domain:alakasa.substack.com
Crowstep
3m ago
The Open Society Foundation isn't a 'Jewish' organisation, it was just founded by a Jew. George Soros may love multiculturalism, but that doesn't mean that Jews love it.
'Every mainstream Jewish organisation in Europe' - The fact that you haven't been able to name a single organisation here suggests that you don't actually have any examples.
Barbra Spectre is an individual, not an organisation.
The JIDF is, as far as I can tell, an Israeli nationalist group. I can't see any examples of them promoting multiculturalism outside of Israel.
As far as I can tell, the ADL is the only thing you've listed that is a Jewish organisation and promotes multiculturalism.
Look, there is a world outside America. American Jews may be left wing, but that doesn't make global jewry left wing. One of the most influential French anti-immigrationist is Eric Zemmour, an Algerian Jew. Britain's only Jewish Prime Minister was a proud British imperial nationalist. I could go on. This idea that western countries invited millions of third worlders because the Jews made us do it is a cope. Our own political class did it to us, not the semitic enemy within that you're imagining.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
15m ago
I think you could get lab grown meat that's reasonably indistinguishable in taste from (average store bought, with implied caveats about taste and nutrition) real meat right now if you were willing to pay absurd prices.
You can't, though. And when the bills to ban real meat come around, they will be based on this false assumption, which will be trumpeted through all the normal propaganda outlets (media, schools and universities, political pressure groups with sciency names, etc).
(And further, there's better meat than the average store-bought easily available for a modest premium, often in the same stores)
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
19m ago
So that's two constituencies for banning real meat, one small but very tenacious (moral vegetarians/vegans) and one large and powerful (environmentalists). Seems to me that meat eaters have plenty to worry about and acting proactively to make such bans more difficult makes strategic sense.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1hr ago
I mostly agree with them, but what do they expect to be different about today than in 2014-2016? Trump ran on combatting illegal immigration with tremendous passion; nothing happened. We can try the same thing next time, but I doubt anything will happen. “45 percent of Hispanics support deportation” means that the more Hispanics you import the harder deportation gets. I imagine that as Indian Americans ascend as a political force, they will push for greater Indian migration like in Canada.
It just strikes me as an ineffectual hope that there is ever going to be a change in immigration policy. Maybe a national boycott of companies that donate / are complicit in replace migration would be more helpful? That is at least halfways feasible.
curious_straight_ca
2hr ago
I think sometimes the learned behavior of trying to make arguments that make outgroup look dumb overrides your attempts to actually understand the world around you. This is one of those cases. Historically religious people actually believe in their religions, as physical facts about reality, as much as they do anything else. People have mental breakdowns about heaven and hell! Whereas being on the 'right side of history' is, in its entirety, a rhetorical device to refer to social pressures or empathy for oppressed people who exist today. Nobody who says that is actually imagining dozens of people looking back on them from a century after and being disappointed. They are not at all comparable.
curious_straight_ca
2hr ago
The way you say it you'd think Critical Theory was an esoteric subversive cult and not a very popular and influential historical school of thought, whose notable figures rank among the most cited individuals in all of published research everywhere.
I thought it was interesting enough to repost and thought it would prompt a discussion. This forum is unique in that it has white nationalist fascists alongside liberals so responses are fascinating.
As for me, I have very little sympathy for the far right, but that doesn't mean I don't find what they say worth discussing.
For example, while immigration is a big issue in mainstream media, it is never discussed from a far right perspective. Take Elon Musk: he recently took on the Great Replacement Theory and came out recently in favor of basically unlimited immigration to combat plummeting birth rates. Musk is ostensibly painted as a right wing figure and here he is advocating for the effective destruction of ethnic Europeans. What the far right says to about thr Great Replacement Theory is very different, namely that it is no "theory" at all: replacing ethnic European majorities in order to mitigate identitarianism has been the stated policy of Western governments for 60 years now. If you want sound bites or quotes or documents, those can all be pulled out easily but that's like taking about the theory of free trade; we're not talking about abstracts notions, this is literally stated policy. Bill Clinton famously stated in 1996 to applause that by 2050 there will be no ethnic majority in the United States. In the case of Europe, part of the entire anti-fascist social engineering project is to eradicate European identity and nationalist sentiments.
More to the point, a nation is not an economy and its people are not staff members. Our leaders should not think "there's too few people in this country, they should be replaced". Oncollapsing birth rates in Asia, places like Japan are massively overpopulated. Why does Japan need 150 million people on an island the size of California? Why does the US need 300 million people? Why does England need millions more people on its tiny landmass? Is it necessary to destroy the ethnic makeup of these countries to ensure the line always goes up? The move away from tertiary economies means that we don't need the same amount of people we did in 1950.
This is all a bit like saying, "my kids are moving out of the house, I should find other people to move in and pretend to be my kids".The point that Musk so blantatly misses is that the people - the kids - are my race, my ethnos. They are part of a chain that spans thousands of years and wanting us to perpetuate is natural and right.
