SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
No bio...
User ID: 853
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
That's a headline I didn't have on my bingo card.
On a similar note, a 2015-esque 4chan meme posted yesterday got 15 million view on Twitter. There seems to be a shift in the wind. Naysayers will say that Twitter isn't real life, I remember everybody saying that about the "Tumblr SJWs" in 2009.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
Yeah, the blast zone doesn't look large enough for hundreds of casualties.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
So they fire 6-10,000 missiles and kill only 3-4000 Gazans in surgical strikes, many of whom may well be actual Hamas fighters.
Considering the counterfactual...
Over 12,000 Hamas rockets have been fired in the past 15 years, killing a total of 33 Israelis. What are the chances that a single "malfunctioning" Hamas rocket killed 800+ people? It happened to fall on a weapons cache? What are the chances of that?
It seems more likely this is the case of a weapon working extremely effectively as it was engineered. That means the two most likely possibilities are a Hamas false flag or Israeli strike... Betting markets seem to buy into the Israeli story, I can't wrap my mind around the unlikelihood of a rocket with such a poor mortality track record malfunctioning and then hitting what was possibly the most vulnerable space in Northern Gaza...
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
It's fair to withhold judgment as I'm sure we'll get more information. But the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty shows they are capable of engaging in apparently insane behavior and then getting away with it with implausible and disproven denials.
Just a note for the "Israel wouldn't do something with so much political downside" perspective.
I’d say Carlson’s criticism is more the traditional libertarian argument against overseas entanglements.
There was also a latent anti-Semitism in the libertarian anti-interventionist movement represented by those like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul. The association of "Neocons" with Zionists in the American policy apparatus was fairly ubiquitous there, and complaint about Zionist influence in American foreign policy is certainly an echo of traditional European anti-Semitism and distinct from the anti-Colonial arguments.
In Ben’s case though, while he isn’t sympathetic to wignatism, his position on illegal immigration at the southern border (and in general) is no more generous than that of such gentile figures as Trump or DeSantis, has criticized the legal immigration system for “favoring third world immigrants” and has argued that limiting legal immigration on grounds of culture and projected welfare usage are both acceptable to him. That puts him on the hard right of GOP in the US
Ben Shapiro famously tweeted that "And by the way, I don't give a damn about the so-called 'browning of America.' Color doesn't matter. Ideology does." But of course, when it comes to Israel he massively cares about demographics, although he can hide behind the unique fact that membership to his "ideology" is genetically inherited.
I don't necessarily disagree that Ben Shapiro represents the "most right" you can go on that issue in the mainstream, but that's kind of the point. It demonstrates the gatekeeping. You can oppose immigration up until you start presenting arguments motivated by a white identity and character, or advocating for the interests of white people. People like Ben Shapiro have been absolutely essential in keeping those gates, so him representing the "maximum kosher" anti-immigration posture would be evidence for the DR argument instead of against it. If Ben Shapiro acknowledged the validity of white identarian arguments against demographic change you would have a point, but he does not do so. Shapiro's ethnic fanaticism is also represented by his recent rant against the West for "latent Jew hatred." So he doesn't care about the browning of the West, but he really does care about the latent Jew hatred of the West, despite how the West has bent over backwards to accommodate the Jews in the past several decades. It's par for the course.
In truth the DR doesn’t really want to accept that the number of hardcore Jennifer Rubin “mass immigration for thee but not for me” types (and even Rubin considers Israeli colonization of the West Bank a “racist” project that she opposes, and has spent more of the last week criticizing Netanyahu contra Biden than anything else) are actually pretty rare.
The DR's position doesn't rely on the number of Jennifer Rubins, it relies on an analysis of the broader popular culture and academic consensus which pathologizes white identity and sacralizes Jewish identity. The number of people who pathologize white identity and worship Jewish identity is very high among both Jews and whites.
I don't see very many DR people pretending to care about the Palestinians per se (there are some, sure). Israel absolutely matters here because it exposes this consensus as being a farce, it's just an exercise in Jewish power rather than a morally consistent framework derived from truthful moral enlightenment.
