@SecureSignals's banner p

SecureSignals

Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine

13 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 06 13:34:27 UTC

				

User ID: 853

SecureSignals

Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine

13 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 06 13:34:27 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 853

However, it’s far from clear to me that the actual culture of the Anglo-Saxons selected positively for those qualities in any meaningful way.

So your hypothesis is that the Culture of the Anglo-Saxons wasn't very important towards selection? That is a very dubious proposition prima facie, especially given that they had a very profound caste system and distinct noble class. I've already pointed to important features in English Law as having Anglo-Saxon roots, with the entire concept of a proto-Parliament existing in Anglo-Saxon culture.

So you have the genetic substrate, a legal system, a caste system.... and you are saying Anglo-Saxon culture wasn't important in selection?

What other people would you say did not have selection effects due to their culture? Obviously the Houthis are downstream of their own culturally-influenced selection.

Honestly, I do think the Online Right goes overboard on certain aesthetics, like trad girls in wheat fields and chariot riders and the like. But the notion that the selection of Anglo-Saxons was detached from their culture is just really silly.

What it comes down to is that the Anglo Saxons and Vikings are ancestral to the British people and multiple globe-spanning empires.

The “continuity” between the 6th-century dirt-farming tribespeople whom we call “the Anglo-Saxons” and the British who created the first globe-spanning Empire is so tenuous as to be entirely a matter of academic debate.

Yeah, certainly there was an ethnogenesis resulting from the subsumption of and conflict with other barbarian tribes, especially the Vikings, etc... and that's kind of the point. You have a genetic substrate- those barbarians you hate. You have eugenic pressures due to war and disease and Medieval Law- itself undoubtedly influenced by Germanic ancestral legacy... It's all part of the formula. Why are you so adamant about disavowing the Anglo Saxons and the Vikings when you treasure the legacy they created- the civilization bearers and colonizers that created global empire? The point being what you identify as Civilization and Aristocracy is directly descended from these tribal warlords and these conquests. Unless you subscribe to Jared Diamond's hypothesis or otherwise HBD denial, that the British Empire has nothing to do with the genetic ancestry of the British and this all just sprung from the ground due to geographical features of the English continent.

The fundamental disconnect is that you don't see what Nietzsche interprets as a continuity between the ancient barbarian conquerors and noble classes of civilization. You play the game of "oh I love the United States but I disavow the Anglo-Saxon conquest of the Indians, sorry we were sooo barbaric for doing that!" Nietzsche related the future aristocracy with barbarian conquerors. The Pirates were not a "future aristocracy" they were a bitter underclass! The Romans, the Greeks, the Anglo-Saxons, they were Noble and the pirates were not Noble. Simple as.

The word "Aryan" denoted and was synonymous with "Noble", pointing towards an ethnic self-conception of these barbarian conquerors as Noble. The point being, the "barbarian conquerors" should be viewed as proto-Aristocrats, because they were across everything we regard as Civilization: the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Aryans, etc. They actually became the upper and ruling classes of the civilization you hold in high regard.

The armies of illiterate savages who sacked Rome were actually a civilizing force

Not so much a civilizing force as a cleansing force of a civilization that decayed under dysgenic forces. And yes, those barbarians warlords did become the future aristocracy, particularly in Northern Italy.

The entire idea of a Pirate is as an inversion or ressentiment towards The Aristocract. The Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Greek, Roman, etc. is the aspirational aristocrat. Their genealogy actually composed the forces of civilization.

I think Nietzsche and the Online Right are correct to point to a profound difference, a moral and even genealogical difference between the Anglo-Saxons who conquered a continent and Pirates who harrassed the forces of civilization out of bitterness and desperation owing to their low status. Nietzsche is correct to identify the former, as it percolates into Civilization, as a Master Morality and rote piracy as a Slave morality.

As a Nietzschean I find it abhorrent to compare the Anglo-Saxons to Pirates. One was building civilization, the other was trying to undermine it.

I think this difference is absolutely fake. Both are anti-civilization.

I'm really curious as to what exactly you think the Roman Empire was except tribal warlords that conquered the Italian Peninsula and then put pen to paper formalizing their rule? Ditto for literally any Empire you would regard as civilization? Especially the United States of America?

Just a few months ago I lamented the ways that the Online Right™️ was disappointing and alienating me.

I'm only now just reading this post, but I think you misinterpret the Nietzchean pole of the Online Right, which is dedicated toward reforming Morality in a eugenic direction. This does manifest as a glorification of paganism, Aryan conquerors and the like, which (correctly) regard that thumos as fundamentally eugenic in nature. It was violent, and it was eugenic.

