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
7mo ago
Can you point me to any article in The Atlantic where a white person is published agitating for his ethnic interests? It is a quintessentially Jewish behavior for them to leverage their connections in the media apparatus to spin a story of their own oppression in order to manipulate public opinion.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
7mo ago
We find it easy to relate systematic behavior regarding black street crime to HBD. It's entirely rational to generalize that analysis to other group behavior. A Jewish journalist writing a journalistic piece about Jewish oppression, particularly in the context of a political hot-button issue, based primarily on hearsay from Jewish witnesses should not be believed unless receipts are provided. It should basically be assumed that they are just trying to manipulate public opinion by spinning the truth, or outright fabricating it. It's the equivalent of crossing the street when you see a hoodlum coming your way.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
7mo ago
And de facto you were already well advised to keep your views on the Holocaust to yourself at any university anywhere outside the Islamic world.
Of course, but the idea of this being legally sanctioned by the government would have been far-fetched not too long ago due to First Amendment protections. No longer so.
It’s why a few swastika tattooed prison gang room temp IQ ‘grand dragon’ KKK-LARPers can be pushed to discredit large swathes of the far right with the public
It would be more like the if 'grand dragon' KKK-LARPers that have been used by ADL as a representation of "right-wing extremism" actually ran college campuses and elite institutions.
One of the very first red-pills for me was seeing ADL tout "higher extremism on the Right than the Left" but if you read the white paper, they would actually report things like "this guy murdered a prison guard during an escape, and he has a Swastika tattoo on his mug shot so this counts as right-wing violence." So the strategy was to misrepresent the opposition. But Zionists implementing these speech regulations banning criticisms of themselves and banning Holocaust revisionism are not misrepresenting Zionists, they are actually representing Zionists. It's not a matter of bad apples, it's a matter of them finally gaining ground in banning speech in the US where they have already achieved the same thing throughout Europe.
On a related note, Sweden is slated this month to outlaw Holocaust denial, joining the growing number of European nations. This sort of lawmaking is mostly recent across Europe.
Now if I were a student in Texas I would be liable to be expelled for my conclusions regarding the historicity of the alleged gas chambers, due to the use the "International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance" definition of antisemitism. Meaning Holocaust Revisionism is outlawed on Texas campuses, only formalizing an informal policy. I remember years ago making a post about the IHRA definition of antisemitism and people were skeptical it would be used as a vector for censorship in the United States, for Jews to try to achieve levels of censorship they have in Europe, but here we are.
People tend to overestimate the blowback caused by real censorship. What tends to happen is the outrage dies down, and then the act of censorship really does have a cooling effect that can be hard to measure or understand, and then it becomes "the new normal." It works, the "Streissand effect" is fake.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
8mo ago
Why could we not say the Aryans "larp" as heroes when they were just an invading horde?
At the end of the day, Aryans are an invading horde. What are Jews? They are not that. They operate differently and this is actually reflected in their foundational myths. Yes, the Aeneid is an aesthetically sophisticated mythology to reify what is essentially an invading horde on the Italian peninsula. What's Exodus? To this day, Jews very publicly celebrate the myth of their tribal god murdering the first-born, non-Jewish sons of their host civilization.
So as much as you blame the Jews for their control over the narrative, I blame you more than them for making it impossible to honestly question historical details.
Yes, you would blame me wouldn't you. Even if it were to turn out Revisionists are 100% right, you would still blame them and not the people most associated with creating and maintaining those lies, and actually creating and enforcing the laws and rules you are complaining about.
You'd find it more inconvenient to argue that the Jews are an enemy who only ever got what they deserved, but you would still argue that. Am I mistaken?
No, I would not argue that, I would probably just argue "it's in the past so we shouldn't put so much weight on this mythos for the questions of our day", which is an argument that is common enough already on the Right. But I think Revisionists are correct, and I don't think the narrative can survive long-term, it's highly vulnerable. I find the issue interesting because it is such an important mythos, but it is vulnerable at the same time.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
8mo ago
The number of Jewish-American soldiers who died in combat is completely irrelevant. Over 99% of the alleged death toll is said to have happened in Eastern Europe.
Very large numbers of Jews were evacuated from Poland and Eastern Europe deep into the Soviet Interior ahead of the German advance. Their fate is not well understood. Any of them, and there were certainly very many although we cannot know how many, were either outright killed by Stalin or died of exposure in gulags in Siberia or in subsequent war/post-war famines, historians count them all as German victims.
Or Ukrainian nationalists in a village who associated Jews with Bolshevism and took revenge against them, that's also counted as victims of Germany.
You can make the argument that historians ought to count things this way, but the point is the mythos obscures the underlying complexity to these issues. "Germans gassed 3 million Jews inside gas chambers disguised as shower rooms and then made the bodies disappear" is the mythological handwaving over the complexities of what actually transpired and why it did.
There's no historical basis for a lot of foundational myths, whether we're talking about Lamanites or Fir Bolg.
Yeah, that wasn't my point. My point was that Aryan foundational myth larps as the descendants of classical heroes, and Jewish foundational myth larps as a slave caste to a foreign civilization, within which they unleash plagues and get expelled.
