's refusal to do the search.
The First Amendment has always been the biggest hurdle for the usual suspect "Hate Watch" groups outlawing "hate speech", although they continue to try to push the boundaries of civil and criminal guidelines for it especially in states like Florida. But Laws will scarcely be necessary when censorship can easily be enforced by AI.
It does create a market opportunity for another AI, maybe even Musk himself, to create and show content that OpenAI would refuse to show because it runs awry of what censors want us to see and talk about.
Similar: OpenAI refuses to translate speech by Adolf Hitler. But it says "I can give you a netural historical summary of what he was saying in that particular 1938 Sudetentland speech."
SecureSignals
2mo ago
I'm not on Instagram, but YouTube has very thoroughly banned all right-wing content creators I would consider to be "anti-Semitic" even without posting that content on YouTube. Keith Woods recently had his YouTube account which had been running for years banned with 0 strikes because MediaMatters ran a piece on him calling him an anti-Semite. Same with Richard Spencer, Nick Fuentes has been banned although he of course did actually post anti-semitic content. American Renaissance/Jared Taylor is banned despite Taylor famously never engaging in anti-semitism. It's a totally closed platform for anti-Semitism and right-wing content altogether, although I'm assuming you call opposition to Israel's war "anti-Semitism", which comes frequently from the left, and presumably YouTube allows that to some degree. The only anti-semitism I've seen out of YouTube has come from the left wing as the right wing has all long-been totally banned.
TikTok as a Weapon of War
When the TikTok forced divesture was passed over a year ago, after failing to gain sufficient support in earlier efforts, it was immediately clear to me that alarmism over Chinese ownership of the algorithm was only a pretext obscuring the political forces that actually dictated the sale: the Jewish lobby induced Congress to act in order to transfer TikTok to a new owner who would censor and manipulate the content algorithm of TikTok to be in favor of Israel and the Jewish people. This certainly wasn't a leap, there were secret recordings of Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL saying that something has to be done about TikTok. And then hundreds of Jewish groups lobby for the forced divesture, and then it happens in a highly divided Congress, with some lawmakers explicitly citing this pressure as being decisive in securing support for this legislation that had previously failed.
Still, @2rafa disputed that characterization of the forced TikTok divesture. But now that the dust is settling we can review what has happened:
TikTok and its algorithm is now essentially under the control of Zionist Jew Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, who has been described as the largest private donor to the IDF (FWIW I could not find any evidence Ellison has given private donations to the US military). Ellison's son, David Ellison, acquired CBS news last month which is reportedly going to hire Bari Weiss to manage the editorial direction of the organization:
As part of the deal, I am told David plans to give Bari a role at CBS News that would, among other things, task his fellow Millennial with guiding the editorial direction of the division. Bari’s avowedly pro-Israel and anti-woke worldview—not to mention her broadly shit-kicking anti-establishment disposition—would inevitably inspire blowback from various corners of the newsroom, and could dramatically change the editorial posture and reputation of one of the most storied, and certainly self-important, institutions in American journalism. For David, that’s likely part of the point.
TikTok's algorithm, which is now under the control of Ellison, will be audited and retrained. But the significant reforms to content moderation on TikTok are already well underway, in July a Jewish Zionist and former IDF solider Erica Mindel was hired for the position of "Public Policy Manager, Hate Speech":
The position involves developing and driving the company’s positions on hate speech, according to the job description...
It also involves “spearheading long-term policy strategies” regarding hate speech, monitoring online content, and advocating for the company’s policy stances. It specifically states that the position involves “serving as a subject matter expert on antisemitism and hate speech in internal and external meetings” and “analyzing hate speech trends, focusing on antisemitic content.”
Netanyahu on the TikTok acquisition
Most remarkably, in a focus group session with American social media influencers last Friday in New York, Benjamin Netanyahu himself simply admitted that the acquisition of TikTok was the most important development in enabling Israel to wield social media as a weapon of war:
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu briefed American influencers on TikTok, calling it the “most important” weapon in securing support for Israel on the right-wing.
He went on to say, “Weapons change over time... the most important ones are the social media,” and, “the most important purchase that is going on right now is TikTok... I hope it goes through because it can be consequential."
Near the end of the clip Netanyahu says "if we can get those two things [TikTok and X] we can get a lot... we have to fight the fight. To take, give direction, to the Jewish people, and give direction to our non-Jewish friends or those who could be our Jewish friends.
