domain:betonit.substack.com
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
21hr ago
That's a cool castle, the crenellations echo the traditional design elements of medieval European castles, yet the building's relatively small scale and the integration of modern features such as large windows betray it's a modern reinterpretation rather than a historical fortification.
curious_straight_ca
18hr ago
I'm pretty sure you're the guy who's ban evaded ten times. Also, wasn't VDARE in the process of being shut down by the NY AG or something?
Law and institutions are passed down as the patrimony of a specific people, and work only for that people
I really doubt that different races have different tendencies towards specific kinds of political or legal institutions. Asians and Jews seem to adapt perfectly fine (as well as anyone else) to liberalism in the US, and whites have presided over a vast design space of political entities over the past few thousand years. And, not confident, I'd expect the non-IQ differences that you'd find between populations to, even if somehow they're important enough to care about race mixing, not look like differences in grand concepts like 'freedom vs authoritarianism'. Because the political thought and organizational complexity involved in such grand concepts is just large, and there's a huge space in between that and the low-level psychological differences you might see between populations. (Compare to, for instance, the hypothetical nebulous tendency among Jews to intellectually or morally subvert their host countries - that's rather questionable for object-level reasons, but you could see differences in psychological instincts leading to that in a way that it wouldn't lead to "asians cant do freedom and democracy"). Individuals that are intelligent enough will, whatever their instincts, try to understand and work within the environment around them, and that together with really basic human instincts is most of what you need to exist within capitalism, or liberalism, or whatever else. As an analogy, in the history of every human population you can find things that clearly resemble religion, and despite whatever differences exist today the smartest people of every race find their way to atheism.
OliveTapenade
17hr ago
This reads like just reposting a news or summary article.
Do you have an original comment or thought, or question to ask?
doantkq
22hr ago
Last month, VDARE held its annual conference at the Samuel Taylor Suit Cottage, a beautiful castle constructed after the Civil War and recently purchased by the organization. VDARE is currently the subject of a lawsuit over its purchase of said castle.
For those unfamiliar, VDARE has been the leading anti-immigration outlet for the far right for roughly two decades. Historically, the website focused almost exclusively on immigration and "demographic replacement", with "race realism" and related topics (i.e., crime by African Americans) serving an ancillary function. This can be contrasted with Jared Taylor's American Renaissance, a publication more focused on American race issues. Unlike much of the far right, neither group takes an explicitly anti-Jewish stance, though VDARE has occasionally reposted or hosted antisemitic writers from Unz.
Given the growing influence of the alt-right/dissident right/whatever you want to call them into the conservative mainstream, I thought it might be helpful to summarise some of the speeches from the conference. This is taken from this article, which you can just read yourself.
An ever present personality at white nationalist adjacent events, Jared Taylor lamented the abolishment of confederate monuments:
our black secretary of defense ordered every trace of the Confederacy eradicated from federal land. We now know that President William McKinley and others of his generation who honored the valor and the sacrifice of Confederate soldiers were morally stunted. They didn’t have the exquisite ethical sensibilities of Lloyd Austin and Charles Schumer. . . . In our era there are many things that infuriate me, but of the most infuriating is the worms who don’t deserve to black the boots of a Confederate general prancing and howling and posing as their moral superiors.
Harrison Smith of Infowars, in appropriately conspiratorial fashion, said that policies of “infinite immigration forever” are meant to make opposition to technocratic power impossible. He suggested, for example, that one reason no one tries to impose “refugees” or antipollution measures on China — the world’s biggest polluter — is that the Chinese are already under effective control and threaten neither their own regime nor the ambitions of the World Economic Forum. The white population of the West, on the other hand, has “a heritage of resistance to tyranny,” which makes us the greatest threat to globalists’ plans. This is why they want “the destruction of whiteness,” where “whiteness” is defined as the European virtues of self-sufficiency, hard work, the nuclear family, and free expression.