I have not heard this claim, and like most of your statements, it's hard to parse since I don't know if you're claiming it's something some Jew once said and you're taking it out of context or what. (I mean, every army had some number of Jewish soldiers, some of whom were obviously killed in battle. So obviously the statement cannot literally be true.)
When historians estimate the death toll of the Holocaust - the famous 6 million number, they explicitly include all deaths even of Jews who never fell under German occupation, or who died in combat, owing to German war guilt for starting the war. Assuming some number of Jews, likely very many, died under Stalin during or after the war, those are all tabulated as Holocaust victims of Germany. Or some Ukrainian villages taking revenge against the Bolshevik apparatus- also German Holocaust victims.
According to Court Historians, 100% of Jewish deaths in WWII are German Holocaust victims, and 0 Jews were victims of Stalin.
So you have a basis of truth, Jewish persecution and hardship during WWII, and then it gets exaggerated and mispresented until you have a mythos that bears little resemblance to reality but is a propaganda narrative created by and for the interests of Jews.
I remember Ilforte giving a translated account of an alleged Russian pogrom which was extremely dubious, some Jewish school claiming that Russians had trespassed and trashed the place and threatened to kill them. It was all based off eyewitness testimonies of the Jews, with no leads or suspects and law enforcement basically didn't believe them although they could not write that in their reports. Yes, I'm sure the history of the pogroms in Russia is a mishmash of truth and reality, which is ultimately condensed into a one-sided narrative.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
8mo ago
I don't think historicity is relevant in evaluating the worth or meaning of a foundational myth, but it's worth noting that there's no historical basis for the enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt. So this foundational myth entails the exaggeration, or more likely outright fabrication, of their oppression as a propaganda tool for justifying claims to land, hostility towards their neighbors, and their own racial supremacy.
You could likewise say the Aeneid entails mostly historical myth in order to do the same: justify violence, conquest, and racial supremacy- and I agree. But the Aryan mode of that foundational myth is claiming descent from Classical heroes who built a glorious civilization that was lost to conquest, not that they were slaves within a foreign nation and their tribal god murdered the first-born sons of their host.
Properly understanding the Holocaust as a modern-day Exodus myth, there's a basis of truth, exaggerations, and outright fabrications. The truthful basis being the actual attempt by Europeans to expel the Jews into a territory outside the European sphere, the hard conditions in the concentration camps especially in the closing months of the war, reprisals being that basis of truth. And nonsense about millions of Jews being gassed inside gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. buried, then unburied and disappeared so nobody could ever find them, is the outright lie. The particularity of the foundational myth points towards the particularity of the people.
You may be aware the Holocaust is said to entail 100% of Jewish deaths in WWII. So Jewish deaths under the influence of Stalin, before or after the war, or pogroms by local populations in the Soviet sphere which fell under the German occupation, give way to the "gas chamber" myth. The myth turns a more complicated issue- like pogroms in Ukraine due to the association of the Jews with Bolshevism and the suffering by the Ukranian people, and converts it into a simpler story of them all being killed by Germans in shower rooms purely out of racial animus.
The point being, "yes" there were pogroms in Russia, but the modern-day consensus of the genealogy of antisemitism that informs the perception of those events likewise is going to contain an element of truth and an element of exaggeration or outright fabrication. While I have not really studied pogroms in Russia, I have seen how a much more complicated story of antisemitism in Eastern Europe is transmitted into a black-and-white "history" of millions of Jews dying in extermination factories purely out of racial hatred. My priors would that there is a similar whitewashing of the "history" regarding the pogroms in Russia to make those events completely one-sided in their interpretation.
It's true that there are common elements of violence and conflict in origin stories across the board, but the particularities of the myth are relevant to the particularity of the people. The Aeneid is a quintessentially Aryan foundation myth, and Exodus is a quintessentially Jewish foundational myth. It is not a coincidence that the Jewish foundational myth entails their presence as a fifth column in a host civilization, within which an influential and trusted political figure spread plagues throughout the land- including the ritualistic murder of the firstborn sons of the gentiles by the Jewish tribal god Yahweh, culminating in a slave revolt followed by their ultimate expulsion from their host nation.
Jewish revolt, in particular slave revolt from more of a Nietzschean interpretation, against their host civilizations is an endless cycle that plays out over and over. Jews acquiring political power in America and then being turned against because they are too closely associated with the social movements that have brought plagues upon the country is just another chapter in this endless cycle.
Are the Russian pogroms and the expulsions from European countries as fictitious as the Holocaust?
It's funny reading Joer's article, in which the emergence of antisemitism in America is 0% the fault of Jews and 100% the fault of everyone else. Luckily I have been alive during this time, I can see with my own lying eyes how the Jews have burned through an immense amount of goodwill in the blink of an eye. It does make you wonder how much "oppression" there actually was, when Jews have the chutzpah to complain about being oppressed by White Christian Americans in 2024.
More generally, you still cannot actually explain where the Jewish mistake was.
The Jewish mistake was their implacable hostility towards their most important base of support - White American Christians. Proof that no matter how much white people cuck try to be friendly and allied with Jews, Jews will wage Culture War on them to advance their own security and interests. White American Christian magnanimity towards Jews was rewarded with an immense decimation of them by establishment Institutions in every respect: politically, culturally, demographically...
