SecureSignals
No bio...
User ID: 853
SecureSignals
2d ago
It is no longer an "ambitious enclave", after Zionist Jews in the American government influence Trump to overthrow Iran on behalf of Israel, which is going to happen imminently, Israel will be the undisputed hegemon in the region. Imagine if Rome were dominated by Carthegian-loyal senators who influenced Rome to destroy all of Carthage's enemies so Carthage could be the undisputed hegemon in the region. That's not a hypothetical, that is the present day, and it's the consequence of allowing your society and culture to be governed by a people loyal to a foreign empire.
SecureSignals
2d ago
It is not a client state, it's an aspirational empire. It's not a good idea to have people run your empire that are loyal to a foreign empire, because they will probably use their power to exploit your empire to the benefit of that foreign empire.
SecureSignals
4d ago
During the period of two wars in Iraq it should be noted. It was at peak unfashionability at the exact same time of peak relevance of the question with respect to American foreign policy in the Middle East.
SecureSignals
4d ago
Shapiro described himself in his own words as a "past volunteer in the Israeli army." He also worked briefly in the Israeli embassy- no; not the US embassy in Israel, the Israeli embassy in Washington:
According to his spokesperson, “His job largely involved educating the public about Israel by visiting local schools and hosting open houses for the public at the Embassy.”….
Screaming anti-Semitism in the face of questions over "dual loyalty" is losing effectiveness because the problem of dual loyalty among Zionist Jews in the American government is undeniably a very real phenomenon. They clearly do identify and love that foreign country and advocate for it and work for it directly! They are loyal to Israel, there is no question. You cannot serve two masters.
SecureSignals
21d ago
It's the Monroe Doctrine 2.0 described in the recent National Security Strategy. Denying China any foothold in the hemisphere is a more sensible foreign policy than the notion of fighting China across the globe. Maduro met with a special envoy sent by Xi Jinping the same day US kidnaps him, hah.
SecureSignals
22d ago
Yeah I'm definitely speaking relative to expectations. Seasons 2-4 were barely above garbage, so this finale "was better than expected" for me, but my expectations were low.
Woke Trappings versus Woke Story
I thought Stranger Things wrapped up nicely and the finale was great. The pre-final episode received the lowest ratings and reception in the entire series, with a lot of commentators claiming the entire series was ruined, but the finale was great television. It's true the pre-final episode was not great due to the fact it was dedicated to setting up the 2 hour finale, but the overreaction to that episode is mostly driven by one of the characters named Will coming out as gay, and making that central to his personal story and character growth needed to win the entire conflict. The surface-level criticisms are true, the scene was terrible, it was LGBT propaganda, sure. And my woke radar is as fine-tuned as anyone, but I find anti-woke observers become too hung up on woke trappings rather than critically analyzing the story itself.
The Stranger Things story itself is not necessarily woke, it's 1980s nostalgia blended with fish-out-of-water, heroes journey, coming-of-age, revenge, fantasy, and all the elements that audiences tend to like and that is carried through the end. I would contrast that with IT: Welcome to Derry in which the story itself is Woke and it ruins the series.
But I think those complaining about Woke elements in Stranger Things - this never would have happened in the 1980s!, the multiple LGBT characters and their acceptance by everyone in the story, the feminism, etc. They miss the point that 1980s culture did lead to these things. Sure, the transition was slower than is symbolically represented in the show; in the show the transition happens rapidly, without resistance, and faster among the characters in the story than it did in American culture. But the fact is American culture did follow the cultural trajectory depicted in Stranger Things which warps up 1989. So the show depicts an accelerated cultural trajectory going out of the 80s into the 90s and 2000s, which are cultural changes that actually happened.
Although I do like a lot of parts of 1980s American culture, the vapidness in that culture which triggers our nostalgia reaction did lead to these things the anti-woke commentators are complaining about being featured in the show. 1980s culture led to 90s culture, and so on until we are right here. The lesson isn't "Great Hollywood will just wokify everything" the lesson is that 1980s nostalgia is not a good source of inspiration for those who oppose the cultural forces that came out of the 80s and further developed since then. Of course that insight can be backpropagated, is a 1960s muscle car a symbol of a pre-woke culture we must retvrn to, or is it a symbol of cultural decay representing vapid status games, siphoning masculine energy into meaningless pursuits, and materialistic national identity that led exactly where we are?