Keith Woods, an antisemitic personality who has gained a large following on Twitter, also talked about the importance of immigration, pointing out that
immigration is “the queen of the battlefield,” meaning that if we lose on it, we lose on all other issues. There are people who disagree with us on immigration but who care about free speech and European traditions; they fail to understand that these things cannot be preserved unless we stop mass immigration.
James Kirkpatrick summarised the tenor of the conference best in his remarks:
One of the reasons we are so angry at what is being done to our country is that we see our patriotism — a kind of faith in our nation as something greater than the sum of its parts — being squandered and exploited. Cynics and sociopaths are rewarded, while those who have kept the faith are the first to be betrayed. If this keeps up, faith dies. Enormous sacrifices have been made for America and the other nations of the West, and people are now forced to ask what it was all for. The soldiers of World War II would never have laid down their lives for multiculturalism, but that is what they got.
A common enemy, however, may be an even stronger political advantage than a common faith. Democrats have a useful common enemy: white people. Republicans lose because they pretend not to have any enemies.
The current split on the Left about Israel is over the question of whether Israelis are white: both sides are our opponents. Republicans hoping to make political hay by denouncing anti-Semitism are wasting their time. We don’t need to take sides in this internal leftist fight, but to take our side, something no Republican seems able to understand.
Immigration is the issue that can unite us. Claims that immigration is good for us or for the economy quickly collapse, and yield to admissions that, yes, it is bad for us, but that is good because we deserve to be punished. Meanwhile, 45 percent of Hispanics and 42 percent of Democrats support mass deportation. It takes tremendous Republican stupidity to fail to take advantage of this changing mood.
Mr. Hood asked: What matters more than nationality and citizenship — what matters when you are trying to get into a school, get a job, when you are confronted on the street? Race. This is certainly what our rulers believe. Politics is largely biological, and biology is our human hardware; religion and ideology are software. Law and institutions are passed down as the patrimony of a specific people, and work only for that people.
When Americans see Mexican demonstrators cursing them, waving Mexican flags, and celebrating the end of white America, it no longer matters what Republicans wants them to think. They see that the real issue is us vs. them. The visceral sense of identity they are forced to feel will rally our people for the struggle.
Amadan
"I would put a screwdriver through your eyeballs if I could"
10hr ago
But gosh golly gee whiz, I thought he was impartially banned not for the content of his existing posts but for failing to post upon a wide enough variety of subjects
That is correct. He was told to occasionally do something other than Joo-post. You thinking it's some gotcha that @self_made_human likes colorful mod notes is in character, since last time this came up, you made quite a deal out of it.
Because I figure we're about halfway to the point where "just post a youtube video about goat noises or something" suddenly becomes "ackshually we have to feel like they're good posts with sufficient effort" or whatever.
Yes, if we tell you to stop single-issue posting and you take @somedude's advice to spam threads with ChatGPT posts and YouTube videos about goat noises, you will get banned. When we ask people to do something or not do something, the intent is to improve discourse. The rules are not a legal contract where you can "get away" with shitting on their intent as long as you argue that you teeeeechnically (insert nasal whine here) followed the letter of them.
Also, keep golly-gee-whizzing me because you cannot contain your animosity if you would like to further test our catch-all "Being egregiously obnoxious" rule. You have a track record already of basically telling people that you think the rules are meant to be shat upon because you don't like the moderation here. You created this account just because you had a hate-boner for Hlynka. You're clearly a long-time member/alt with a grudge, and you only have been given this much latitude because we are so tolerant, even of haters who want nothing more than to shit on us. But that tolerance is not unlimited.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
21hr ago
That's great to hear! It seems like ChatGPT consistently recognizes and highlights the architectural and aesthetic qualities of the castle.
SteveKirkland
21hr ago
Good lads, and the viciousness with which the New York Democrat machine is attacking them is evidence that they're registering as a threat. That legal saga is worth a post in itself if nobody's covered it yet.
self_made_human
Kai su, teknon?