Everyone on the right agrees that the establishment is anti-white now, but that it's tactically more acceptable to criticize them for being anti-Semitic.... Anti-whiteness and anti-Semitism and socialism all come from the same source
It's very strange premise by Hanania.... the establishment is anti-white and philo-semitic. And for that matter, the anti-white consensus in the establishment rode the coattails of philo-semitism, so it's far more plausible to say the anti-white consensus and philo-semitism came from the same source than the ahistorical claim that anti-Semitism and anti-White ideology both come from socialism.
Keith Woods actually catches a lot of flak within the dissident right for being genuinely pro-Palestinian, he's maintained that position for years now. Most of the DR is anti-Zionist and ambivalent towards the Palestinians at best, Keith is an exception who identifies with the Palestinian struggle.
Contrary to Woods, anti-Zionism has been fashionable among the intelligentisa for many decades, and since its inception, Israel has been the object of international scorn.
...
We've been having an "honest" conversation about Zionism in the West for a long time. People like Keith Woods are just upset it hasn't been as explicitly antisemitic as they would like.
The anti-Zionism you are describing, which certainly exists, has existed within a fundamentally different strain of ideas than what could be considered anti-Semitism in the European tradition. That anti-Zionism is downstream from Marxist, anti-Colonial, anti-apartheid interpretations of history and influence on academia. There has been much debate over the line where the anti-Zionist stance begins to borrow influence from more traditional anti-Semitism, but there's been a very clear delineation for the most part.
While there has been more or less a handle on traditional European anti-Semitism in public consciousness and the public square, the quasi-Marxist anti-Zionism has been much more difficult to suppress. This means, in practice, while there is much protest over Jewish colonialism it is still taboo to talk about Jewish influence in American political or cultural life in any critical measure. I think what the DR hopes for is for this crisis to begin to bridge the gap between the two in the public discourse. The power, hypocrisy, and bloodlust coming to a head opens up the conversation to much more than just debates about colonialism.
We've noted in this thread how Keith exploded in popularity based mostly on a couple of Elon Musk retweets. Richard Hanania tweeting something like:
You’ve got to feel a bit sorry for cancelled Muslims.
You come here, learn the way to sound sophisticated is to be a person of color speaking out against a white oppressor.
You naturally apply the standard framework to Israel-Palestine, but suddenly find yourself unemployable.
Which received an emoji reply from Elon Musk is an example of the Israeli-Palestinian question expanding from its anti-colonial walled garden to tougher questions that have not been featured on college campuses or in school curriculum.
Likewise, Tucker Carlson recently gave some critique of American support for Zionism that threw Ben Shapiro into a blind rage on his show. Carlson's critique is fundamentally different from the left-wing anti-Zionism you are talking about. The DR is correct to pick up on the discourse getting closer to their own critique of Zionist influence in the West, which is closer to traditional European anti-Semitism and not simply an application of a Marxian anti-Colonialism argument.
If I were a Jewish Zionist in all likelihood I would support what they are planning to do, but that doesn't undermine any of my reasons for opposing it as a non-Jew. I certainly wouldn't want the standards that Rep. Israel is advocating for whites to be applied to myself, either (and neither does Rep. Israel!).
But yeah, if I were a Jewish Zionist I would be unlikely to have a problem with the "rules for thee but not for me" state of affairs. I would like to think I have more intellectual honesty than that but empirically the chances of that being true don't look great.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
Thanks.
My view is that Zionism exerts undue and harmful influence over my own civilization. They have exerted influence in all areas of economic and cultural life to browbeat white gentiles with "moral lessons" that have disarmed them from essential and necessary ethnic self-regard, with irreversible consequences (Rep. Israel is now talking about the "least heinous option" when defending Israel by the way). They view white identity and ethnocentrism as intrinsically hostile to their self-interest, a belief which you share, so they work to suppress it while extracting financial, military, and political benefit from the Western world toward their own ethno-nationalist project.
You are correct that the anti-Zionism from the DR isn't going to change demographics or even the short-term migrant trends in the United States and Europe. But pointing out that the Zionists are poised to engage in an ethnic cleansing with the support of the US State Department goes a long way in discrediting the notion of Jews as the moral light unto the world. It is very strong evidence for the DR argument that Jewish moralizing towards white gentiles is their mode of engaging in conflict with perceived ethnic rivals and is motivated by ethnic self-interest rather than universal morality.
My moral framework relies on dispelling the pathologizing of white identity. Supporting the Zionists does nothing for that, except it reinforces their status as being above and beyond the standards that are imposed on us.