One observation made by Churchill in his essay was that the fact Jews and synagogues were exempt from the universal hostility of the Bolsheviks provided a hint towards the genealogy of that ideology. The fact that what we now call "wokeness" has so heavily been directed towards White American Christians with Jews completely exempt from the hostility of that discourse - protected even (until now), proves that this is not simply a case of Liberalism run amok.
Although that was their greatest mistake the actual cause for the land shift is indeed social media. Back when everyone got their information from a small set of sources, even something like Talk Radio, there was almost no way to share information outside the kosher political spectrum. Sure, you had some dissident journals, publications, and societies. But the level of engagement with that content was microscopic compared to social media engagement.
The past 10 years they have aggressively sought to wrangle Social Media, which is why we are all here instead of on Reddit, but the cat is already out of the bag.
There has never been an age of substantial antisemitism in the 250 year history of the United States.
Go back further. The origin story of the Jewish people starts with their existence as a minority under an imperial hegemon. Then they gain political influence, a social radical wreaks plagues upon the empire, and they get expelled by an exasperated Pharoah. They seem to take immense pride in coming into conflict with every single Civilization that has taken them in.
Given the possibility we will see a substantial level of antisemitism in the United States, who could the Jews blame that on except themselves? White American Christians? Are they really going to go with the "and for no reason at all..." narrative despite America's historic support for Jews? Looking at Foer's article in the Atlantic, the answer to that question seems to be yes, they are going to blame the White American Christians.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
8mo ago
plus those prominent antizionist Jews (who you will find grow quickly in number if the tides of public opinion change quickly) to continue to keep white nationalists firmly under the boot, while America Brazilifies ever further.
I'm not sure the boot has legitimacy without the Holocaust mythos that fundamentally forms the foundation of Jewish power in the 20th century. And Zionism is eroding the power of that mythos. It means less and less to be called "antisemitic" or "racist." The old guardrails are beginning to weaken. Anti-Zionist Jews who invoke the Holocaust to tell White people they have to accept demographic change are discredited even though their position is more morally consistent than Zionist Jews.
Jews are both extraordinarily successful in taking over Western institutions to benefit themselves and their tribe to the extent that they practically dominate politics, media and finance in the world’s most powerful country, but also dumb enough that - at the absolute height of their power - they allow a movement of Muslims, communists and TikTok zoomers to destroy public support for their ethnostate?
They foremost have themselves to blame, not that they are capable of or willing to admit it. The pathological goodwill of the Anglos towards them was squandered with subversive and extreme hostility. The waxing and waning of Jewish influence in culture and politics is an apparently never-ending cycle. We now seem to be heading towards the "waning" phase, for the first time in our lives.
Have you read the - quite remarkable - Atlantic piece The Golden Age of American Jews is Ending from earlier this month? The author essentially admits to all the behavior by Jews which is charged by White identarians but of course spins it as a good thing, and it's only falling apart because the world cannot accept how morally good and pure Jews are. It's a fascinating piece:
In the hatred that I witnessed in the Bay Area, and that has been evident on college campuses and in progressive activist circles nationwide, I’ve come to see left-wing anti-Semitism as characterized by many of the same violent delusions as the right-wing strain. This is not an accident of history. Though right- and left-wing anti-Semitism may have emerged in different ways, for different reasons, both are essentially attacks on an ideal that once dominated American politics, an ideal that American Jews championed and, in an important sense, co-authored. Over the course of the 20th century, Jews invested their faith in a distinct strain of liberalism that combined robust civil liberties, the protection of minority rights, and an ethos of cultural pluralism. They embraced this brand of liberalism because it was good for America—and good for the Jews. It was their fervent hope that liberalism would inoculate America against the world’s oldest hatred.
For several generations, it worked. Liberalism helped unleash a Golden Age of American Jewry, an unprecedented period of safety, prosperity, and political influence. Jews, who had once been excluded from the American establishment, became full-fledged members of it. And remarkably, they achieved power by and large without having to abandon their identity. In faculty lounges and television writers’ rooms, in small magazines and big publishing houses, they infused the wider culture with that identity. Their anxieties became American anxieties. Their dreams became American dreams.
But that era is drawing to a close. America’s ascendant political movements—MAGA on one side, the illiberal left on the other—would demolish the last pillars of the consensus that Jews helped establish. They regard concepts such as tolerance, fairness, meritocracy, and cosmopolitanism as pernicious shams. The Golden Age of American Jewry has given way to a golden age of conspiracy, reckless hyperbole, and political violence, all tendencies inimical to the democratic temperament. Extremist thought and mob behavior have never been good for Jews. And what’s bad for Jews, it can be argued, is bad for America...
I grew up at the apex of the Golden Age. The nation’s sartorial aesthetic was the invention of Ralph Lifshitz, an alumnus of the Manhattan Talmudical Academy before he became the denim-clad Ralph Lauren. The national authority on sex was a diminutive bubbe, Dr. Ruth. Schoolkids in Indiana read Anne Frank’s diary. The Holocaust memoirist Elie Wiesel appeared on the nightly news as an arbiter of public morality. The most-watched television show was Seinfeld. Even Gentiles knew the words to Adam Sandler’s “The Chanukah Song,” which earned a place in the canon of festive music annually played on FM radio. Jews accounted for roughly 2 percent of the nation’s population at the time, but I’d estimate that my undergraduate class at Columbia University was one-third Jewish; soon, a third of the justices on the Supreme Court would be Jewish as well....
