SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
No bio...
User ID: 853
Unless and until that happens, I see no contradiction in asserting that Jewish people are entitled to a state in which they are a majority, while white people are not.
I mean, you can maintain that position, but younger generations of Right Wingers are just going to not support Israel no matter how much you harp about Jewish oppression. The tap of Ecclesiastical support of Israel from the brainwashed Christian Right is going to run dry and you are going to be left with a generation of people wondering why we should support Israel when Israel doesn't support us. And your answer is far from convincing to us.
The US took in the Jews and didn't treat them as second-class citizens, but apparently that didn't earn the US any claim to maintain a White population in your mind? It certainly failed to earn the ethnic loyalty of Jews to White Americans. Loyalty is a two-way street, you can't demand loyalty and give none in return. The US just has to support Israel while accepting that Zionist Jews are going to agitate for demographic replacement in all the political and cultural institutions they control? No thanks. Oh, they need aid from the US? Pound sand.
That's not realistic in the short term, but younger generations are skeptical of Israel and this equilibrium consensus of "nobody question Israel" is going to change very fast, especially with growing pressure from the Right Wing along with the Left Wing from different angles of critique.
AOC recently tweeted about AIPAC. Taboos can fall fast and hard, and they are going to in this case. You can't cling to "you have to support us unconditionally because we're so oppressed" for much longer.
If, as the right (persuasively) argues, it is racist towards Anglos / French / Germans to flood these countries with migrants, ending their former status as (de facto) ethnostates, then opposition to Israel as a Jewish state is likewise antisemitic.
I agree that anti-Zionism is fundamentally anti-Semitism, sorry to say to so many "anti-Zionists" who want to make the distinction, but you also need to decide if not supporting the Jewish state is the same as opposition. Does Israel give huge amounts of military aid to the US and England to preserve its ethnostate? Don't make me laugh. The thrust of Zionist influence in the West has been vehemently pro-mass third world immigration with organizations like the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, of which our DHS Secretary was on the board...
There's also the argument that it's not "racist" to oppose a state that opposes me. Israel doesn't support my right to live among other White people, and Jews are likely, especially in the face of this election, the demographic and political force that is the most pro-mass third world immigration to the West in the entire world. Why is it racist for me to oppose them when they oppose me?
You just want us on the Right to be suckers, to support Zionism with no expectation of reciprocity. You want us to support them even as they throw all of their own economic and political and cultural influence on opposing us in the West.
If Zionists oppose keeping the US and Europe White the Right should not be suckered into political support for keeping Israel Jewish.
You didn't even quote the most operative part of my comment:
So some on the DR perceived a return to normalcy with Swift's fame, dubbing her Aryan princess as a playful acknowledgment of a sort of reversion from the pop-culture dominated ressentiment towards the jock and the prom queen that is foundational to wokeness
You have admitted that backlash against Swift is influenced by resentment towards a White archetypical beauty and social type that resonates in particular with White girls and seems to be threatening in some way to a non-white audience. When I mentioned "the worship of the weak and ugly and broken" I was referring to Wokeness as a whole that elevates ugly and broken people. You are overstating your disagreement.
The DR is correct to interpret Swift's fandom as a latent celebration of "whiteness" as it were, in a way that does not apply to other pop stars, and correct to interpret the resentment towards it as having a racial undertone that the Right Wing should perceive and not support just because Swift endorses a Democrat.
You still have to explain why Swift is getting that backlash, and other comparable popstars do not get the same backlash, despite not doing any of the things you claimed it’s necessary to do - uglifying oneself, “worshipping weakness”, making a postmodern critique of femininity - to avoid backlash.
Can you just acknowledge that Katy Perry's "persona" is not the same as Taylor Swift's? And that the latter is playing a straight archetype of popular white girl? Katy Perry is not going for that, she has her own image and look. I don't think Katy Perry plays the "popular girl next door" persona like Swift does. I don't think Perry goes for the "Prom Queen white girl vibe" like Swift embraces. Do you? If you agree with me then I'm still struggling to understand why you take such issue with my comment.
You are engaging in a composition fallacy. My argument was that Swift's persona is "popular, conventionally attractive white girl." You think that pointing out that there are other conventionally attractive white pop stars is a counterargument to this where it isn't. Swift's persona is as the white popular girl, that's her "character." She reminds me of girls I knew growing up, very much a Prom Queen / Girl Next Door sort of character. That is different from the other examples, and how they try to create and refine their image, even though they are also examples of conventionally attractive white pop stars. With Miley Cryus for example showing that just because she's white and conventionally attractive doesn't mean her persona is the same as Swift's. Miley Cryus is also flat, but her persona is not white-coded so it doesn't lead to the same dynamic.
Swift is actually going for the "popular, white, girl next door" vibe and it resonates with a huge number of white girls. Just pointing to other attractive pop stars is not responsive to the argument I'm making.
I think she triggers a ton of the neuroses and insecurities of non-white women in this country; I’m hesitant to speculate on the deep psychological reasons why.