As far as what they should do, of course ethnic cleansing is the most practical solution here, but my moral framework would suggest I hold Zionists accountable to the moral framework that has been imposed on the West. I gain nothing by supporting their own ethnonationalism while knowing for a fact they will continue to work against white ethnonationalism.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
If the Arabs completely blockaded and turned off the food and water to the Irish, I think Keith would consider it a betrayal to say "good idea on that blockade, that's going to force the Irish away from Ireland finally and that will cause less trouble." Even if they were the weaker party.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
For Keith, supporting the ethnic cleansing of your people from your ancestral homeland is a betrayal on principle. i.e. if Ireland became overrun with Arabs and things came to a head, I don't think Keith would advocate for ethnically cleansing the Irish to the United States even if that had a higher standard of living and more political rights.
I don't care about Richard's betrayal of the Palestinians, I care about his betrayal of Europe, not that he necessarily owes any loyalty to Europeans. But it shows where his priorities lie when he talks about "less trouble."
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
Richard Hanania has already suggested it would be less trouble for the Palestinians to be expelled to Europe, I certainly wouldn't rule it out. If a regional war breaks out then there is a 100% chance of Europe being forced to take mass refugees.
Why do you reject its sovereignty?
Yeah that's unclear, I mean the sovereignty of International Zionism writ large, its sovereignty over me. The sovereignty of Zionist Jews to tell me I'm the most evil person in the world and have no right to have any sort of ethnic identity or advocate for my ethnic interests, and then they turn around and say they are the exception to the 20th century moral lessons and can basically do anything necessary to secure their ethno-state. They haven't recently been "radicalized", they've always been radicalized, their hostility towards White ethnic identity and interests combined with their hyper-ethno nationalism has always been radical, it's just that they can no longer even pretend to care about following the same rules they enforce on the rest of us.
The fact they are able to basically toss out the rule book with the support of the Western world is proof of their undue sovereignty over the international community. Europeans are thrown in jail for saying mean things about immigrants, while Israel just lives in an entirely different moral universe. It's proof of their centrality to the moral paradigm we live under, that they are above and beyond it and can declare a state of exception in their own conquests. But this isn't going to weaken or fracture the underlying moral paradigm, it's literally just "you have to follow the rules and we don't, we decide when and where the rules apply and we decide the rules don't apply to us here, there's nothing you can do about it", it's an exercise in sovereignty.
The way to see whether Israel is good or bad for the Arabs is not to compare the quality of life led by your average Israeli Jew vs your average Israeli Arab, but to compare the quality of life of an Israeli Arab vs a non-Israeli Arab. Sure, Israel treats it’s Arab citizens as second class citizens compared to the Jews, but this absolutely does not necessarily mean that the Arabs of Israel are worse off than they would be in the counterfactual.
This argument has been deployed in the past to justify chattel slavery and segregation, also with a large element of truth. I am sympathetic to this argument, by the way, but the problem is we were supposed to have "learned our lessons" and reformed society to reject these arguments that justified structures of alleged racial oppression. The United States emancipated the slaves, racially integrated public spaces and has essentially outlawed segregation even in private spaces, and granted equal rights to racial minorities all in a rejection of this argument you have presented. Immigration has been liberalized so much that demographic change is inevitable, and opposing demographic change makes you an evil Nazi. Accepting masses of refugees and illegal immigrants with open arms is supposed to be downstream of these lessons we have learned, lessons which were brought to us from the 20th century mythos- a mythos in which Jews played a central role.
Hoffmeister recently suggested that the Zionists tossing aside 20th century moralizing to solve this problem may awaken something in Europeans. But Carl Schmitt wrote "Sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception", and Zionism has declared a state of exception to these 20th century moral lessons that the rest of us are forced to live under, and are forced to accept all the radical consequences thereof. I don't really support Palestine, but I reject Zionism declaring the state of exception because I reject its sovereignty, not because I think your argument is wrong. I'm not going to give Zionism a pass because experience has proven beyond doubt that White people supporting Zionism earns -zero- reciprocity, supporting their declaration of the state of exception is not going grant one iota of benefit in my opposition to this moral paradigm. It's not even going to undermine the moral paradigm, as the sovereign declaring a state of exception solidifies the status of the sovereign and the underlying paradigm.