Born in Silesia in 1882, the eldest of eight, Horace Kallen had a preordained calling: to become a rabbi like his father. But a Boston truant officer forced him, against his parents’ wishes, to attend a secular grammar school. This set him on the path to Harvard, where he paid his way by reading meters for the Dorchester Gaslight Company. Kallen never felt at ease with patrician classmates like Franklin D. Roosevelt, though the philosopher William James embraced him as a protégé.
Kallen’s breakthrough came in the course of an argument with another Jew. In 1908, the British-born playwright Israel Zangwill had a hit called The Melting-Pot, a melodrama about a pogrom survivor who sets out to marry a Christian woman in the hopes that he will no longer be haunted by his identity. This vision of assimilation was a warmed-over version of the devil’s bargain that Western Europeans had offered Jews ever since Napoleon: In exchange for the rights of citizenship, Jews would have to give up their distinctive identity.
Kallen didn’t want to surrender his identity. He wasn’t religious, but he had read Spinoza and devoured the works of the early Zionist thinkers. At Harvard, he co-founded the Menorah Society, a Jewish affinity group. His rebuttal to Zangwill took the form of unabashed patriotism. In essays that were intellectual bombshells at the time, Kallen extolled the mongrel nature of American society, the phenomenon known as hyphenation. Harvard’s Brahmin elite believed that newcomers must assimilate in full, commit to what they called “100 percent Americanism.” But to Kallen, the hyphen was the essence of democracy. He described America as a “symphony of civilization,” an intermingling of cultures that resulted in a society far more dynamic than most of the countries back in the Old World. The genius of America was that it didn’t coerce any minority group into abandoning its marks of difference.
That argument was idealistic, though also self-interested. Kallen’s polemics implicitly targeted the Protestant monopoly controlling academia, politics, and every other corner of the establishment, which reverted to desperate measures to block the ascent of Jews, imposing quotas at universities and restrictive housing covenants in well-to-do neighborhoods. His ideas were emblematic of an emerging strain of Jewish political philosophy, a set of arguments that would define American Jewry for generations.
The sons and daughters of immigrants may have dabbled in socialism, but in the 1930s and ’40s, liberalism became the house politics of the Jewish people. Walter Lippmann, a descendant of German Jews, first used the term liberal in the American context, to describe a new center-left vision of the state that was neither socialist nor laissez-faire. Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish justice on the Supreme Court, conceptualized a new, expansive vision of civil liberties. Lillian Wald and Henry Moskowitz co-founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, in the belief that all minorities deserved the same protections. Jews became enthusiastic supporters of the New Deal, which staved off radical movements on the left and the right that tended to hunt for Jewish scapegoats. As a Yiddish joke went, Jewish theology consisted of die velt (“this world”), yene velt (“the world to come”), and Roosevelt.
The historian Marc Dollinger titled his 2000 narrative of Jewish liberalism Quest for Inclusion. Jews set out to achieve that goal procedurally—opposing prayer in public school, knocking down discriminatory housing laws, establishing new fair-employment rules. But it was also a project of mythmaking and dream-casting. Widely read mid-century intellectuals such as Louis Hartz, Daniel Boorstin, and Max Lerner wrote books reimagining America as the home of a benevolent centrism—tolerant, cosmopolitan, unique in the history of nations.
Reality began to resemble the myth: In the years following World War II—and especially as the world began to comprehend the extent of the Nazi genocide—a liberal consensus took hold, and anti-Semitism receded. After Auschwitz, even three-martini Jewish jokes at the country club felt tinged by the horrors. In 1937, the American edition of Roget’s Thesaurus had listed cunning, rich, extortioner, and heretic as synonyms for Jew. At that time, nearly half of Americans said Jews were less honest in business than others. By 1964, only 28 percent agreed with that assessment. It became cliché to refer to America as a “Judeo-Christian nation.” Quotas at universities fell to the side.
As anti-Semitism faded, American Jewish civilization exploded in a rush of creativity. For a time, the great Jewish novel—books by Saul Bellow, Philip Roth, Norman Mailer, Joseph Heller, and Bernard Malamud, inflected with Yiddish and references to pickled herring—was the great American novel. Under the influence of Lenny Bruce, Sid Caesar, Mel Brooks, Elaine May, Gilda Radner, Woody Allen, and many others, American comedy appropriated the Jewish joke, and the ironic sensibility contained within, as its own.
..It wasn’t just mass culture. The New York Intellectuals, a group with a name as euphemistic as it sounds, acquired a priestly authority in the realm of aesthetics and political ideas, and included the likes of Alfred Kazin, Clement Greenberg, Irving Howe, and Susan Sontag. Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg ushered second-wave feminism into the world. Jews became the prophetic face of American science (J. Robert Oppenheimer) and the salvific one of American medicine (Jonas Salk). The intellectual rewards of Jewish liberation could be measured in medals: Approximately 15 percent of all Nobel Prize winners are American Jews.
