SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
No bio...
User ID: 853
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
19d ago
I don’t believe that this is what he meant by “anti-Semitism”! I believe he meant a far more quotidian antipathy towards individual Jewish people as a result of their religion or ancestry.
Ok, well let's just take a look at the undefeated Uno Reverso.
If I said: "The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the Jewish race" do you think Ignatiev would regard that as anti-semitism? Obviously he would. So you just switch "White" from "Jew" in his own rhetoric and it goes from "moral good" to "crime against humanity."
Again, why would Ignatiev waste his time writing books and giving speeches about “abolishing blackness” when he knows full well that this would simply introduce massive friction and mutual recriminations within his political coalition? Just to prove to you that he’s not a hypocrite? It’s not like you’d hate him or oppose him any less if he did so. So why should he care about appeasing your sensitivities?
This is funny Hoffmeister. Firstly, I never accused Ignatiev of hypocrisy, he's a Jew who is hostile to White Identity. That's not hypocritical. Ben Shapiro is not hypocritical for strongly opposing White Identitarianism while strongly supporting Jewish identitarianism. He's not being a hypocrite, he's being a Jew who is strongly motivated by his religion and ethnic identity.
But secondly, you were the one who said "In that sense, it is also true that he wants to 'abolish the black race'" without providing a shred of evidence.
In fact, the situation is worse. You, Hoffmeister, accuse me of being an equal-offender racist- racist against everyone, while I accuse you of being even worse- only racist against blacks. It's telling then that you are defensive of Ignatiev who defends Black Identity on the basis that it musters resistance to White Identity. So his real position is the precise opposite of what you imagine. He supports using Black Identity as a tool to undermine White Identity, which is why his ideas found such prominent reception during the BLM Great Awakening. In this way, his position is basically equivalent to the anti-semitic conception of the conniving Jew who wants to manipulate Blacks to get back at whitey. This is literally Ignatiev, but you remain totally blind to this pattern of behavior and the writ-large alliance between Jewish intellectuals, Blacks, and the Civil Rights movement.
You appear to see him more as the consciously-vindictive aggrieved minority who wants to be the next one to hold the whip hand. Is this an accurate characterization?
He hates White Identity, he wants to destroy it- and there's no evidence for hatred of Black or Jewish identity, in fact precisely the opposite. That is my characterization of his beliefs.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
19d ago
Your claim is that I was saying "Ignatiev only cares about Jews" when I said no such thing and would have no reason to believe this. I said he is anti-white and he strongly opposes anti-semitism, which is a claim that is not refuted by anything you or anyone else has wrote in response.
You are being intentionally obtuse. You are obviously intelligent enough to parse Ignatiev’s actual beliefs
Obviously I understand Ignatiev's beliefs, better than you apparently. No, I don't think Ignatiev is calling for a literal murder of all white people. Instead he is using his own non-negligible cultural influence to deconstruct and pathologize White Identity, in an effort to undermine it. I understand that perfectly well, I more than most here understand that you don't undermine a race by just committing murder, you do it at a symbolic and ultimately cultural level. It remains an expression of a strong ethnic hostility even if it's not actually advocating for physical violence.
In that sense, it is also true that he wants to “abolish the black race”; not to abolish the African phenotype, but to abolish the idea that anyone should care what ancestral group an individual appears to descend from.
Citation strongly needed! He regards the Black Race as a social construct also, but one that is sympathetic and he does not call to Abolish Blackness. If you're going to provide a claim for that, please provide evidence. While you're at it- provide evidence that he called to Abolish Jewry. Of course he did neither such thing, it is Whites who who receive the enmity of his ideological worldview and no other racial group.
There’s no secret undercurrent of wanting to see Jewish people secretly privileging themselves while dissolving other macro-scale unchosen identities.
Calling for the Abolition of Whiteness while simultaneously declaring anti-semitism as "Crime against Humanity" is a far more important demand for Jewish privilege than the question over whether Jews at Harvard should be given dedicated kitchens. He is demanding Jewish privilege by socially deconstructing White identity while declaring in-kind criticism of Jewish identity to be a Crime against Humanity. His position on dining at Harvard notwithstanding, which is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.
Please provide evidence Ignatiev called for the Abolition of Blackness or Jewry. He did not. He called for the Abolition of Whiteness, and he declared anti-semitism to be a crime against humanity. Which is exactly what I said in my original post.