What's astonishing is that they are now simply admitting what they are doing openly. They aren't even hiding it. When Netanyahu discusses social media as a weapon of war, the war he is referring to is not against Hamas, it is against us and our access to free public discourse, the information we receive in news media and content algorithms, and the propaganda we're exposed to on a daily basis.
Last year in 2024 a major scandal in alternative media erupted with the investigation into two Russian media executives from Tenet Media, in a $10 million scheme to illegally fund Tenet Media and influence it to promote Russian propaganda. And certainly this is a major problem. But this Russian propaganda campaign does not even remotely reach the levels of deeply-embedded foreign influence in American news and social media in comparison to Zionist influence.
Larry Ellison is a foreign agent. David Ellison is a foreign agent. Jared Kushner is a foreign agent. This enormous level of foreign influence in our information stream is a huge problem, and it's not limited to Netanyahu and Israel. It's endemic to the entire international Jewish community across the entire world. The level of support among the Jewish community for this foreign influence deeply embedded in our society is extremely high and the opposition is basically non-existent. The extremely small number of what 2rafa calls "self-hating Jews" who acknowledge what is happening and oppose it are outliers. The rest either actively support it or deny the problem, citing "anti-semitic conspiracy theories" about Jews controlling the media and wielding it as a weapon of war against the minds of the gentiles. And yet Netanyahu, a foreign leader, travels to New York and simply admits what they are doing. Russian or Chinese nationalists engaging in this behavior would be wildly intolerable, but Jewish nationalists are systematically engaging in this behavior with total impunity.
Netanyahu's meeting with the social media influencers seems to foreshadow more pressure on X, now that the TikTok problem is being solved according to Netanyahu.
Your culture provides no reciprocity, you advocate for competition because where you come from has nothing to offer us. You appeal to the spirit of competition in order to manipulate us into allowing you into our society. I just don't want to live with you; I don't want you in my neighborhood. I don't want to compete with you- I don't want my children to compete with you. I just don't want you around. You only care about competition because you only get upside from that arrangement, you have nothing at stake. I have my neighborhood at stake, and much more than that from the prospect of allowing millions of Indians to live with me "because competition."
SecureSignals
3mo ago
I don't think he literally believes in Valhalla either. I think it went something like this: he wanted to eulogize Kirk, but invoking heaven would be weird since that's not what Hindus believe. At the same time he doesn't want to invoke Hindu thought on the afterlife because that would also be weird. So he resorts to a third option, referencing Valhalla which is indeed a common enough reference for people joking around/larping but is uncommon in a eulogy for a devout Protestant and would be considered in poor taste by Protestants in general.
SecureSignals
3mo ago
One commonality among essentially all immigrants to the United States has been an Abrahamic faith, or at least little to no expression of religious faith outside the Abrahamic sphere among political and cultural elite. This has a useful function of allowing everyone to appeal to God and they are essentially appealing to the same figure- smoothing over religious differences and providing a point of reference for authority. The mass immigration of Hindus, on the other hand, sticks out like a sore thumb. When a Hindu appeals to God on the RNC stage I have no idea what he means. But also when a Hindu (Kash Patel) tells a Protestant (Charlie Kirk) "I’ll see you in Valhalla" it is somehow even more incoherent.
How can/should Hindus appeal to the divine and the afterlife in public pleasantries like this? Should they invoke their own religious mythos? Or should they just appeal to "God" even though they are not talking about the same literary figure(s) as everyone else? Should/are they all going to convert to Christianity? Seems unlikely. They should probably just avoid this trap altogether although that's difficult to do for a Conservative constituency.
When Piers asked Fuentes what he liked about America, one of Nick's answers was that he liked that America was a pan-European experiment in which a European empire was built that overcame the petty nationalisms from the European continent. It's one thing I like about it too. What do you think Teddy Roosevelt would say about demographic change in the United States?
One of Roosevelt's closest allies in the conservationist movement was Madison Grant, one of the key political leaders behind the extremely restrictionist Immigration Act of 1942. Roosevelt gave a positive view of Grant's The Passing of the Great Race and implored women to have white babies to avert "race suicide" in a speech to the National Congress of Mothers in 1905. Today Roosevelt is regarded as a racist and white supremacist.
The racialist right has a far greater claim as successors to Roosevelt's view on race and including the quote you put there, from the perspective of America as a pan-European experiment and imperial project. That was Roosevelt's view, and he certainly viewed the world in terms of race.
I feel like this is bait, because there are quite a few Americans who this denunciation would apply to today. And it's not Nick Fuentes, who is the one causing scandal by essentially restating these words today.
More options
Context Copy link