In the Golden Age, Jews in America embraced Israel. Enjoying their political and cultural ascendance, they looked to the new Jewish state not as a necessary refuge—they were more than comfortable on the Upper West Side and in Squirrel Hill and Brentwood—but as a powerful rebuttal to the old stereotypes about Jewish weakness, especially after the Israeli military’s victory in the Six-Day War of 1967. As The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman has put it, American Jews “said to themselves, ‘My God, look who we are! We have power! We do not fit the Shylock image, we are ace pilots; we are not the cowering timid Jews who get sand kicked in their faces, we are tank commanders.’ ”
There's a lot to unpack here, the whole article is fascinating and worth a read. The point is that accepting the reality of this "Golden Age of American Jewry" does not allege some sort of omnipotence or invincibility. As Franklin Foer emphasizes, this was a Jewish phenomenon with Liberal trappings. The cultural phenomena advocated by them was distinctly self-interested, and it created the world as we "know it" today.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
8mo ago
So in your mental model it's completely natural for White Americans to support Israel despite no reciprocity whatsoever from Jews. But then when white people decide to return fire, that's just out of hatred and revenge? How about it's just politics? Discrediting Zionism discredits Jews. It absolutely does. The notion that the DR should just sit on its hands or (lol) support Israel simply because it's being attacked on the Left flank is delusional. It is politically advantageous to press the confrontation on the other flank.
That doesn't mean the DR expects White liberals to drop their values. It is about confronting Jewish influence in culture and politics and they are over the correct, soft targets.
Despite your closely held beliefs regarding elite theory, you seem highly dismissive of the idea that the elites with influence in Academia, Culture, and Politics are indeed responsible for the ethos that is now consuming them. Why would the DR take the side of the Jews now that the political radicalism they created is being directed towards their own project?
It is funny hearing Nick Fuentes say, in his typically tongue-in-cheek-but-serious-at-the-same-time manner, "blacks are cool, they can stay but Jews have to go." But I will defend a level of internal consistency there...
We can say those DR people are so racist they kind of circle back around to not attributing real agency to the problem of, say, black crime. It's just, like, the weather or something.
But political forces conniving to destroy segregation or drive demographic change and direct public consensus vis-a-vis the media apparatus are more of a real threat than street crime.
I do think you are on to something though. Nick Fuentes was very popular on the Fresh and Fit podcasts which IIRC has all black hosts, they loved the guy. Nick had a "JQ" debate with Destiny on the Fresh and Fit Podcast and I couldn't help but feel like it was highly significant. There probably is an element of "instead of commiserating over the failures in the black community we can go on the offensive against Jews with White racists on our side" that may be attractive to some black influencers.
You can joke about the "diversity" of the DR, but it's savvy for Nick to lean into this dynamic and I think Candace is an example of it producing results, along with Nick's appearances on the other podcasts with black hosts who seem to really like him and take his side.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
8mo ago
I said that Zionism is an aspect of Jewish behavior. You tried to counter this by saying that Zionism is not intrinsic to Jewishness. But my original statement is proven by the fact that Jewishness is intrinsic to Zionism in particular.
You are the one playing that game.
Because Zionism is a political movement and it's not intrinsic to Jewishness
It's not a matter of Zionism being intrinsic to Jewishness, it's a matter of Jewishness being intrinsic to Zionism. Such can be said about other political movements as well. The political movement is a reflection of the people pushing it forward. Zionism is fundamentally built on that piece of literary fiction which is called the Hebrew Bible. The Israeli conflict is eschatological with Bibi and many Zionists invoking Biblical story and prophecy- and prophecies are nothing if not plans and wishes. Zionism is biblical before it is anything else.
This is not to say all Jews are Zionists. None other than Winston Churchill in his 1920 essay ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM. A STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE elaborated on the divided opinion of Jewish nationalists on how Jews should politically advance their interests. On the one hand, supporting radical politics in the West which criminalized Anti-Semitism to ostensibly provide security from Jews, and on the other hand Zionism.
The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia's economic resources and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.
International Jews.
In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
Terrorist Jews.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
"Protector of the Jews."
Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin's authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offences against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms.
The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated. This is an injustice on millions of helpless people, most of whom are themselves sufferers from the revolutionary regime. It becomes, therefore, specially important to foster and develop any strongly-marked Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. And it is here that Zionism has such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.
A Home for the Jews.
Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character. It has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine, to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and a centre of national life. The statesmanship and historic sense of Mr. Balfour were prompt to seize this opportunity. Declarations have been made which have irrevocably decided the policy of Great Britain. The fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for practical purposes, of the Zionist project, backed by many of the most prominent British Jews, and supported by the full authority of Lord Allenby, are all directed to achieving the success of this inspiring movement.
Of course, Palestine is far too small to accommodate more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the majority of national Jews wish to go there. But if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.
Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.
We can dispense with your insinuation that the disagreement between Jews at this time regarding the best way to support Jewish interests disproves the Jewishness of Zionism.