I of course agree with this, and that's why I relate the backlash to Swift's fandom as a ressentiment against the archetype of the conventionally attractive white girl. So I don't know why you are accusing me of inappropriately applying a political lens when you basically agree with me that backlash towards her fandom is driven by resentment towards Swift's white-coded attractiveness and persona.
There are of course episodes like Kanye West upstaging Swift to defend Beyonce against Swift's rising star. Yeah, there is actual political and culture war in these sorts of events.
There was nothing political or controversial about being a Katy Perry fan, or a Kelly Clarkson fan, or any of it.
Admittedly I don't know much about the Kelly Clarkson fandom, but I'm 100% sure if I studied that fandom for a few hours I would absolutely be able to identify political issues underlying the fandom, Clarkson's image, etc. The idea these issues just apply to Taylor Swift but don't apply to Beyonce is just really illogical.
So then what's your interpretation of the "oh you're a Swiftie that's sooo white"? Why is Swiftdom so white-coded compared to the fandoms of other pop-stars through the 2010s? Ocean's 8 was a 2018 film, so the "Swift fans are so white" joke was already a thing back then and it's only more played out now. Certainly Taylor Swift isn't the only conventionally attractive white pop star, and a joke like that wouldn't work for Christina Aguilera or Ariana Grande. If you can't provide an explanation for this then I don't think you're engaging my point.
Obviously it is political, those kind of jokes or public perception comes from somewhere it isn't random. Swift and her fandom is materially different from those other pop-stars. Everyone has picked up on this.
You honestly just throw out these wildly implausible claims, like before saying the culture of the Anglo-Saxons was irrelevant to reproductive selection. And now you're saying that pop music in the 2010s was apolitical. I mean, seriously. No, pop-culture and pop stars and their fandoms, absolutely NONE of that is "incredibly apolitical."
The point isn't that she's a white pop star or she happens to be more famous than the others, add to your list someone like Miley Cyrus, and certainly Lady Gaga, those pop stars play a persona that's basically a postmodern critique of their conventional attractiveness. They make themselves look disgusting as part of their act, maybe they even get an audience by appealing to ugly people through uglifying themselves and yet attaining fame and acclaim. It certainly isn't the case that Swift even has more natural beauty than some of the other examples.
Taylor Swift's persona is "The Popular Girl", which all those other pop stars you mention try to subvert by dressing and acting in a way that openly defies conventional attractiveness or how a girl is supposed to behave. She doesn't appeal to her audience by making herself look or behave ugly, which does stand out among those other pop stars. Probably sans Britney Spears in her prime, but that would only solidify my point of a "return to normalcy" where girls want to be the prettiest and most popular rather than the most... Lady Gaga.
Taylor Swift fandom is white-coded in a way that is unlike any of those other pop stars because Swift plays the "white popular girl" archetype. I happened to be watching Ocean's 8 today and one of the characters made a quip that the Indian character was "so white" because she was excited Swift was going to be at the Met Gala.
If Swift behaved like Miley Cryus or Lady Gaga you would have a point, but she behaves very differently from them and it's meaningful that young girls are looking towards a Swift- the "popular girl" archetype rather than the contrived acts of those other pop stars which ham up ugliness to appeal to an audience.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
6d ago
The right-wing was vindicated. The argument was that, in spite of Taylor Swift's political endorsements, what Taylor Swift herself represents is far more important than political endorsements. She's not a progressive or feminist icon, she's the prom queen getting with the jock football player. So some on the DR perceived a return to normalcy with Swift's fame, dubbing her Aryan princess as a playful acknowledgment of a sort of reversion from the pop-culture dominated ressentiment towards the jock and the prom queen that is foundational to wokeness.
So with Swift's fame the DR was right to pick up on it as a signal for a "return to normalcy" and a looming, catastrophic defeat of Wokeness. We are past peak wokeness. Alienating Swifties for Swift's political endorsements is missing the forest for the trees. Swift does represent a retreat of wokeness, a return to normalcy from the worship of the weak and ugly and broken.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
13d ago
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.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
13d ago
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.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
13d ago
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.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
13d ago
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.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1mo ago
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.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1mo ago
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.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1mo ago
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.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1mo ago
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?
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1mo ago
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.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1mo ago
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.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
1mo ago
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
2mo ago
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.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
2mo ago
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.
SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
2mo ago
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.
Sovereign is he who decides on the exception. "We" didn't do anything. I do not acknowledge your "exception" and young people are skeptical of it. The Right Wing shouldn't support a people that don't support them, and none of your "Jews are so oppressed" or "we made an exception" lines of dialogue are remotely convincing for why I should support Israel.
This is a hilarious lie, Jews are overwhelmingly sympathetic to Israel. If accepting them and handing them power failed to earn their loyalty to the ethnic stock that took them in, you should wonder why they were expelled so much throughout history. As if handing them the levers of power would have won them over- we know now apparently not. In fact, it's silly to even fathom that Jews would show loyalty towards the people that brought them in and gave them power.
More options
Context Copy link