SecureSignals
24d ago
Yes he did provide enough proof provided your prior beliefs are well-calibrated. If you are "anti-racist" then he didn't nearly provide enough proof. If your priors are well-adjusted he provided enough proof for systematic, mass fraud to a high enough confidence for this reaction and subsequent investigations.
The people complaining he wasn't rigorous enough won't even care that his methods were effective in bringing public attention and reform to an important issue.
SecureSignals
25d ago
Every single time you reply to me I know it's you complaining about me talking about da Joos.
Jews are one of the most important political and cultural forces in understanding Culture War in the United States and globe. But because of their political and cultural power, it's taboo to critically analyze their perspective, behavior, and identity. People like you and Aamadan constantly complaining about me talking about Jews is a side-effect of that.
My interest in Jews pertaining to the Culture War issues discussed is appropriate, and whether you want to call it obsessed is a question I do not care about. If it's an "obsession" it's appropriate. Notice now you don't say I'm wrong you just say I'm obsessed. Do you really think you're the first one to engage in this tactic of pathologizing criticism of Jewish identity and behavior? It's not going to work on me, I dismiss your concerns. If I say something you disagree with feel free to make an argument.
I also think I do post on a breadth of some of the most important Culture War nuances that are tangentially related to Jews but cover important concepts.
You might say, for example, when I wrote a short review of IT: Welcome to Derry, I couldn't help myself and I just had to take a jab at the Jews and the Holocaust because I'm obsessed. But I just wanted to watch a half-decent IT show, I didn't ask to be bombarded by Jews flexing cultural status and promulgating Holocaust lies. So is my criticism of this episode in the show me being obsessed with Jews, or is it Jews being obsessed with broadcasting their own cultural status, victim narratives, and lies in mass media? I just wanted to watch a TV show!
This is the reason why "you're so obsessed" is never going to work on me. I can't just sit and watch IT without Jewish lies being thrown directly in my face, and the sad part is I'm one of the very few people who knows it's a lie and the mass audiences are going to believe it and buy into it- because if they don't believe it they are a Holocaust denier, liable to be arrested in Europe, for daring to challenge the notion that Jews were turned into lampshades at Buchenwald. This is real CULTURE WAR by the way, this is how CULTURE WAR is waged, by weaving symbols and myths into popular culture in this exact fashion. But I didn't force them to put that in the show, if I'm OBSESSED for Noticing and criticizing it, then so be it because it must be done by someone.
SecureSignals
26d ago
I believe these points are substantially true, and the fact that all you attempt to contest is the relatively trivial charge of whether you have "ghosted" a debate seems to me to be just further evidence of your fundamental unseriousness.
No, I have contested that claim by counter-claiming that you are just offended by what ought be an appropriate level of discourse surrounding Jews in serious analysis of Culture War issues. And I do not care, you can complain about it all you want! The fact it makes people upset is a byproduct of the fact it strikes a nerve, as much as you'll deny it.
- I replied to you 3 times, how is that "ghosting a debate" when I engage in a longer-than-average discussion.
- Your last reply to me was over 30 hours after my last reply, a faster reply isn't a hard requirement but waiting more than a day makes it more likely I'll just let you have the last word.
- Your reply was bad, saying things like You return to this "vertically integrated propaganda apparatus". That's a conspiracy. Let me present an alternative hypothesis - you are likely to find Jewish authors independently, without any particular coordination or malice, writing things relevant to them, which, yes, includes concerns about anti-semitism, and we are so wildly off base with each other we are at an impasse. Obviously they do coordinate and they are motivated by their particular identity.