When I’ve expressed enthusiasm about miscegenation between white people and East Asians, you’ve reacted with shock and horror, because you take it for granted that preserving the genetic purity of the white race is of considerable importance.
I challenged your absurdly naive notion that combining all the races of the world would magically combine all the relative strengths of each group into one superior specimen:
I do believe that the optimal genetic admixture of people in the future will be some combination of European, East Asian, Jewish, and a small but non-negligible amount of Amerindian. You might think this would be a mystery-meat catastrophe, but I think it would be a healthy and vital blending of the best each of these elements would offer.
That was the juvenile claim you made which I challenged.
You only mention him objecting to anti-Semitism, as usual implying that Jews only care about Jews and are enemies of everyone else.
There is no implication of that at all. My implication is exactly what I said: he is vehemently anti-white and he strongly objects to anti-semitism. Absolutely nothing about the context challenges that fact, there is no implication that he "only cares about Jews." He's a commie, I'm sure he cares about a bunch of stuff! But he's vehemently anti-white while strongly objecting to anti-Semitism (very very many such cases).
That was my point, it is 100% true, it is not changed at all by the context, and it's not challenged by anything you wrote here.
@Amadan, would you agree that he's vehemently anti-white and he simultaneously strongly objects to anti-Semitism, regarding it as a Crime Against Humanity? If not, why not?
Can you explain how the context contradicts my summary? He vocally supported ending the white race, while at the same time declaring anti-Semitism a Crime against Humanity. That was my statement, and your context does not refute that in any way. Sure, he made that affirmation in order to defend himself from the accusation of anti-Semitism for his position on Harvard food accommodations but that is no matter. What I have said is not changed whatsoever by the context you provided, he simultaneously held both positions exactly as I described.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
19d ago
It should also be noted that Noel Ignatiev regarded anti-semitism as a "Crime against humanity." So according to Harvard professor Ignatiev there's a moral impetus to abolish the white race by any means necessary, but anti-semitism is a Crime against Humanity. The surge of anti-semitism is caused by the Noticing of this bitterly hostile social consensus. The actions of Israel are going a long way in revealing this social consensus for what it is.
There's a point where free speech bleeds too far into norms of civility, and this guy crossed that line when he said "Jews must be abolished by any means necessary."
FWIW "Abolish whiteness" was an extremely common slogan during the Floyd Great Awakening, and the term itself was coined by a high-status Jew in the Academy, Noel Ignatiev:
He was best known for his controversial theories on race and for his call to abolish "whiteness". Ignatiev was the co-founder of the New Abolitionist Society and co-editor of the journal Race Traitor, which promoted the idea that "treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity"... His academic work was linked to his call to "abolish" the white race
The point is, when you criticize Jews in any capacity you are crossing the line too far into norms of civility, whereas Jews criticizing Whites is extremely prolific and high-status across all cultural and academic institutions.
A lot of the surge of anti-semitism is coming from the rejection of the notion that Jews deserve this special treatment, where the "norms of civility" means they are beyond any criticism in any similar measure they give to Whites.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
24d ago
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
24d ago
And Israel probably isn't trying to decapitate; they're probably not trying to topple the regime (which would lead at best to chaos), but incapacitate it technically.
Israel is absolutely trying to topple the regime, Netenyahu has made this very clear. Reporting is that Israel had a window to assassinate the Ayatollah but was vetoed by Trump, with Israelis claiming it would end the conflict. Trading missile blows was never going to achieve either of Israel's war objectives directly, but escalating to this point forces the hand of the United States to achieve those objectives on behalf of Israel including toppling the regime.
It's going to follow the model of Libya and Syria, with bombing campaigns coincided with arming and fomenting a civil war in Iran. Toppling the regime is without question the goal of Israel, but it remains to be seen if the US is on board with that.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
25d ago
Religion and symbolism are incredibly important in directing the identities and behavior of groups of people. It even directs their biological evolution which can be seen clearly in Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity. This was of course also true for ancient European religion. You can see a microcosm of this phenomenon if you just go to a comic con and observe the public rituals venerating fictional comic-book characters. In this way, rationalism does underestimate the importance of symbolism; scientific atheism simply rejects the scientific truth of these stories but stops short of understanding why they were created and what they actually mean. These stories are "real" insofar as they meaningfully influence material reality. The thread you linked relating these myths and rituals such as prayer to "prompt engineering for the subconscious" is apt.