The only legitimate purpose of the state is to guarantee the posterity of the people that constitute that state: the English, the German, the Polish. Nothing else is truly legitimate, or if you prefer, as important. The purpose of the state is not to replace its people to guarantee pensions. That's akin to a fire department burning down houses.
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.
functor
2hr ago
Open society foundation, every mainstream jewish organization in Europe, Barbra spectre, Jewish internet defence force, ADL.
curious_straight_ca
3hr ago
I mean, everything is a norm. The command structure of a military at wartime is a norm. The security of your home is a norm. Adherence to contracts is a norm. That police arrest you for breaking the laws passed by the legislature, as opposed to the laws the police chief makes up, is a norm. Yet, we don't expect any of those norms to fall apart.
Yes, any of those norms could change. But they'd need good reasons to. Corporations are very familiar with what happens when they blatantly break federal regulations - it goes poorly - and they maintain close relationships with regulators. Texas just doesn't have much leverage, as one state of many, and the biggest and most economically productive states are blue anyway. Yes, sufficient disruption could break this norm - if the regulators started demanding war communism, your hypotheticals would stop being hypothetical. But they aren't, and nobody involved has enough dissident energy to do anything.
"Resign immediately" seems like the (morally+personally) least fraught option. It's not quite the trolley problem, because if you redirect the trolley the lone person gets to beat you up or worse before they get run over (or just elect a different switch operator).
What would you have done differently if you were elected leader of Germany at some point in the WWI/WWII interregnum, perhaps on 1932-12-03 for a maximum sense of historical inevitability? (...in 1944? ...of North Vietnam in the middle of the Vietnam war, for opposite political valence and ultimate outcome?) Nations and polities and the whole web of human interactions have enough momentum that at some point, their only available choices might indeed be surrender (wronging themselves) and villainy (wronging others). That Israel's population and Netanyahu in particular had no better options after the Hamas attack does not absolve them from moral responsibility for their actions, since decisions they (the Israeli people and their forefathers in general, and Netanyahu in particular) made before were what got them in this situation to begin with.
Crowstep
3hr ago
while promoting multiculturalism everywhere else
Do you have any evidence of this? Ideally from countries that aren't America.
curious_straight_ca
3hr ago
It seems pretty clear that they have in fact derived a very significant and irreversible political advantage from this tactic
Progressivism is currently winning against conservatism/reaction because it won over the elite, not because of illegal immigrants. Fewer hispanics would move the median voter slightly to the right, and thus R and D policies slightly to the right, and that'd still be way to the left of what you want.
Anyway, I don't think any such decentralization will happen, economic systems are deeply intertwined with regulation and the law and that'll make a true decoupling too painful to countenance. And if it was attempted anyway, it'd just be a "man corners dog, dog bites man, man shoots dog" scenario, the state would lose hard.
4bpp
このMOLOCHだ！
3hr ago
My main exposure to mainstream messaging on the topic nowadays is German news media + administrative mailing lists from various universities including US ones that I have managed to accumulate subscriptions to over the years, but a common thread to all of them is a pretty unabashed tendency to have cut out the usual conflation with "antisemitism" and directly talk about anti-Israel sentiment as something that is or should be illegal and punished to the maximum extent the framework allows (expulsions, blacklisting, using discretionary hate speech/symbolism statutes). In the German news media, I mostly see war reporting spin techniques deployed to a level that comes across as comical - on one hand you get articles reporting about Israel losing 10 soldiers in an actual ground offensive in a tone as if they were kids murdered by terrorists on a shopping trip, and on the other claims of Palestinian deaths or suffering are presented as flat statistics with no contextualisation or attempt to give emotional colour, and couched in a wall of reminders that figures could not be verified independently and notes that "according to the Israeli MoD, they were actually Hamas militants" (no reminders that this could not be verified independently). The contrast not just between the reporting on the two sides but also this and the reporting on Russia/Ukraine is stark to the point of feeling like a flex ("Yes, this is propaganda. Dare to call it out? No? Good, so you know your place").
curious_straight_ca
3hr ago
Gatekeeping and openness aren't exactly the same, you can be "open" and also high-quality if you're swift, brutal, and arbitrary with moderation, which is the best place to be imo.
That theory is almost certainly not true. There is minimal commercial value to Reddit accounts
... How sure are you of that? I'd buy a few hundred reddit accounts with 10k karma each if they sold at 10c a pop right now (they're easier to have sister-site style fun with), but alas based on both my memory and checking of sites for buying and selling reddit accounts, aged accounts with good karma can sell for tens or hundreds of dollars (and several of the $10-100+ accounts are sold out). There's great breadth and depth in the online advertising market, and there are plenty of ways to use reddit accounts with enough karma and history to get past various automated filters. You don't even necessarily need to sell the accounts if you spam with them yourself.
And bots reposting the exact same content from a year ago is not something exclusive to political subreddits, I see the same thing on every other subreddit very frequently.
