SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
No bio...
User ID: 853
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
6d ago
The Authoritarian Personality is not at all far from Popper, it also relates anti-authoritarianism to anti-nativism and proposes those emotions as threatening.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
6d ago
It's pretty clear that racialism falls ideologically under "intolerant" according to Popper, and certainly according to the prevailing political understanding.
Popper's writing certainly suggests he would support suppressing racialism in order to preserve tolerance.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
6d ago
Popper's analysis was centered on critique of exclusionary racialism, motivated by Nazism. He considered that to be intolerant. He is supporting outlawing that perspective as Intolerant.
The idea he would be on the side of racial nationalists for having a right to free speech, and against European hate speech laws, is not at all supported by the text.
And what is Popper supposed to do about that?
What Popper is doing is pathologizing criticism of the outgroup, except for his own outgroup. This has been the bedrock of post-WWII moral consensus. It's the foundation of Critical Theory and the study of The Authoritarian Personality.
The syllogism is foundational to Critical Theory: racism and antisemitism is a psychopathology with no rational basis (note this is not proven, it's just taken as an unassailable assumption). So any engagement in that behavior is ipso facto irrational. So if you criminalize "irrational intolerance" you are criminalizing racism and anti-semitism. Although Popper suggests the risk of violence from "intolerance" he is unequivocally advocating for criminalizing "incitement of intolerance." He says this directly, he's not saying to only criminalize intolerance if it's physically violent.
It directly follows from Popper and Critical Theory that Gentiles criticizing Jewish culture and morality is a psychopathology and intolerant, whereas Jews criticizing Gentile culture and morality is rational and preaching tolerance.
"We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law." Those are his words.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
6d ago
Yes, and leftists accuse people like me (and others on the DR) of doing that all the time. It's easy to just accuse your opponent of "not being prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument." You are just avoiding this part of the quote, which is the most unambiguous part:
We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
"Incitement to tolerance" is exactly European-style hate speech laws.
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
This is clearly an advocacy for European-style hate speech laws. No doubt my speech should be considered "incitement to intolerance" and criminal according to Karl Popper. I'll add here that Popper is Jewish, so there's an ethnic, self-serving undercurrent to his demand for criminalizing incitement to intolerance. Of course a foreigner going to a foreign land is going to demand the people who live in that country are tolerant of people like him. He doesn't have their best interests at heart.
I would agree it's ambiguous if Popper would support antifa, although Popper himself engaged in street violence as a Marxist in Vienna in 1919. Preaches Marxism in Austria, then immigrates to Britain and preaches the Open Society. Many such cases.
A mutual defense pact that was motivated in large part by Britian's long-standing policy (since the 1600s) of "containing" any continental power they felt was getting too big/powerful too quickly.
Ok then be honest about who started WWII. Britain did because they apparently had a "long-standing policy" of destroying Europe and handing half of it to the Soviet Union before allowing Germany to become too powerful- and I guess Danzig is the tipping point on that question??? No, a pretext. Britain was already engaging in diplomacy due to the unreasonable terms of the Treaty of Versailles- which caused Germany's conflict with Poland in the first place, and then Britain took an unpredictable turn of "no negotiations, only unconditional surrender" even after Germany offered eminently reasonable terms for peace.
You keep citing "Britain's policy since the 1600s" but you emphasize this argument in defense of the mainstream view that Germany started WWII? Total nonsense. It was British aggression that caused WWII, their insistence that the balance of power in Europe remained according to their own wishes, they could and should have accepted peace especially after Germany conquered France and Dunkirk, and offered to evacuate from essentially everywhere except for Poland in exchange for peace... even offering a guarantee on the British colonies. Churchill refused any negotiation, you can't place primary responsibility on the party that offered reasonable terms for peace rather than the side that rejected all negotiation on a murderous demand for unconditional surrender.
If Germany declared war on Britain instead of the other way around, Churchill offered the deal to Hitler that Hitler offered to Churchill, and instead it was Hitler that demanded nothing short of unconditional surrender from Britain with a policy of no negotiations, you would surely point to that as evidence of German warmongering. But the prevailing narrative is in pure contradiction with reality.
Patton, arguably the greatest WWII General, was relieved of command for stating publicly that America had been fighting the wrong enemy- Germany instead of Russia. It isn't as absurd as we all believe it to be, given the historical and cultural context that has influenced us. It's more ambiguous than mainstream history would have us believe. Stage left- "gas chambers where millions were tricked into their own execution on the pretext of taking a shower." That helps remove the ambiguity, although the problem is that it isn't true either.