If Israel were to follow the post-war moral paradigm which has been forced upon Europe and the Western World, it would have long ago advocated a single-state solution with full equal political rights afforded to the Palestinians, right of return, outlawed ethnic segregation, pushed Affirmative Action for Palestinians in University and Government, accepted large-scale immigration from its Arab neighbors, and socially and legally repressed every Jewish Israeli who had anything bad to say about their emancipated Arab compatriots.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
BAP has already been discredited by a large portion of the Dissident Right for being a Jewish Zionist, he is a known quantity as a Zionist posing as a Nietzschean. The real Nietzscheans in the DR don't have much of a dog in the inter-Abrahamic wars beyond the impact on their own civilization. That doesn't mean necessarily killing civilians, although context certainly matters. One pattern we saw in WWII was that shooting civilians is seen as much more barbaric than bombing civilians, and that pattern seems to hold today as well.
I also don't think "you are barbarians for your practices in war, so we must subjugate you and civilize you" is really contrary to Nietzsche. That was the M.O of the Roman Empire, who would basically denounce everyone outside their sphere of influence as a "barbarian." So the "barbarian spirit" is a little more complicated than glamorizing the most grotesque things any people does. Being Nietzschean doesn't mean you have to glorify all acts by the barbarians, it also means you subjugate them and impose your morality onto them.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
Israel can’t deport the Arabs from Gaza. They’ve spent 50 years trying to and the Arab population has increased by more than 400%. That is because, exactly as European countries are finding and will find out, nobody wants them.
Europe didn't want its Syrian refugees either, what the European people want doesn't matter. I think it is completely possible that Europe is forced to accept the migration of millions of refugees on behalf of Israel, and people like Hoffmeister will continue to hold out hope on "reconciliation" and belief that Aryans must rely on the Jews to survive. It's already happened so far with millions of Arab refugees, why wouldn't it happen again?
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
I'm talking about the children of those migrants 50 years from now. Israel would be deporting natives from their indigenous region, but that isn't going to open up the minds of Europeans into deporting the next generation of non-Europeans in Europe. They are just going to accept a different set of standards for the Chosen than themselves as they are doing right now.
I don’t see Israel, or the Jewish people, as the long-term enemy of my people.
You should consider that the reverse is true, especially among the more religious hardliners which are growing in influence in Israel. They spit on Christian pilgrims in the streets, they could murder them for that matter, and those Christians will never accept them as a long-term enemy. But that's ultimately because Christian religion has completely blinded them and they are totally incapable of rationally interpreting the relationship between themselves and the Jews.
I don't blame you for wanting this to be true, but my question is what exactly do you perceive as entailing "reconciliation" between Aryan and Jew, a sibling rivalry that is biblical and mythically embodied in the brothers Jacob and Esau. The Jews view themselves as sons of Jacob and you as the son of Esau. Does your idea of reconciliation rely on this changing fundamentally? I don't think you appreciate how deeply this is baked into the cake of the Jewish religion.
Because they will say that they want nothing more than reconciliation between Jew and Aryan. And their conception of "reconciliation" is the suppression and erasure of Aryan racial consciousness and advocacy coincided with bloodthirsty support for the Jewish ethno-state. I assume that you mean something different by "reconciliation", something akin to reciprocity. Imagine if Jews vocally and materially supported the interests of White people to the extent White people support Jewish nationalism. If that's your idea of reconciliation, I would be interested to see how, when, and why you think these attitudes changing are plausible.
I think you also underestimate the capacity for self-deception and cognitive dissonance. Let's say Israel determines the Final Solution to the Palestinian Question is forced deportation. That is not going to open the minds of Europeans in any degree, they are just going to accept simultaneously that this is necessary for Israel but even proposing a similar measure for African migrants is an evil, jail-worthy suggestion.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
Well yes, I certainly believe that public perception of Fascism versus Marxism is downstream from the national mythos, that was my point. It's not related to Marxism feeling closer to an organic family structure, because it isn't. The "national mythos" in turn comes from the institutions most influential in creating myth, culture, and academia, it doesn't come from a grounded reality.
Did Critical Theorists invent that connection or is it a logical one?