But based on your summary, Mythical Christianity seems to ignore 99% of the text of the Bible and the symbolic analysis of those figures you provided does not at all generalize to the canon as a whole. For example, Yahweh is symbolically a Hebrew tribal god and the Old Testament does not at all fit the interpretation of Yahweh as "love by embracing all things that exist & affording the path to salvation through communion with it". So maybe Mythical Christianity then decides to basically dispense with the Old Testament, well then it's not at all serious about symbolically engaging the New Testament.
We are in darkness symbolically because the prevailing religion in the West is predicated on the literal truth of stories that are no longer believable in this day in age. This "Mythical Christianity" tries to reconcile this but it's self-defeating. It has awareness that Religion is essentially fine-tuning the LLM of collective consciousness, but then tries to circle back and maintain a divine inspiration for those stories.
Mythical Christianity is like becoming aware that the shadows on the wall are just symbolic projections from some artists backstage, but still believing those shadows are divinely influenced to show the audience the truth. So you don't leave the cave, you stay there even though you know they are just shadows being consciously scripted by human beings with their own motives and political agendas.
Said regime hates the US with a burning passion, both for backing the monarchy and for getting in the way of a regional Islamic revolution in the entire region.
I feel like this is so emblematic of the blinders people have. Really, you think Iran hates the US for the Islamic revolution and not the US-Israeli "alliance" and its belligerence towards all Iran's regional neighbors- Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, and so forth. Saying it's about the Islamic revolution just makes me wonder what planet you are living on. Israel has said it will only accept the "Libya model" of nuclear disarmament. The "Libya model" means: you give up your nuclear program, then we topple your regime. The notion Iran just has some irrational hatred towards the US is so ridiculous.
Personally, it makes me understand why some people think Israel is simply America's attack dog, doing the dirty work we don't want to be involved in directly.
Again- living in the land of pure fantasy. Israel got America to do the dirty work in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon and Syria. How many troops did Israel deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan? Zero, despite the loss of thousands of American lives. And now it is plainly obvious that Israel initiated war with Iran with the intent and plan to force the United States to enter the war. They have already requested US assistance to enter the war and admitted they can't achieve their war objectives without the United States.
I agree with the thrust of your post in that I am not isolationist, I understand America as an Empire with imperial interests and obligations. But doing so leads to the obvious conclusion that Zionism is and has been immensely harmful to the imperial interests of the United States, and that toppling the regime in Iran is foremost a play for the interests of International Zionism and not the United States or Europe.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
28d ago
It's now just accepted conventional wisdom that Israel wants to drag the United States into a likely globally-destabilizing conflict on the basis of their insane, racial-supremacist Abrahamic cult-myths. We're totally done with bullshit platitudes about this being about oil or Spreading Democracy. Everybody knows now. We're done with the precepts. At this point there's nothing left to say, all of the predictions and analysis of the so-called Anti-Semitic Right is proven correct. It's just a matter of whose side you're on at this point.
#NoWarWithPersia.
Here's a list of material:
- Watch David Cole in Auschwitz (1992), of course David distances himself from Revisionism (although he doesn't repudiate anything he's presented in this video) but this film was a pinnacle moment in Revisionist history.
- Chapter 10 of Dalton's Debating the Holocaust. The whole book is good and provides the best overview of both the mainstream and Revisionist positions but Chapter 10 is on Auschwitz specifically.
- The Chemistry of Auschwitz is one of the best Revisionist volumes on Auschwitz and was another major moment in Revisionism- a PhD student in chemistry surreptitiously sampled the walls of the alleged gas chambers and found they lacked any trace of cyanide in comparison to the known delousing chambers. This video is created/narrated by the author of that book and is based on that book so it's probably more of a digestible overview than the book it's based on.
- The Last Days of the Big Lie is a takedown of Seven Spielberg's Oscar-winning Documentary. I would consider this important viewing because the vast majority of the evidence for the Holocaust is composed of postwar witness testimony, often from Jews. This documentary shows how unreliable the entire Holocaust-memoir sphere is as a source of evidence and how it's exploited by Hollywood for political purposes.
David Cole's film and Chemistry of Auschwitz are especially relevant because they surround the alleged gas chamber that you are going to be shown on tour. If you review those materials I think you'll have quite a different perspective when you visit that structure and are shown the "Zyklon holes".