10hr ago
Errr.. I didn't actually realize that was publicly visible. I was trying to put that in the internal mod log, and levity is one way of handling that job, which can be thankless at times. It was more of a joke than anything else, I genuinely do not have a strong opinion on the matter.
It's right below. Given that nobody pays me for the job, an in-joke suffices.
I'm not the strongest advocate against single-issue posting. My usual approach is to simply minimize the thread, since I make it a point not to block anyone at all, no matter how odious/tedious they might be, and quite a few people are more so than SS. However, as a moderator, I do my best to follow the guidelines I signed up to enforce, and being neutral on SIP means I don't particularly care either way.
Is he SIPing and scaring the hoes? Seems obviously true to me. We probably have the highest tolerance for witches around, but we want multiple kinds, not just someone making this particular cauldron their bandwagon.
Is that against the rules as written? Yes. As interpreted by someone who doesn't have strong feelings either way too? It was.
I suppose I can't get away with "just following orders" can I? Though this is tangentially in favor of the Jews.
Because I figure we're about halfway to the point where "just post a youtube video about goat noises or something" suddenly becomes "ackshually we have to feel like they're good posts with sufficient effort" or whatever.
Demands for effort are maximal on top level posts in the CWR thread, or standalone posts on the front page.
I would presume funny goat noises belong in the Friday Fun Thread, and I haven't seen anyone get policed for lack of effort there.
SteveKirkland
3hr ago
Having lab-grown meat available as an option does not force anyone to eat it, and it doesn't take away traditional options
It literally does, they literally say that's the goal, I am literally looking at a half-million dollar federal grant right now that talks about using vat meat to "disrupt traditional livestock production in a just and equitable manner" https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_20196702329856_12H3/
I hate lies so much. People telling low effort, stupid lies right to your face and sneering at you for daring to point out they're lying, it makes me so angry I feel like throwing up and smashing things.
Why do you do it? It can't be strategic because the strategy is stupid and ineffective. Do you just enjoy the feeling of gaslighting people? Fucking stop it, because it's poison.
MartianNight
8hr ago
I'm just trying to pin down the argument here. If the argument is “the government should ban unhealthy foods in the interest of public health” that's a position that's easy to understand, whether you agree with it or not, but adopting it would imply banning a bunch of traditional foods too.
If the argument is “the government should ban unhealthy foods, but only if they are new” then the logic is less clear: why does it matter if an unhealthy food is new or not? You should be able to defend the “only if they are new” qualifier, unless your real motivation is something different (e.g. irrational hatred of lab-grown meats or the people who advocate for them).
(Note that all of this assumes that lab grown meat is unhealthy as a given, which I certainly don't believe in the strict sense, though I will concede there is some unknown risk associated with it.)
doantkq
21hr ago
Interestingly, I got a very similar description of the castle when I asked ChatGPT to describe it.
WhiningCoil
6hr ago
Let me make my argument absolutely clear then.
The failure of the government to ban some subset of unhealthy foods does not prevent the government from banning other unhealthy foods. The fact that the government has failed to ban trans fats, refined sugar, etc, etc, etc is not an argument that the government should not ban lab grown meat. Making that argument is taking a government that sucks, and claiming it needs to suck more. It's claiming that because the government has done the wrong thing before, it's not allowed to do the right thing now. That's a silly argument.
OP reads like it's criticizing the substance of therapy, as opposed to the standards of the self-regulating body. It might be a problem, but it doesn't fit into OP's narrative claim well. Anyway this is uninformed speculation, but therapists self-regulating to that extent seems much harder than medical doctors. Medicine exists in an institutional context, there are clear guidelines, obvious standards of harm, clear records of symptoms and treatments, and institutions that can keep those records and have processes for reviewing potential misconduct. Whereas a therapist individually meets with their clients one on one, interactions are private, and any investigation of misconduct would finely depend on the facts of personal relationships. Who would even start the process in this case, when the client and therapist are both happy?