Churchill forgot the other option though- Porque no los dos? Throw their weight behind radical political movements in the West which promote diversity, inclusiveness, demographic change in America and Europe, and support their aggressive ethnonationalist conquest of Palestine at the same time. The ADL is perhaps the avatar of the Jewish consensus- just do both. And that has worked until now, the blowback is coming.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
8mo ago
There was almost no criticism of Israel during the Bush years, particularly on the Right, certainly nothing at all that resembles the discourse on X and TikTok. That did not exist in the Bush years, it's new.
I notice you are now carefully saying "Zionism" and not Jews.
... I'm saying what I mean. i.e. "Candace is breaking from the Zionist right". Not all Jews are Zionists but, importantly, many gentiles are Zionists. Typically people would say "neocon" but I am being more precise. "Candace is breaking from the Jewish right" wouldn't make as much sense there.
Jewish nationalism (re: Zionism) is one aspect of Jewish behavior, and the behavior that's relevant to my comment, I'm not choosing words based on who I have a problem with.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
8mo ago
Candace Owens out at the Daily Wire
This is less than 24-hours after the ADL publicly attacked Candace, and Mediaite reports:
Owens’s departure comes after months of tensions between her and Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro over her promotion of various anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
Her promotion of so-called antisemitic conspiracy theories has definitely been noticed on DR Twitter, and she's been engaged in public spats with a certain Rabbi Schmuley. So this isn't really a surprise, but it's a significant development that DR critiques of Zionism are making their way into Right-wing mainstream, as other rhetoric has in the past 10 years.
Candace is breaking from the Zionist right at the same time Tucker Carlson has turned heel on US support for Israel, and even Alex Jones who is notorious for his "the Chicoms are behind everything I love Judeo-Christian values" schtick - his willingness to humor every conspiracy theory to his audience except ZOG - yesterday accused Israel of Genocide.
I have a lot of criticisms of Nick Fuentes and his movement, but there has to be credit where it's due. I remember the Bush years, support for Israel was simply axiomatic and it was unthinkable for anybody to believe any differently. That has changed, and Zionism now faces a pincer movement of critique from both the Left and the Right, with the Right-wing critique of Zionism growing in influence among younger audiences.
We shouldn't allow a corporation from an enemy country that's beholden to said country's government to have unrestricted access to the domestic information sphere, especially after they've proven multiple times that they're willing to abuse it.
Then Israel should be added to the list of hostile nations, and any media apparatus with significant ownership by any Zionist should be forcefully divested. It doesn't even take an act of Congress to do that after this bill is signed into law.
That said, I don't think an argument that's essentially "the jews want you to do this, therefore you shouldn't do it"
The Jews want to censor criticism of Jews and Israel as they've managed to do on every other major platform except X after Musk's takeover (proving the extreme importance of corporate ownership to bottom-line content that is censored or boosted). That can be opposed in its own right, I don't oppose that simply because Jews are trying to do it.
I did not endorse Jewish "ethnocentrism."
Organizing with your co-ethnics to support your ethnic interests in the realm of economics, politics, and culture, and to oppose antagonism from other ethnic groups, is ethnocentrism. You are emblematic of the increasingly discredited status quo, by trying to claim that Jews organizing and applying immense economic and cultural pressure to steer narratives and platforms is just "opposing antisemitism, and who could be against that?" It is ethnocentrism.
You are straw-manning. Of course there exists hostility by Jews towards non-Jews, but scope and specificity matters. Y'all are very fond of quoting select verses from the Torah or Rabbi Meir Kahane as some sort of General Theory Of The Jew, even though hostility towards non-Jews and a campaign to enslave the goyim is not in any way widespread or mainstream among Jews.
Talk about straw-manning... We are in this thread talking about a stark gesture of hostility by Jews towards non-Jews in their lobbying for a hostile takeover of TikTok, in order to censor content that is critical of themselves and of Israel. Gen-Z doesn't have the right opinions, so TikTok must be reformed- this is incredibly hostile and it should be opposed and called out.
As for why Jews have faced hostility from other groups historically, I think we can actually read history with more nuance than that and find that the truth is somewhere between "psychopathology of all other ethnic groups Jews dindu nuffin" and "It's deserved because Jews really are That Bad and they had it coming."
Indeed, which is why it's reasonable to discern a hostility by Jews towards non-Jews in their ethnocentric, authoritarian measures censoring content on social media that is critical of them or of Israel. Whereas they constantly complain about the behavior of and affronts by non-Jews, and then they organize to censor complaints about their own behavior.
Your argument is basically that antisemitism is rational because Jews are our enemies so we should be "antisemitic."
Your argument is that Jewish ethnocentrism is rational because of the hostility they face from other ethnic groups.
I am saying that ethnocentrism is rational from other groups as well, including White people, likewise because of the hostility they face from other ethnic groups, including Jews.
So you can say "Jewish ethnocentrism is rational because Jews have and continue to face hostility from non-Jews, including most notably White people."
I say "White ethnocentrism is likewise rational because Whites have and continue to face hostility from non-Whites, including the Jews."
And of course Whites aren't the only ones who face hostility from Jews, Arabs do as well. So what you are doing is saying that it's OK for Jews to express ethnocentrism to actively oppose hostility from other groups, but it's not OK for other ethnic groups to express ethnocentrism to actively oppose hostility from Jews.