What the Critical Theorists did was develop a framework that pathologized the traditional family structure, traditional values, and white ethnocentrism. It's the same thing the Marxists do, they take organic hierarchies like class and assume them to be artificial figments of some injustice. They did not invent the connection so much as they falsely pathologized it and developed a therapeutic framework that greatly influenced cultural movements into what we now call Wokeness.
Being integrated into the founding mythos of being the beacon of liberty and justice
Yeah, it's really incredible how Western democracies waged an unnecessary world war that destroyed Old Europe, killed tens of millions, and handed half the continent to Stalin and turned that outcome into being the foundational story of the US as a beacon of liberty and justice. They saved Hitler from conquering the world, a truly audacious claim made by the alliance of the USSR, United States, and British Empire.
The "lessons" learned from that conflict are just more mythos: Hitler gassed Jews in gas chambers disguised as shower rooms, so that means White people cannot have their own spaces and White people cannot advocate for their ethnic interests.
These ideologically-motivated culture-creators created the foundational mythos, the foundational mythos did not create them.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
but do you think the average American is likely to think of their household as fascist, regardless of what critical theorists think?
Nope, but the reason for that is not because their family arrangement is more similar to communism than fascism, their perception is due to the cultural signals they've been inundated with their entire lives and have thoroughly internalized. Those cultural signals were indeed influenced by the perception of the Critical Theorists, so what the Critical Theorists thought actually does matter because of its influence on culture and academia.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
Traditional familial structure is associated with patriarchy and father-figure role, hierarchy within families and between kin groups, concentric circles of concern correlated with kin-group and genetic similarity. Not class struggle, but genetic cooperation expressed as family love and solidarity.
Communism, a political arrangement where all property is publicly owned and all are paid by their needs, is not even close to being more similar to the familial structure than fascism.
The Critical Theorists in particular related familial discipline to propensity for latent fascist tendencies, i.e.:
A central idea of The Authoritarian Personality is that authoritarianism is the result of a Freudian developmental model. Excessively harsh and punitive parenting was posited to cause children to feel immense anger towards their parents; yet fear of parental disapproval or punishment caused people to not directly confront their parents, but rather to identify with and idolize authority figures. Moreover, the book suggested that authoritarianism was rooted in suppressed homosexuality, which was redirected into outward hostility towards the father, which was, in turn, suppressed for fear of being infantilized and castrated by the father. This hypothesis was consistent with prevailing psychological theories of the time, and Frenkel-Brunswik reported some preliminary support, but empirical data have generally not confirmed this prediction. Authoritarianism was measured by the F-scale. The "F" was short for "pre-fascist personality." Another major hypothesis of the book is that the authoritarian syndrome is predisposed to right-wing ideology and therefore receptive to fascist governments.
Kevin MacDonald has an excellent chapter on TAP. MacDonald shows that the Critical Theorists would, for example, survey respondents to measure the level of discipline exerted by the parents of the respondents. Then, even though the children who reported a more disciplined household also reported closer relations to their parents, the researchers concluded that the lower-discipline households were healthier because the respondents of those households felt more "honest" to be open about the rifts in their family.
So the "post-modern neomarxists" certainly argued the traditional family structure was more similar to fascism than communism.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1yr ago
The traditional family unit is far more similar to fascism than communism, a fact which was understood and asserted by the critical theorists who conducted their research into The Authoritarian Personality, a foundational text to modern Wokeness.
Exactly, nobody cares because it's Kosher. If you say "dey took er jobs" then nobody cares, not those corporations who you accused of setting the tone on white racial consciousness. But if you say "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" then that is one of the most politically radical things you can say. The script there wasn't set by profit-motive or consumerism.
There seem to always be a reaction like this that presumes the only relevant question is the cause of the overrepresentation rather than the meaning or impact of the overrepresentation. Even if what you are saying is true, that this overrepresentation of Jews in the highest policy positions is driven by merit with no other contributing factors that are less savory, like Jewish ethnocentrism, that doesn't allow us to dismiss the implications. Especially as it pertains to the relationship of the US with Israel as well as the identification and loyalty of these Jews to the state of Israel.
As Anthony Blinken told the Israel Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv "I come before you not only as the United States secretary of state but also as a Jew". There is goig to be a certain impact of this Clark Kent dual-identity when so much policy is controlled by people who identify this way.
More options
Context Copy link