</speculation>, Looking at official procedures reddit threads, it looks like therapists sometimes do lose their licenses, but the attitude in the thread seems to be that the process isn't great and many who lost their licenses for good reasons seem to earn them back, and the offenses are generally significantly worse than providing bad advice, mostly crimes or having sex with clients.
Crowstep
16hr ago
while promoting multiculturalism everywhere else
Do you have any evidence of this? Ideally from countries that aren't America.
non_radical_centrist
21hr ago
Hanania says things like "nobody is more pro-Israel than me" and I genuinely do not know if he is being sincere or intentionally outlandish.
I think he is somewhat sincere. I think he looks at all Jews have contributed to civilization, e.g vastly disproportionate numbers of Nobel winners and establishing a democracy in the middle east as two examples, and considers them a culture worth supporting. Meanwhile he looks at the Palestinian culture and Hamas, and sees them as a blight on civilization worth bombing into obliteration.
He apparently hates leftist protestors too and I think a substantial portion of his support is just to "trigger" them. I don't really get that part of his motivation, I don't have any particular fondness of leftist protestors but I don't have any visceral hatred of them, I just consider them a bit dumb.
So the "we should roll back Civil Rights law, but in the meantime let's massively expand the ability of Jews to use Civil Rights law to wage lawfare against their political opposition" is a little bit out of loving Jews, but I think it's mostly out of hatred of leftist protestors. I don't really agree with that myself, but I don't really particularly care either way.
Tenaz
1hr ago
Modern society values femininity more and motherhood less than it used to, leaving the total prestige of motherhood more or less unchanged, but the relative prestige greatly diminished. Women seeking status have better alternatives now than motherhood.
I believe fatherhood and motherhood to be people's highest and most noble roles. There's a reason God generally has us call him Father rather than Friend, Boss, or King. It's good that we value women more now than we used to (if we actually do anyways--I didn't live back then), but if this change had happened without motherhood being correspondingly diminished, the family would have grown more important, not less.
Tenaz
3hr ago
Alexander the Great clearly beat all mother's throughout history in achievement.
In achievement, maybe. In prestige, Mary the mother of Jesus has him and probably all other men beat.
cjet79
4hr ago
It does seem like individual taste buds are bad, but society wide taste buds are pretty accurate and good.
zeke5123a
8hr ago
Is it? People say that but is it true? If growth is just the result of more people then we aren’t increasing wealth. Growth per capita is what our model is based on, no?
If we bring in ZMP or NMP, then that’s a problem.
curious_straight_ca
12hr ago
What do you mean "you can't, though"? I am really quite confident that I could get lab-grown meat that passed a blind test for something like tens of thousands of dollars per pound if I for whatever reason really wanted to. It's not that difficult of an engineering problem, we know how to create the relevant tastes and textures, the problem is getting costs down to what nature's gotten very good at over a billion years.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
12hr ago
But then they bulk up on grains. What we really care about is how much non-free grain we use per cow and how many people we could feed with that land and labor.
No, we don't, not really. We don't have a food shortage in the US, nor a lack of land (we have a lack of land in some spots desirable for humans to live, but there aren't many cattle in SF or NYC. Some in Newark, NJ but that's much less desirable. Nor are there cornfields there.) Worrying overmuch about those is optimizing for something that is, at this time, not much of a constraint.
Artificially-grown meat isn't free either. Sure, you eliminate the labor of some number of cowhands and slaughterhouse workers (and they won't thank you for it), but you're going to need meat factory workers, some of whom are probably more expensive labor than the cowhands and slaughterhouse workers. And all those calories which went into the cow in the form of grain to fatten it? You still need them; there's no free lunch here. Either you're still getting the energy from grain (which means you need to process the grain further, since the ruminant won't be doing it for you), or you're getting it from some other source such as natural gas.
somedude
10hr ago
Oh man I just went back and had a second look at the exchange where you guys supposedly banned him for "single issue posting" a few weeks ago. Turns out @self_made_human didn't realize which parts of the mod system were publicly viewable and the listed reason for the ban was actually:
Jew-posting with a boner so hard that the fig leaf fell. Build off Amadan's recommendation to ban him if he did it again.