It is a Revisionist position, because nobody says "WWII was started because the British wanted to stop Germany from getting too powerful, even though Germany did not want war with Britain." But that's the truth. The official position is that Germany wanted and intentionally started war with Britain and France, proving that in international "court" was one of the primary purposes of the Nuremberg Trial even though it fell flat on that front, the mountains of documents and testimony proved that it was not planned for or expected or desired. Nothing forced the British to wage a war of unconditional surrender on Germany. Citing "long-standing policy" is wrong as the policy position of "appeasement" did not fail, what failed was shifting from 0-100, appeasement to "no negotiations ever, only unconditional surrender after we destroy Europe." That was nonsensical and unpredictable, Germany did not expect it and it was an unpredictable departure from British policy to catastrophic consequences.
The Treaty of Versailles failed because it was an unenforceable attempt to forever keep Germany weak. They had no choice but to negotiate, what people call "appeasement" was the correct solution to the quagmire. The British were going to, what declare war on Germany because they mobilized within their own territory? Ok, so you send in the French and they back down. Then the French leave and they do it again... It was never going to work as a long-term steady state.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9d ago
Don't know why johnfabian alludes to "vague offers", Hitler offered to evacuate from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norway in exchange for Britain's neutrality in the war against the Soviet Union. This was after Hitler conquered France and after Dunkirk, so when he was in his strongest bargaining position. Churchill rejected the offer.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
9d ago
The idea that the war was justified because contemporary articles compared Hitler to Napoleon is just absurd, as absurd as all the contemporary articles you can point to which endlessly compare X with Hitler to justify some war, whether it's Ukraine (with both Zelensky and Putin invoking Hitler to justify the war effort on the other) or Iraq or Iran. Britain lost its Empire, Europe was destroyed, tens of millions dead, half of Europe gifted to the Soviet Union including Poland.... oh but contemporary articles said it had to be done because of Napoleon, right.
The notion that Germany had any intention of conquering the UK is just totally ridiculous. Germany conquered France because France declared war on Germany and then Germany offered peace, pulling out of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Norway. Of course the notion that Germany had any plan or intention whatsoever of conquering Britain is a pure, unadulterated lie, meant to manipulate people like you into accepting a certain narrative.
if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."
The British Empire was lost due to "Their finest hour!" They lost Poland too, and they destroyed Europe and killed tens of millions and gifted half of Europe to the Soviet Union. The only way the actual outcome of that war can be reconciled with the victors coming out as justified is with an enormous pile of lies.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
10d ago
You are pretending like their hands were tied, when they could have remained neutral or even allied with Germany against the Soviet Union. Hitler pleaded for either of those two options, offering to pull out of France for peace with Britain. But Britain wanted to restrain Germany from becoming the greatest European power, so they allied with the Soviet Union and destroyed Europe to make it happen.
And then after they destroyed Germany they were desperate to make them the front line against the Soviet Union.
Britain had no justification for attempting to stop Germany attempting to make itself the pre-eminent power in Europe by conquest?
This is the Revisionist position. And no I do not think it had a justification to do so with the threat of the Soviet Union and the human and cultural cost of destroying Old Europe in a war of unconditional surrender. And ultimately Britain lost its own Empire. But yes Britain did start WWII in order to prevent Germany from becoming the pre-eminent power in Europe. That's the real reason WWII started and Britain allied with the Soviet Union to make it happen. It wasn't over Danzig, all of Poland was conquered by Britain's ally at the end of the day.
The Treaty of Versailles was an attempt to make sure Germany never become the pre-eminent power in Europe. But it was unenforceable. So they waged war ostensibly over Danzig, but then retconned it ultimately to be about the Holocaust narrative to try to post-hoc justify the war and solely blame Germany for the utter destruction and death.
Very funny that Britain makes the claim Germany wanted to "make itself the pre-eminent power in Europe by conquest" over Danzig. Germany offered to fully evacuate from Western Europe for peace and England said no.
But yes, the real reason for the war was Britain didn't want Germany to become the largest power in Europe. No that is not at all a justification for their alliance with the Soviet Union, the demand for unconditional surrender, and mass death and destruction of Europe to realize that objective. Germany is today arguably the largest power on the European Continent anyway. No it was not justified.
"Who started WWII" is more ambiguous than that. WWII started with England and France's declaration of war on Germany. Germany had a reasonable casus belli on Poland, and England was pressuring Poland not to negotiate with Germany. Even more important are the many peace proposals Germany offered England, which entailed Germany fully pulling out of France, and Churchill not only rejected them but even hid them from the public. Ultimately Churchill and the United States would set the only war aim as Unconditional Surrender, which is what ultimately led to the mass murder and destruction.