And there's a big difference between pirates and barbarian warlords! With the latter representing an undeniably violent but Civilizing force of nature, and the former actually representing a slave morality, or slave revolt in opposition to Civilization. I can't say I've ever seen the Online Right glorify pirates, as much as relate them to a force, if anything, Semitic in nature- in contest against civilized behavior. This dynamic is exuded by any Hollywood production which is careful to contrast, i.e. the Pirate culture with that of the British Empire. There's a conflict there, and Nietzsche is not on the side of the pirates. Nietzsche is on the side of the British Empire, and Hollywood is on the side of the Pirates.

So I think you misinterpret the Nietzchean perspective. The Nietzchean perspective is- how do we reform Morality to orient Civilization in a eugenic direction? And you seem pretty aligned with that being the operative question of the day. You say you don't want to live under the Ubermensch, but the Ubermensch is the man/men who accomplish that task of reforming Morality, or as you acknowledge, casting off the slave morality that rules over us.

Nietzsche also directly compares Merchant Morality to Pirate Morality, calling the former a refinement of the latter:

Merchant and pirate were for a long period one and the same person. Even today mercantile morality is really nothing but a refinement of piratical morality.

I just found that part of your comment interesting because in my experience the Nietzschean Right are the only ones who interpret pirates in popular culture as a symbolic glorification of counter-civilizational slave morality.

Funnily enough, someone close to me is deeply involved in Church work and distressed dealing with a homeless person who is causing security concerns. Too bad she isn't Jewish, so she has to figure out how to finance security from the church budget, like everybody else in this country who pays for their own security.

The money wasn’t off the back of a propaganda hoax

The money was off the back of the propaganda hoax, the ADL literally coordinated with other Jewish groups to use the story to pressure Congress to increase funding for the program. They actually linked to their own lobbying efforts for funding in the midst of their reporting about the "National Day of Hate," which also directly caused the mobilization of police forces across the country to respond to this totally fabricated threat.

And why should that matter? Crime whether committed by congregants or non-congregants is a risk faced by all religious institutions. The evidence shows that Churches are more likely to experience violent crime than synagogues, the fact that crime tends to be more intra-community wouldn't undermine the greater need for security at those places.

The Nashville shooting at the Presbyterian church parochial school by the transgender shooter was only last year. There will likely be many more attempted murders at many Christian institutions across the country than any Synagogue. There's no empirical basis other than hysteria and political influence to warrant this funding which is almost entirely going to Jewish organizations.

Actually, violence at churches is far more likely owing to, erhm, the demographics of certain congregations. They can pay for their own security like every other organization in the country has to. Lobbying for hundreds of millions on the back of a propaganda hoax is despicable behavior.

H/T to @coffee_enjoyer he provided the numbers:

Between 75% and 97% of NSGP funding goes to Jewish groups. source 1 source 2 source 3

Maybe this ratio has changed slightly. I remember reading, hilariously enough, that Jewish NGOs pledged to host virtual trainings for representatives of other Faiths on how to apply for the grant. But that training is not necessary because the Goyim are too stupid to fill out forms, the training is necessary because they lack the Chutzpah to fathom that they are entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars from FEMA for literally no reason. The Chutzpah-training is their attempt to make this less glaring than it actually is.

And the argument would still be correct. If you want to spend X amount of money for a purpose, you must appropriate X amount of money for the purpose. If you only appropriated a lesser amount of Y, then you must appropriate the difference to meet the target of X.

Yes, your argument would still be "correct", proving its worthlessness in face of the problem people have with the institution. If a charitable organization had a budget allocation that failed to serve its objective and instead slushed money into third parties, anyone would have the right to criticize it. And "well ackchually"-ing the process of budget allocation in the face of the failure of the organization to serve its purpose is totally unresponsive to the criticism of the institution.

Maybe next year FEMA will give $300 billion to Jewish synagogues and Jewish NGOs, for literally no reason, instead of just the $300 million they get today- while Americans facing real disaster suffer enormously. You would be there to "well ackchually" in the face of criticism of that, wouldn't you?

You realize that your argument would still apply if we, for example, gave 99.9% of FEMA budget to migrants and basically nothing to actual disaster relief? It is an extremely pedantic argument because you are obscuring that the basic problem is that these federal agencies should be serving the American people facing actual disasters but they are giving money to other people instead. This is so obvious that trying to handwave it with accounting pedantry is ridiculous.

Jeroboam is referring to the ability of the Jews to manufacture a national panic in order to swindle $300 million from FEMA while North Carolinians are left with peanuts. The order of money allocation does not alleviate the sheer injustice of the dynamic that is at play.

I find it difficult to believe that if Israel went all-in with the regime-change-and-occupation playbook, you would be less critical of their actions

They are clearly not aligned with our geopolitical objectives. If we were a serious country we would withhold aid, confiscate military weapons that have already been delivered, and demand Israel align with US objectives in the region. But our news media, University system, and government are all controlled by Zionists so there's nobody to stop them.