I can also say from personal experience that reddit does actively fight vote manipulation with account suspension and removing the involved upvotes.
You'd have to be pretty simple to think that most of the political stuff you read on Reddit or Hacker News isn't deeply manipulated. It doesn't take many votes to sway things in one direction or another. All it takes is a few downvotes to keep dissenting voices from even appearing in front of real users. On the other hand, with a few upvotes, your own content will be featured front and center. It's comically easy to achieve.
So, I don't really think this is true. Certainly there's a lot of attempted manipulation, and some of it works, but mostly I think that good content gets popular and bad content doesn't. Up until reddit directly banned all the wrongthink, it was quite popular, you'd think the hypothesized manipulation would've stopped that.
functor
4hr ago
The jewish problem is that they want their country to be an ethnostate that steals land and ethnically cleanses neighbors while promoting multiculturalism everywhere else. White countries can't be white since then jews would be uncomfortable. This has been a cornerstone of the reasons why jews have not been liked. They often work against group interests of other peoples while pushing their own group interest to an extreme extent.
The left will have trouble reconciling the radical individualism they have been inculcated with and extreme jewish ethnocentrism. The right will be sceptical of jews because ADL wants them banned of twitter and Ben Gvir wants millions of Palestinians to become refugees 300 km from EU.
The left will be shocked at how they are treated in a diametrically different way than when they protested against white men sitting with their legs too far apart. However, jews are a small minority and won't be able to control all the goyim in the long run.
Therapyspeak is the language of the Anarchist. It is the language of those who do not believe in discipline and self control, who want to erase the line between good and evil.
Some of the terms I've heard quite a bit in the past 5 years that I highly distrust:
"Toxic". People and relationships are declared to be toxic, and it is understood that bad actions can then be taken against them. There is no standard for what makes something toxic. Rhetoric using this term often recommends the user to end relationships, and it generally does not look like sound wise advice. Using this term is a request for power and authority, rather than an assertion of meaning.
"Self Care". This is a synonym for self-indulgence, but with a good connotation instead of a bad one. Spending 8 hours watching netflix for example, in my grandfather's English, would be understood to be a moderately shameful act of vice. Now it can be referred to as "Self Care", in which case it is understood as a noble recognition of ones own weakness.
"Triggered". This word is used to blame others for ones own mental outbursts. A man who has internalized a value system of discipline and personal responsibility would never use such a word, but a member of the CPUSA would never question one who did.
"Codependency". Means nothing more than "relationship", but again, it goes from having what is, according to my values, a correct positive connotation, to having an incorrect negative connotation.
There are values which lead to a good stable society. These values were baked into the our culture, into our stories, into our language itself. Most respectable men have internalized these values- its quite hard to achieve anything in life without doing so.
When people use therapyspeak, they are signaling their opposition to these values. They may truly oppose them, or they may want to signify membership in the group of people who oppose them. But if you are still committed to those values, for whatever reason, you may find such speech uncomfortable.
One thing I have no explanation for, is why all of these terms seem to have originated in therapy. I cannot think of any other recently popularized terms like this- terms designed to assault traditional European values and signal membership in the revolution- which did not originate in therapy.
TowardsPanna
4hr ago
Cute. Not sure if it's genuine though.
OliveTapenade
4hr ago
This reads like just reposting a news or summary article.
Do you have an original comment or thought, or question to ask?
I don't think there's a difference between a 'sincere' statement and 'signaling' statement - the words emerge from the same processes, the same process that generates 'abortion is a FUNDAMENTAL right', and the same process that 'everyone is beautiful in their own unique way <3'. I wish the average person had a clean separation between signaling beliefs and sincere ones, everything would be so much nicer.
And, of course, if teleported 10 m from a bear with saliva dripping from its canines and 10 m away from a random male, the same woman would run away towards the man, that's a deep instinct one can't deny.
The interesting question here, if any, is whether norms encouraging such long-winded and massive pranks are acceptable or a sign of dysfunction
I think the above belief is closer to just a 'stupid popular belief' than a long-winded prank, and as such is just a universal human phenomena. But long-winded games of social deception are also human universals, small-scale human societies are no more honest and harmonious than we are, and intelligence and self-interest combined necessarily leads to such games.
distic
4hr ago
I don't think the main point against eating animal meat is the fact that it kills animals, but the impact on environment and the land efficiency. To eat a pound of beef, you need the cow to eat a lot of grass, which takes a lot more land than producing a pound of vegetables. Moreover, cows produce a lot of CO which has a huge climate impact.
Yes, after about 10 minutes of parsing conversations I realised that no one is actually discussing the mechanics of woodland survival but instead it's largely a rehashed "men bad" struggle session.
At this point I've honestly just embraced being an oppressor. I will never be seen as anything else, so why try and change it?
Mire how nice it looks on my bookshelf in between The Bell Curve and Race, Evolution, and Behavior before more drinks and having her play with something else exposed and visibly hard, such as the pair of bongos I brought back from the Caribbean.
More options
Context Copy link