Furthermore the tall tale of Germans tricking millions of Jews into walking into gas chambers that had been disguised as shower rooms is a fantasy meant to justify this one-sided WWII narrative. Incidentally, Grok 3 is the first LLM I've seen explicitly take the Revisionist side of a core argument regarding that narrative, even going so far as to criticize the Narrative's sole reliance on witness testimony over any other form of evidence. Also first that has accurately summarized the mainstream position on an issue, accurately summarized the Revisionist position on an issue, and explicitly concurred with the Revisionists that the "official claim is not plausible under scrutiny." The days of that narrative are numbered, and other WWII Revisionism is going to come along with the collapse of that narrative.
Germany's war on Poland provides no justification for England and France to ally with the Soviet Union in a catastrophic war aim of unconditional surrender on Germany.
On that note, normalize the Roman Salute. It's just a cool pose. It evokes emotions in people and that makes it powerful.
That perspective has nothing to do with Hitler's political objectives or animosity towards the Soviet Union. Hitler acknowledged racial inequality even within the German people has well. I also think even many HBD-aware Russians would be sympathetic to the suggestion that the Russians seem to have less capacity for constructive politics... certainly the evidence is stacked against them on that question, with the eternal dysfunction of Russian politics and the bright spots being disproportionately associated with leaders of German ancestry...
Hitler's animosity towards the Soviet Union is not based on the Slavs it's based on Bolshevism. It's a dishonest reading of Mein Kampf to pretend otherwise. He could not possibly be more clear that he regarded Bolshevism as the ultimate enemy, but you somehow manage to entirely elide Hitler's self-stated reason for his animosity towards the Soviet Union in his own work, which is the traditional approach taken from the mainstream perspective. That animosity was not derived from his plausible claim that the Russians have less capacity for constructive statecraft, or some claim that the Slavs were not Aryan even though they were explicitly considered Aryan in German racial law.
The organization of a Russian state formation was not the result of the political abilities of the Slavs in Russia, but only a wonderful example of the state-forming efficacy of the German element in an inferior race. [emphasis added]
It's worth pointing out that Hitler's theory he applies to the Russians here he applies to the Germans as well:
The German people came into being no differently than almost every truly creative civilized nation we know of in the world. A numerically small, talented race, capable of organizing and creating civilization, established itself over other peoples in the course of many centuries. It in part absorbed them, in part adapted to them. All members of our people have of course contributed their special talents to this union. It was, however, created by a nation-and-state forming elite alone. This race imposed its language, naturally not without borrowing from those it subjugated. And all shared a common fate for so long, that the life of the people directing the affairs of state became inseparably bound to the life of the gradually assimilating other members. All the while, conqueror and conquered had long become a community. This is our German people of today ... Our only wish is that all members contribute their best to the prosperity of our national life. As long as every element gives what it has to give, this element in so doing will help benefit all lives.
Hitler's theory on this front is also not related to his hostility towards the Soviet Union, it's Bolshevism which he makes abundantly clear.
Edit: i.e., from Mein Kampf:
Never forget that the rulers of present-day Russia are common blood-stained criminals; that they are the scum of humanity which, favoured by circumstances, overran a great state in a tragic hour, slaughtered out thousands of her leading intelligentsia in wild bloodlust, and now for almost ten years have been carrying on the most cruel and tyrannical regime of all time.
Furthermore, do not forget that these rulers belong to a race which combines, in a rare mixture, bestial cruelty and an inconceivable gift for lying, and which today more than ever is conscious of a mission to impose its bloody oppression on the whole world. Do not forget that the international Jew who completely dominates Russia today regards Germany not as an ally, but as a state destined to the same fate.
The danger to which Russia succumbed is always present for Germany. Only a bourgeois simpleton is capable of imagining that Bolshevism has been exorcised. With his superficial thinking he has no idea that this is an instinctive process; that is, the striving of the Jewish people for world domination, a process which is just as natural as the urge of the Anglo-Saxon to seize domination of the earth. And just as the Anglo-Saxon pursues this course in his own way and carries on the fight with his own weapons, likewise the Jew. He goes his way, the way of sneaking in among the nations and boring from within, and he fights with his weapons, with lies and slander, poison and corruption, intensifying the struggle to the point of bloodily exterminating his hated foes.
In Russian Bolshevism, we must see the attempt undertaken by the Jews in the 20th century to achieve world domination. Just as in other epochs they strove to reach the same goal by other, though inwardly related processes. Their endeavor lies profoundly rooted in their essential nature.
Germany is today the next great war aim of Bolshevism. It requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent, and to stop the inner contamination of our blood, in order that the forces of the nation thus set free can be thrown in to safeguard our nationality, and thus can prevent a repetition of the recent catastrophes down to the most distant future.