David Cole's primary contribution was that, while presenting as a sincere Jew who was studying the Holocaust, he got Franciszek Piper, who was head of the Auschwitz Historical Department, on camera to admit that the Auschwitz Gas Chamber shown to millions of tourists was not an original structure, it was "restored" post-war in Soviet-occupied Poland. The Soviets converted an air-raid shelter to a gas chamber and presented it as all original. That is the reason for certain anomalies, like the infamous Wooden Door that attracts the mockery of low-level Deniers- ("A wooden door with a window to a gas chamber?"). This was immediately after Cole was told by the Auschwitz-trained tour guide that it was an original structure.
But he was never a serious researcher. Piper only admitted what Revisionists had already known. I won't discount the value of that moment, but he just hasn't made any contributions to Revisionist research. He has brought publicity and that's the extent of his contribution.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
1mo ago
True, the Polish resistance was operating in the area. Yet there are 0 contemporary reports of a 120-day straight open-air cremation operation. Imagine cremating 5,000 people+ per day in the immediate vicinity of several Polish villages and a civilian rail-line with 0 contemporary reports of such an operation.
According to GPT 4o, the smokestack from an open-air fire large enough to cremate 5,000 people (only a single day's requirement at Treblinka) would be so large it would be visible from Warsaw and even Lublin! But nobody said anything about the 24/7 raging infernos.
It's a silly story.
Korherr, with unfettered access to all SS documents, definitively concluded that as of the beginning of 1943, slightly over 2.4 million Jews had been killed in the Reinhard camps
It should be noted that the Korherr report says no such thing at all. The Korherr report says explicitly that the 1.2 million Jews were resettled through the camps of General Government, which is what the Revisionists say happened. And Richard Korherr himself wrote a letter to Der Spiegel in the 1970s clarifying that he specifically asked what that number referred to, and was told it referred to resettlement.
So the document directly states what the Revisionists say happened, Richard Korherr confirmed that was his own interpretation of that number in the 1970s, and the "2.4 million Jews had been killed in the Reinhard camps" is not stated in the report whatsoever, that's just the mainstream position begging the question.
David Cole is just relying on the fact that his audience doesn't know better, so they'll believe him when he just lies about what the Korherr report says.
David said "Deniers never cite Korherr either" is his typical style of outright lying when he knows his audience won't have background knowledge to verify what he's saying. Here's the Revisionist work on Treblinka Ctrl + F "Korherr"- 17 results with good discussion.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
1mo ago
David Cole denies the Auschwitz extermination camp story, that makes him a Denier according to any mainstream position. His position on Auschwitz would be illegal in Europe for example.
Cole takes a very rare position held by, maybe, 2 other people, which is that he is an Auschwitz Denier but a Treblinka Believer. He doesn't believe the Holocaust story at Auschwitz, which would make him a Denier according to any mainstream standard. It's also strange because an "extermination camp" at Auschwitz would be fundamentally more plausible than the Treblinka story. For example, Auschwitz at least actually had real crematoria which could be used to cremate large piles of body (according to Revisionists, not nearly enough but still). But Treblinka had nothing like that at all.
There's very scant evidence that "Treblinka" even existed at all. The total absence of evidence regarding Treblinka is beneficial for the Mainstream, because the large amounts of physical and documentary evidence at Auschwitz and Majdanek have made it easy for Revisionists to reconstruct what actually happened. For example, "oh you said this room was a gas chamber at Auschwitz, but according to all these construction blueprints we found, they all say it's a morgue. If this was just a fake morgue where's the real morgue?" The mainstream says it was really a gas chamber that was a fake morgue according to construction documents and also a fake shower room, the Revisionists say it was a morgue which is what construction documents say it was. So Revisionists have it easy at Majdanek and Auschwitz, but there's basically no evidence regarding Treblinka making it harder for Revisionists to make a more solid case. But of course the inverse is true, it's much harder for the mainstream to make a case but they have political power so they don't need to rely on solid evidence to retain hegemony over the interpretation of those camps.