You are absolutely wrong in this discussion, but I made my case and you made yours, if you want to return >30 hours after my last reply and get the last word be my guest. But this is absolutely not me ghosting a debate in any sense. You also called plainly observable reality a "conspiracy theory" and that makes it more likely I'm going to write off discussion with you because we simply aren't operating on similar enough premises. Is it a "conspiracy theory" that Bari Weiss being a pro-Zionist Jew was central to her being selected by the new proi-Zionist Jew owners to lead CBS news? What would you say if a Chinese billionaire who was as engrained in the CCP as Ellison is with Israel (Ellison family is largest private donor to IDF by the way) acquired CBS News, and installed to lead the network a Chinese Nationalist as fanatically loyal to the CCP as Bari Weiss is to Israel? "Nope no coordination here! I don't see any coordination do you? They just happen to be super passionate about China, calling it coordination is a conspiracy theory."
But whatever, not even here to rehash the debate, but you have absolutely not posted an example of me doing what @Amadan accused me of. I'm letting you have the last word because you are describing things as conspiracy theory that to me are plainly observable. So it's an impasse, the reader can read both and decide which perspective is more plausible. I'm not going to spend days debating this with you when you deny what are to me plainly observable premises.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
AGI not achieved until LLM can craft a novel antisemitic argument.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
So crushedoranges accuses me of not being here to debate. I say, ok, point to anything I've posted you disagree with and we can debate. He refuses and says "debate is pointless."
Then you come in here and say I disappear for weeks at a time in order to avoid debate, and I say, ok, point to a single time you feel I've done that. You refuse and say "you're fooling no one."
The only ones making unfalsifiable claims are you and @crushedoranges. Because when I ask you to substantiate your accusations you refuse to do so.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
Ok, point to one example. Giving someone else the last word is not shirking a debate, the notion I disappear for weeks to avoid an argument is a false accusation. But feel free to point to a single instance where I've engaged in the behavior you're accusing me of, but you won't.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
Can you cite an example of when I've ghosted a debate?
"Ghosting a debate" doesn't mean I neglect to reply to every single comment, or when I decide to give my opponent the last word. Feel free to cite one example when you think I've done what you've described, but you won't.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
It's absolutely not true, I would challenge him or you to cite anything I've written that matches that characterization. He shirked when I asked him to, and you're going to shirk as well. Not surprising that you put on mod hat to endorse a comment that breaks the rules and mischaracterizes my arguments.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
Crushedoranges, if you disagree with anything I have written anywhere you can hit the "reply" button and I will debate you. But you have shown up here to complain about me talking about Jews and not to debate.
Challenge rejected, my posts are appropriate for a Culture War forum, and I'm not obsessed with talking about them so much as the rest of the world is obsessed with not talking about them to the degree that ought be appropriate in any serious analysis of Culture War.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
I did it once in a comment reply as an obvious protest, my defense is that it is not something have I done to generate "normal" posts at all even a single time. That is just not true.
It's a funny bait and switch. They check off the "diversity" box in the Prologue and pay it no mind whatsoever in the entire story itself. The story is about a white family and it's actually interesting.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
No, that was just one time I made an obviously generated comment reply (not a top-level post) to make a mockery of the dumb rule that was created to target me. It was an obvious protest and not something I have seriously done in any capacity.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
With that said, I'm the safest here from that accusation because no LLM would assist writing my posts or helping my arguments haha.
SecureSignals
1mo ago
I'll throw in my two cents and say that prompting things like "summarize the sequence of costs tariffs impose" is fine because it can probably provide a clearer summary, and in less time, than you. Your perspective + predictions are presumably your own and not just pasting LLM opinion on the state of things.
Ultimately I learned a lot from the post relative to the time reading it, that's what I care about most.
Where do you think the animosity from Iran and its urgency to have a nuclear deterrent fomes from? It comes from Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, all locations in which the US and Israel directly flexed hard military power to achieve regime change on behalf of Israel's geopolitical objectives. Iran has only made it this far because if its missile deterrent.
Israel has been hostile and aggressive against all of its regional neighbors and used the US for its dirty work, and it's a shock that makes an enemy of Iran? It's one of the steep costs of this pseudo-alliance with Israel, which is not an alliance at all. It's subversive and always has been.
The notion that Turkey has 10 times more domination of those neighbors than Israel, who is actively bombing them and taking credit for overthrowing Assad and on the verge of overthrowing Iran, is of course totally delusional.
More options
Context Copy link