Israel escalating the conflict with IED tactics that not even the US has used in its wars/occupations is a level of insolence that is only accepted because we are an occupied government.

I think if we were fighting a war against an asymmetrical adversary who uses terrorist tactics, setting off bombs in enemy combatants' electronic devices (and accepting a small amount of civilian collateral damage) would be within our standards.

We did fight wars against asymmetrical adversaries who used terrorist tactics. We did not, nor would we ever, boobytrap civilian office supplies with explosives and send them among the civilian population. That is an IRA tactic or a tactic of the Iraqi insurgency.

You act like it's a hard question, but the United States has managed regime change and military occupations, Israel can follow that playbook if they want to go to war. Calling this "self defense" is not even a stretch, that's obviously untrue, it's a major act of provocation.

Israel should negotiate a settlement, but also their conduct in waging war should be held to US standards to receive US support.

The term “improvised explosive device” comes from the British army in the 1970's, after Irish republican army (IRA) used bombs made from agricultural fertilizer and SEMTEX smuggled from Libya to make highly effective booby trap devices or remote controlled bombs.

No, the acronym was created by the British to describe explosive-rigged boobytraps like suitcases created by the IRA. This is obviously an IED, why not just admit it? The Iraq insurgency is the other most notable case of this being used in warfare, but now Mossad has adopted it as well.

The term came into existence to describe the bombs made by the IRA, which was based on a preference of presentation. Things like suitcases boobytrapped to explode were what gave IED its name. A boobytrapped pager with hidden explosives is obviously comparable to a boobytrapped suitcase with hidden explosives, and the name "IED" was made to describe those things as opposed to conventional weapons.

This isn't just a wordplay either- the US and CIA haven't done anything like this. The IRA has. The insurgency in Iraq has. It obviously falls under that category of mode of waging warfare.

So a boobytrapped suitcase is an IED, but a boobytrapped pager is a grenade or a drone strike?

All IEDs are "deliberately manufactured".

An improvised explosive device (IED) is a bomb constructed and deployed in ways other than in conventional military action. It may be constructed of conventional military explosives, such as an artillery shell, attached to a detonating mechanism. IEDs are commonly used as roadside bombs, or homemade bombs.

The term "IED" was coined by the British Army during the Northern Ireland conflict to refer to booby traps made by the IRA, and entered common use in the U.S. during the Iraq War.[1][2]

The term came into existence to describe IRA's boobytrapped explosives, like suitcases that would explode when you opened them. This operation is obviously on the level of "send a boobytrapped explosive suitcase" to someone, which is unambiguously an IED.

What specifically is the issue? Risk of collateral damage/deaths? Being sneaky and underhanded? Being unfair? Lack of targeting? Something else?

Boobytrapping goods which are shipped internationally with explosives is a terrible precedent. Explosives which can detonate anywhere, anytime, regardless of the target in the area.

What if peace had been brokered in the months since the distribution of those explosives? Then you are just left with a bunch of untracked explosives in civilian areas? It beggars belief that you struggle to find the issues with this practice.

These aren't "IEDs" any more than a hand grenade is an IED.

The purpose of an IED is to deceive people into thinking a bomb is an ordinary object. A hand grenade is a weapon of conventional warfare. Why are you so loathe to admit that this is obviously an IED, and not a hand grenade? Why detach yourself so much from reality? To pretend like this is just another chapter in the military history of hand grenades is just laughable. It's unprecedented.

It gives me a glimmer of hope that maybe future efforts by both Israel and others will look more like this and less like Gaza.

I'm trying to put myself in your state of mind- you think this action by Israel is an attempt by Israel to avoid what happened in Gaza to happen in Lebanon? And that if you want that, this is the best you could ask for? It's just not grounded in reality. If you don't want what happened in Gaza to happen in Lebanon you would not be cheering this on because it's obviously a major escalation of the conflict in that direction.

You said "this is about as great a scenario that we could possibly ask for from Israel", which actually flies against everything you have said in this comment? Who is "we" in that context? Not the country at large or its interests? By "we" did you mean the sideline popcorn-eaters? Why would it be the best they could ask for?

Another follow-up, the Guardian is reporting that of the 9 killed, one was a 10-year old girl. I'm not trying to "won't someone think of the children!" here, I'm pointing out that Israeli IEDs don't magically not pose a threat to the civilians in the areas in which they are planted.

I think this is about as great a scenario that we could possibly ask for from Israel.

Why didn't they make the US aware of it, then? Because they know the US would have opposed it to avoid escalating the conflict. So "this is about as great a scenario that we could possibly ask for from Israel" is so far from the US foreign policy position on this conflict, where are you even getting that from?

Why is the US foreign policy apparatus intent on avoiding escalation into a regional conflict but you're indifferent to it?