David Cole vastly overstates his own contribution to Revisionism- he never published a single page in the mountains of volumes of Revisionist research, much less on the camps he "Believes" which are the most ridiculous of all frankly. David Cole's hybrid-position was just a convenient way for him to distance himself from Revisionism while retaining his ego with respect to his prior positions. "I was right about Auschwitz but I totally believe the Holocaust story at Treblinka!" There's a reason almost nobody in the world holds that position.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
1mo ago
Run Unz's article on Holocaust Denial is excellent actually, and takes a different approach than the usual Revisionist introduction but is very strong in its own right. It also provides some context on the early Holocaust Revisionist movement and its outgrowth from libertarian circles which is very interesting.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
1mo ago
My view of the Dissident Right is that it's an evolutionary memetic algorithm generating a post-postmodern Right Wing. But it will be regarded as Fascist by conservatives and Woke alike, whether or not that is the proper academic use of the term.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
1mo ago
"Matt Walsh posts Swastika on Timeline" is not a controversy that someone generally wants to be involved in. Like the Sewer Ben Shapiro telling him he can't post that, along with pats on the back from others in the reply. This stuff just isn't on the timeline of people who aren't being intentionally provocative.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
1mo ago
Yes, but the Dissident Right is a broader category than the Alt Right. I have the feeling you're implying that the Boomer Consensus is anti-fascist, therefore the Dissident Right is fascist or fashy, whereas I would say it's merely anti- or non- liberal.
The problem here is that the definition of Fascism is functionally non-liberal, Right Wing. You can argue that shouldn't be the operative definition of fascism, but the DR is fashy by nature of being Right-Wing and post-liberal.
Well, I certainly hope you're wrong. If you want to argue for nazism, argue for nazism, don't hide behind this "hee hee, I'm just a silly edgelord" bullshit. This sort of behavior is about the only thing that would justify the anti-"woke right" freak out, in my mind.
But the point is that poking the eye of the Boomer Consensus with edgy stuff like does not mean Walsh is arguing for Nazism. It's just flaunting a disrespect for norms enforced by Conservatives and Woke alike. In fact that would be my criticism of Walsh, he's trying to have a foot in both camps. He's trying to synthesize the Daily Wire Conservatism with some of the Race stuff from the DR + some edgy flaunting of political norms. Where does his actual thinking lie? I don't know.
SecureSignals
Training the Aryan LLM
1mo ago
If it was unintentional he would at minimum delete the tweet, and probably send another tweet apologizing and insisting it was a mistake. Leaving it on the timeline, where it has 3.5 million views now despite the fact he is no doubt well aware of the nature of the image, points to him being intentionally provocative.
The Dissident Right is bigger now than the alt-right ever was in its heyday in terms of engagement with ideas and content and influence. Matt Walsh is only the most recent of a long list of big-C Conservative influencers who now essentially adopt 2017 alt-right talking points on race and increasingly, maybe Israel even.
The irony of those like Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray trying to spread moral panic over the platforming of "Woke Right" is that it actually describes themselves better than it does the DR. Peterson, Murray and Woke alike are in alignment over high values like anti-racism and individualism, they just have different criteria for how those values are achieved. But both the Woke and Peterson will be scandalized by the DR critique of those values and the DR's rejection of this Boomer moral paradigm which they all pretend is centuries old but only goes back to, like the 60s at the earliest.
The Boomer consensus is essentially an anti-fascist dialectic- fascism is the most evil thing in the world and whether Right or Left, the operative question is how do we optimize to prevent Fascism, and both Conservatives including Peterson and Douglas Murray and the Woke are playing their part. What neither of them can stand is the Dissident Right which openly flaunts the anti-fascist norms enforced by both the Conservatives and Woke. The DR is a rejection of the Boomer Consensus and a rejection of the entire "Conservative v Woke" dialectic.
There's no going backwards. The "Conservative v Woke" dialectic that Peterson desperately wants to save is going by the wayside thanks to an Avant-garde Right wing which is terrifying to both Conservatives and Woke.
Edit: Just a few days ago, Matt Walsh reposted a crypto-Swastika on X (if you don't see it at first, try squinting). I believe he knew what he was doing. Not to say Walsh is a Nazi or anything, it's the flirtation with the edgy right-wing humor and symbolism that is novel compared to the Conservative puritans who call the DR "woke".
The context is unimportant, and I excluded it because it is unimportant. You can't just say the word "context" you have to explain how "the context" changes what I said- and it does not in any way. So he was against Jews getting their own dining accommodations at Harvard? Can you explain to me how that's relevant at all to what I said? My point was to contrast his call to destroy the white race with his claim that anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity. That point is not whatsoever challenged by his position on Harvard dining.
More options
Context Copy link