If we pursue this aim, it is sheer lunacy to ally ourselves with a power whose master is the mortal enemy of our future. How can we expect to free our own people from the fetters of this poisonous embrace if we walk right into it? How shall we explain Bolshevism to the German worker as an accursed crime against humanity if we ally ourselves with the organizations of this spawn of hell, thus recognising it in the larger sense?
But somehow, without fail, the mainstream seems to interpret Hitler's animosity towards the Soviet Union as being related to Aryan racial theory relegating Slavs as subhuman. It's an intentional lie to hide the actual reason he was hostile to Russia.
Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science and technical skill, which we see before our eyes to-day, is almost exclusively the product of the Aryan creative power. This very fact fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type of humanity; therefore he represents the archetype of what we understand by the term: MAN. He is the Prometheus of mankind, from whose shining brow the divine spark of genius has at all times flashed forth, always kindling anew that fire which, in the form of knowledge, illuminated the dark night by drawing aside the veil of mystery and thus showing man how to rise and become master over all the other beings on the earth. -- Mein Kampf Vol 1 Ch XI
By contrast, he expresses relative disdain for the Slavic people of Russia and Eastern Europe, whom he intends to attack and kill or displace. Hitler's disdain for the Slavs takes on special significance in the context of an "eternal victory of the strong over the weak", and of Hitler's imminent plans for war:
Even in Pan-German circles one heard the opinion expressed that the Austrian Germans might very well succeed in Germanizing the Austrian Slavs, if only the Government would be ready to cooperate. Those people did not understand that a policy of Germanization can be carried out only as regards human beings. What they mostly meant by Germanization was a process of forcing other people to speak the German language. But it is almost inconceivable how such a mistake could be made as to think that a Nigger or a Chinaman will become a German because he has learned the German language and is willing to speak German for the future, and even to cast his vote for a German political party. Our bourgeois nationalists could never clearly see that such a process of Germanization is in reality de-Germanization; for even if all the outstanding and visible differences between the various peoples could be bridged over and finally wiped out by the use of a common language, that would produce a process of bastardization which in this case would not signify Germanization but the annihilation of the German element. -- Mein Kampf Vol 2 Ch II
While my criticism of your entire thesis from your last chapter applies to this one as well, probably even more so, one point I want to (again) make is that Slavs were considered Aryan according to Nazi racial theory and Nazi racial law.
Hitler's project was pan-Germanism, which he is delineating as exclusionary of Slavs. That does not mean Hitler did not consider Slavs to be Aryan. The Nazi hatred towards the Soviet Union was foremost driven by Communism and not any belief that Slavs are non-Aryan or sub-human.
In contrast, the Nazi racial theory on the Aryans has essentially been vindicated by recent genetic analysis showing all European cultures descend from a common Indo-European culture. They call that culture "Aryan", but all European cultures descend from it according to the theory, and that theory has been confirmed by more recent genetic and linguistic analysis.
Hitler's writing here is also cogent- rejecting the notion that "Germanization" means teaching an Arab or Chinese person the language and having him vote in a German election makes him German, which is the theory that has been forced onto Europe since the defeat of Hitler, to catastrophic consequences.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
13d ago
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.
So you assert. And if we assert back that in fact our interpretation is correct, what then?
If you are Christian, you are essentially forced to take the Divine Inspiration interpretation for the motivation of the authors for the Old Testament. You don't have a choice. This is stated plainly in OP's bio:
I believe the Bible is a message to us from the Holy Spirit
Of course OP is right that such a position is the only one consistent with Christianity. So in a world where my interpretation is correct (it is) then Christianity provides a complete roadblock to an accurate interpretation of the meaning of the Hebrew Bible. This is well-demonstrated by OP's completely ridiculous notion that the Hebrew Bible is free from "Identity Politics." Of course it is- it's a message from the Holy Spirit! It can't be nothing more than ancient Identity Politics according to Christianity. They lack the ability to interpret the mythos from that perspective by their own prior beliefs.
Christians are totally unable to contend with the fact that the Hebrew Bible is ultimately inspired by ethnic supremacism and racial propaganda. Accepting the interpretation I am proposing of the Yahweh cult that ultimately inspired the Torah would be heresy for a Christian. Their religion disallows them from accepting that interpretation as true.
It is highly notable that Christianity induces billions of Gentiles to proclaim the truth of the Torah, including the divine Chosenness of the Jews, while simultaneously cutting them off from correctly interpreting the esoteric racial subtext of the figures, myths, symbols, and ultimately tribal god that they worship. And at the same time it induces billions of Gentiles to comply with the Noahide laws which foremost compel Gentiles to worship Yahweh above anything else in the universe.