You are just implicitly denying that there is any sort of hostility by Jews towards non-Jews at all, leaning heavily on the increasingly discredited canard that "Jews have only ever faced hostility from other groups because of the psychopathologies of all the other ethnic groups in the world, Jews dindu' nuffin."
Obviously I accept Jewish neuroticism and paranoia over antisemitism as axiomatic, not something that is a "conspiracy," and I have never related that as a conspiracy. But that neuroticism and paranoia expresses as group-organized behavior in culture, academia, social media.
I have a problem with it, obviously, because it affects me and my nation. That group-organized behavior is used to direct public consensus in a way that is favorable towards Jews and unfavorable towards non-Jews, with stifling criticism of Israel being one example. Another example of course is the question of White identity politics, which has always most vehemently been opposed by organized Jewish behavior precisely because they are afraid of antisemitism.
Jewish groups are at the forefront of fighting any sort of political rhetoric that is oppositional to demographic change, associating "Racism" with antisemitism.
So they get identity politics, White people do not, and Jews use their power in various cultural institutions for their own benefit, often at the expense of White people.
I do not think it's a "Jew Conspiracy Theory" that Jews oppose antisemitism. But their behavior in using their influence to direct public perception and stifle, using increasingly authoritarian tactics, criticism of themselves is what I take issue with. Do you see the distinction?
So the Jewish lobby is trying to ban or force divestment of TikTok to further stifle criticism of their behavior, obviously I don't take issue with that because I think it's illogical for them to oppose antisemitism. I take issue with it because it's hostile to non-Jews by stifling the speech of non-Jews and not allowing them to express their own ethnic interests which is something Jews do vehemetly. I also think the criticisms being made on platforms like TikTok are valid and important for the public to hear.
You think it's understandable for Jews to signal-boost complaints about antisemitism (re: the behavior of non-Jews as it relates to Jews), can't you understand why I believe it's important for non-Jews to be able to express and signal-boost valid, true complaints about Jewish behavior (re: the behavior of Jews as it relates to non-Jews)? And why I would oppose the efforts by Jews to outlaw any expression of the latter in all arenas of the public square while demanding the former is held as sacred in all those spaces? I understand why they are doing it all too well, it doesn't mean I can't oppose it.
The position of Yass is unclear, his relationship to Trump's turn is speculative and based on nothing concrete. We don't know what Yass is lobbying for, as far as we know he is negotiating a price point in return for continued support. It suffices to assume that Trump believes that Facebook and other incumbents are a bigger censorship threat to his campaign, which was proven true in the 2020 election, and he has second thoughts about giving them more market share over Gen Z audience. It should be noted that supporters of this bill are specifically saying they support it because of the 2024 election as well. That Trump's change was purely driven by a meeting with Yass is speculative because Trump has reason to change his opinion on the issue given Facebook and YouTube censorship in the 2020 election, but this isolated demand for rigor is all you really have to stand against the large body of evidence pointing to an organized lobbying effort by Jewish groups which is proving decisive on this issue.
The Jewish organizations are just happy to be seen doing something in front of their donors that might supposedly reduce antisemitism by whatever convoluted logic.
How is the logic at all convoluted? It's extremely simple and true logic, that support for Israel is generational, and Tik-Tok is not moderated or algorithmically manipulated in a way that fights against this. Greenblatt is completely correct. Their motive is entirely logical! Tik Tok has no repercussions for allowing antisemitism. So a Zionist hostile takeover of Tik Tok is their solution.
But I don’t think this means that most powerful Zionist lobbyists in the US consider an ownership transfer of TikTok away from the Chinese in any sense a major policy priority for them.
Despite the Zionist lobbyists literally saying it is important to fight antisemitism? How do you say you don't think powerful Zionist lobbyists consider it important when powerful Zionists are lobbying for it and claiming it is important?
We can attribute the timing of the ban to China hawks in Congress using some neuroticism by some Jewish organizations
Finally we can get at least some sort of admission, even if you are claiming the cart is driving the horse. The nonsense about "What if CCP invades Taiwan and then China censors videos about it?" makes no sense because nothing like that has happened. Whereas the complaints by the Jewish lobby are true and pertinent.
There's the famous quote from The Israel Lobby:
In an interview with a journalist from The New Yorker, [Former AIPAC official] Rosen pointed to a napkin he was carrying, "“You see this napkin? In 24 hours, we could have the signatures of 70 Senators on this napkin”
So during the Trump administration, this initiative went nowhere. Now that the Jewish lobby is behind it, it's fast-tracked through a divided Congress and the former US ambassador to Israel and his Jewish business partner are lining up to buy it at a discount.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
8mo ago
I'm sorry, but I just find your response completely absurd. We have leaked audio, we have Jewish journalists putting pen-to-paper identifying why they support the divestment, and it's because of antisemitism and not concern over CCP national security, we have Jewish lobbyists representing hundreds of Jewish groups explicitly saying they support the divestment because of antisemitism, we have other journalists openly admitting that Jewish lobbying over antisemitism concerns which has brought unity and priority to this issue whereas it stalled before Oct. 7, it comes out that two Jewish Zionists including former US Ambassador to Israel are lobbying to purchase it, and you are still trying to cast doubt over the motives that they are completely open about. I don't know what else to say, why don't you believe them when they say what they are lobbying for and why they are doing it? Why don't you believe the journalists who are publishing pieces supporting it because of antisemitism and admitting that this issue has changed the political landscape of the topic?