But gosh golly gee whiz, I thought he was impartially banned not for the content of his existing posts but for failing to post upon a wide enough variety of subjects? You know, that incredibly important rule about the number of subjects one posts about? The one that totally isn't an excuse to punt people who post about the wrong things.
While I'm at it, here's a reminder of how Zorba phrased it:
Just go post about something every week! Here's a nerd making goat noises! Here's some nerds comparing cards in a game they've never played! Here's another nerd taste-tasting AI-created cocktails! this is not hard
Because I figure we're about halfway to the point where "just post a youtube video about goat noises or something" suddenly becomes "ackshually we have to feel like they're good posts with sufficient effort" or whatever.
Bartender_Venator
4hr ago
Telling men to pursue fun degrees (creative writing, film, political science, etc.) rather than lucrative ones is like telling them to wear makeup and wait to be asked out by women. It's a fundamental denial of reality. Those who follow such advice will generally have drastically reduced romantic success. Their prospects will be fewer, worse, and less happy to marry them than they would have been otherwise.
Generally agree with your post, but this is quite STEMbrained. If you pursue a degree which makes you more interesting and fun to be around, requires developing social skills, and gives you a status hierarchy to climb, you will absolutely have more romantic prospects than if you were just grinding for money. Your future house probably won't be as nice, of course. To take political science as an example, if you're a reasonably-put-together, educated man who can bring himself to tolerate libs, DC is one of the easiest dating scenes in the world, full of attractive women looking for commitment but happy to hook up. The real downside is that these careers and status hierarchies encourage a prolonged adolescence of sleeping with all the easily available women rather than committing to one (and really, everyone ends up losing - if you want to climb a status hierarchy in creative fields, politics, etc., a good woman in your corner will do far more for your success than just the motivation to look good to girls).
On the topic of marriage and kids, I don't notice a particular difference in career paths between the young people I know who are getting married and having kids and those who aren't, except that there seems to be a gulf in fertility and age of marriage between the ones who went to state schools and the ones who went to "elite" colleges.
MartianNight
8hr ago
Sure, let's say, when left to their own devices, people will choose to eat garbage. Is it the government's job to prevent this? If yes, then why single out lab-grown meat, when hot dogs, jellybeans and soda are just as bad? If not, then what is the basis for banning just 1 of 1000 unhealthy foods that people already consume?
To claim that modern society has devalued motherhood and femininity, or made them low status, is completely backwards. Motherhood and femininity in general have been devalued for as long as patriarchy has existed, so pretty much the whole of human history. I can't think of any human cultures, let alone any of the big-name European and near-eastern ones that the modern west is descended from, which have not considered the female sphere and female pursuits to be intrinsically lesser than that of men.* The "oh, women aren't inferior to men, they just have different strengths/they're made for different roles" line you hear from conservatives nowadays (what Christians call 'complementarianism') is itself an anti-modernist rearguard action. For the great majority of the history of western civilization, philosophers, theologians, and intellectuals, whether Pagan, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or atheist, have been happy to state that actually, women are just strictly inferior to men. It's the reason you occasionally get figures like Elizabeth I or Catherine the Great who are praised for being essentially men in women's bodies, but you never get men praised for being essentially women in men's bodies.
What happened in more resent centuries isn't that motherhood and womanhood were devalued. Motherhood and womanhood were devalued way back in the primordial past, and only recently have women been allowed to escape such devalued roles at scale.
You can't make motherhood 'prestigious' because motherhood has never been prestigious. Closest thing would just be banning women from doing actually prestigious things.
More options
Context Copy link