That is what I mean when I say Christians are unable to grapple with the Hebrew Bible. The prior beliefs of that religion cut you off from correctly interpreting the myths, symbolism, and esoteric racial moralization throughout the Old Testament.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
20d ago
Sure! But at the end of the day there is a correct answer, the people who put the pen to paper did so for specific reasons. I think Christians are forced into a wrong interpretation. Of course they believe their interpretation is correct, although frankly speaking they mostly just ignore the Old Testament except as setup for Jesus.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
20d ago
In any case, it is certainly true that Samuel and SS agree (somewhat) about this, but that’s exactly the interesting thing
I essentially agree with Samuel's critique of Christian anti-semitism. Christianity makes anti-Semitism totally incoherent, regardless of the feeling of any given Christian towards the Jews. And regardless of whether or not the Christians understand the actual symbolic meaning of Yahweh, which they like OP do not. They are actually unequipped to properly analyze these works because their own religion is so deeply rooted in the mythos itself.
Christians have no idea what they are reading when they read the Old Testament, if they ever do so.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
20d ago
I'm going to guess it's yet another "liberalism was great until Identity Politics ruined everything." And following that train of thought leads people like you actually trying to make the ridiculous argument that the Hebrew Bible and the Roman Pantheon are not identity politics. That is all they are, if you strip away the Identity Politics they are meaningless.
The entire conservative critique of "Identity Politics" is incoherent, and the incoherence is well-embodied by your argument here. The Hebrew Bible isn't identity politics? One of the most absurd things I've ever heard in my life.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
20d ago
Actually this thread is indeed about Jewish identity and belief, if you go back to the very beginning of the thread. OP said something along the lines of "the Hebrews believed themselves to be Chosen, but that rule over the earth belongs to Yahweh." So the fact that to Jews, Yahweh is a symbolic representation of themselves undermines his argument that Jews have maintained a "humble forbearance" in the face of conflict with external tribes and civilizations. It could not be further from the truth. And certainly the book of Isaiah is not a representation of Humble Forbearance, it's an example par excellence of how Jewish identity politics manifests in the Hebrew Bible as it portrays conflict with Civilization.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
20d ago
Jamming on the enemy in itself has nothing to do with identity politics.
Of course it does, the friend/enemy distinction is the essence of identity politics. When the Hebrews do it it's just "Old Testament justice" but when Hitler identifies Jews as adversarial then it's identity politics? Give me a break.
It is holding that your people are entitled to prey on others whenever the opportunity presents itself, and whining in self-righteous indignation when the shoe is on the other foot. The Hebrews didn't do that, and neither did the pagans.
I'm sorry but this just shows a total ignorance of the Hebrew bible, which consists exactly of cycles of the Israelites genociding people according to the will of Yahweh and then acting like whiny victims when the shoe is on the other foot. Jews to this day still publicly celebrate the mass murder of the first-born sons of the Gentiles in Egypt. And don't get me started on Purim...
It is also just a plain fact that US intelligence shortly after WWII regarded Jews as a security threat to the United States. And of course nearly all Communist spies were Jewish. The idea that the entire notion was just "Hitlerian Identity Politics" is total bunk. There was more of a 'there' there.
Overall your analysis too heavily relies on these extremely high-level characterizations of Mein Kampf. If you are going to cite books from the Bible can you also cite passages from Mein Kampf that demonstrate your point rather than your over-reliance on super high-level characterizations of that work?
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
20d ago
At best you can say that pious Jews sincerely believe that they have an inherent spiritual bond with Yahweh, even though in actuality that Yahweh is merely an ancient literary device.
Obviously in that comment I'm treating Yahweh as a mythological figure rather than a literal figure. Spirituality is a human behavior and expression. I said in my previous post that religiosity is a personality trait and it seems important and even necessary for people to have in some form. It is certainly possible for people to feel a spiritual connection with mythological figures.
Yes, Yahweh is an ancient literary device for Jewish identity. But even many secular Jews feel a strong connection with their Jewish identities. Even if they don't literally believe in the truth of the myths they still identify with what is represented and created by the mythology.
Both relate anti-authoritarianism to anti-nativism. Do you think Popper would support the political system allowing a racialist movement a public platform, to organize and achieve political power? He clearly wouldn't, the idea that the Paradox of Intolerance means he would be on the side of the political rights of the racialists against antifa is absurd. Antifa has a better reading of it than you do. Not to say he would necessarily support BLM riots or whatever. But he is motivated to suppress racialism just like Adorno.
More options
Context Copy link