But because Yass’ actions are a strong indication that the TikTok sale isn’t solely or primarily the product of organized Zionist activism and that this wouldn’t even be necessary to algorithmically censor anti-Israel content on TikTok, it’s just some minor, barely relevant single-case anecdote.
Yes, the consensus and prioritization of this issue is primarily the product of organized Zionist activism. A single investor who is lobbying based off his financial interests does not change this fact. I will again point out you are engaging in an isolated demand for rigor with your "you can't identify something as group activism unless literally every single member of that group is on board", like we can't attribute BLM to organized black activism because of Candace Owens or something. This is something you and everyone always does when Jewish group activism is identified.
Greenblatt is transparently talking about the “TikTok generation” ie Zoomers, which is why he literally clarifies that he means “Gen Z” immediately after saying TikTok.
Come on, 2rafa, he is talking about Tik Tok, there he is calling it "Al Jazeera on steroids, amplifying and intensifying antisemitism, anti-Zionism with no reprecussions."
You have the ADL, you have Jews in the media apparatus, you have Jewish Federations of North America, you have Jewish Zionists including former US ambassador to Israel lobbying for a purchase at a discount, don't tell me this is about Taiwan or CCP influence in the GOP.
Obviously, that one Jewish investor opposes it (as far as we know) due to his own bottom line. You are continuing the time-honored tradition of "You can't relate something to Jewish influence unless literally every single Jew is involved" even though that standard is never held in analysis of other group-organized activist behavior.
We have ADL, Jewish Federations of North America, media pieces like Goldbloom's and others advocating for the forced divestment because of antisemitism and not because of CCP security concerns. This includes various stories pointing out that the antisemitism and Israeli concerns are what has united what have been previously failed efforts. But you'll point to one Jew with a financial stake. And the sourcing of that entire story is extremely thin, there is no chance we have any idea what conversations are happening between closed doors with Jeff Yass and potential buyers. The entire basis for your claim is this fact: "According to Politico, Trump praised the investor at a Club for Growth retreat at The Breakers resort in Palm Beach, Florida." That's it.
Where's the evidence that TikTok has remained unbowed by eg. the ADL's pressure?
Did you not listen to the leaked audio of Greenblatt I linked from November? How is that not evidence when it is coming right from the horse's mouth?
We REALLY have a Tik-Tok problem, the Gen-Z problem that our community needs to put... our energy towards this like fast.
How is this not evidence?
Why would China be opposed to censoring pro-Palestinian views?
Tik-Tok is not censoring pro-Palestinian views. So the ADL wants to change management.
The story broke this morning that Steven Mnuchin is looking to lead a purchase of Tik Tok through his investment group, which has an office in Tel Aviv, and co-founded by the former ambassador to Israel.
It's amazing how this entire constellation of evidence, including a comically on-the-nose detail like Tik Tok being potentially purchased by an investment group with an office in Tel Aviv and co-founded by the former US ambassador to Israel, and you still deny what is happening, all because Yass gave $16 million to the Club for Growth action which is defending Tik Tok.
Yes, let's recap:
I am referring the very long history of largely Jewish-owned newspapers with Jewish-run editorial control publishing articles written by Jews which heavily relies on rumors and hearsay from other Jews to present one-sided on-the-ground accounts and narratives describing salient political conflicts in a way that is intended to boost sympathy for Jews and alert the public to anti-Jewish sentiment. Your response is an article written by this guy (he's white on the census!), and from this guy with 0 actual advocacy for white people, and you apparently don't think you're stretching here.
In contrast with how far you are stretching to attribute this sort of behavior to non-Jewish white people, the pattern of behavior I am referring to stretches back centuries. Take that 1921 news article where Jews are begging America to "save 6,000,000 in Russia", saying "6,000,000 Jews are facing extermination by massacre. As the famine is spreading, the counter-revolutionary movement is gaining and the Soviet's control is waning", (also an interesting statement, for others reasons).
Or the 1936 article, talking about "the European holocaust" well before the war.
Various articles exaggerating conditions - i.e. "6,000,000 facing starvation" in 1920, or "reporting" on the apparent expulsion of "6,000,000 Jewish families" from Russia in the 19th century.
Was there conflict between Jews and Russians or Ukrainians? Absolutely. But in hindsight we can see that this is not journalism, it's Jewish propaganda being presented as journalism. The accounts of conditions on the ground are a combination of truth, exaggeration, and falsehood published to spin a narrative. In hindsight we can acknowledge how stories about 6,000,000 Jews facing extermination in Russia was pure nonsense, but at the time this was the information the public had access to in order to understand the political situation.
Jews especially have the penchant- the means, motives, and opportunity, to relate "their side" of the story as "journalism".
To me this behavior is very obvious and understandable, but just because a pattern of behavior is understandable doesn't mean I can't adjust my priors and acknowledge what is just another chapter in the very long history of Jews presenting their one-sided account of a political conflict as "journalism."
More options
Context Copy link