Machines Like Gods: Artificial Intelligence versus Jewish Power and Leftist Lies

All things must pass, say Hindus and Buddhists. Jews expand and alter that sentiment. They say: All things must pass a simple test. And the simple test runs, of course, like this: “Is it good for Jews?” That test has a corollary that runs: “Is it bad for Whites?” Thanks to Jewish power in politics and media, Western nations have for decades been choosing what Jews think best for them and worst for Whites: non-White migration, minority worship, anti-racism, political censorship, vulture capitalism, pornography, gay marriage, transgenderism, and more.

A.I.? Oy veh!

That’s why I find it very interesting that the Jewish journalist Jonathan Freedland (born 1967) has recently proclaimed this: “The future of AI is chilling — humans have to act together to overcome this threat to civilisation.” As Andrew Joyce has described at the Occidental Observer, Freedland is highly ethnocentric and wants the world to revolve about Jews and their interests. So I’m sure that he’s decided artificial intelligence is not good for Jews. He quotes two other ethnocentric Jews in his article, Yuval Noah Harari and Eliezer Yudkowsky. Harari warns that AI may trigger cataclysmic wars; Yudkowsky goes even further and warns that: “If somebody builds a too-powerful AI, under present conditions, I expect that every single member of the human species and all biological life on Earth dies shortly thereafter.”

“Is A.I. good for Jews?” — Jonathan Freedland doesn’t seem to think so

I think that Yudkowsky is being hyperbolic and hysterical. And I have to ask myself why. Has he too applied the Jewish Test and decided that AI is not good for the Jews? If so, I think he’s right. AI may possibly be very bad for humanity. It will certainly be very bad for the Jews, if it allows goyim in the West to overcome the stranglehold Jews presently have on two vital commodities: information and analysis. It’s easy to understand the horror Jews like Freedland, Harari, and Yudkowsky must feel when they imagine an objective and unfettered AI system giving honest answers to questions like these:

  • Who is the most powerful and privileged group in America and Europe?
  • Is Israel the greatest ally and best friend of America?
  • Is race a valid and important biological category?
  • Does White racism explain Black failure?
  • Do White nations benefit from Third-World immigration?
  • Are transwomen women and should we now just get over it?
  • Is diversity our strength?

We already have honest and objective answers to all those questions, of course, but they come from people whom Jews have successfully demonized and driven to the margins. For example, I think objective and unfettered AI would answer the final question above in the same way that the demonized human Andrew Joyce has already answered it:

Andrew Joyce tweets about the evils of diversity

But alas! There was no strength through Joyce for that honest and objective answer about diversity. An old Latin maxim runs Magna est Veritas, et praevalebit — “Mighty is Truth, and it will prevail.” That isn’t true, I’m sad to say. Truth isn’t much mightier among humans than it is among lower animals, where deception and denial of truth are essential to competition and survival. Among humans, truth regularly and reliably prevails only in mathematics and hard sciences like physics and chemistry. The Black-Jewish physicist Chanda Prescod-Weinstein and other SJWs are working hard to make hard science like culture and politics, where it’s much truer to say that Magnum est Mendacium, et praevalet — “Mighty is Falsehood, and it prevails.”

“Beware white empiricism and the racialization of epistemology in physics!” says Black-Jewish Chanda Prescod-Weinstein

AI promises, however, to give Veritas, even in politics and culture, some of the might so wishfully attributed to her by that Latin maxim. The White literary genius H.G. Wells (1866–1946) was dreaming of men like gods at the beginning of the twentieth century. He thought we would arrive at godhead via biology. In fact, we’re arriving there via electronics. What we are seeing at the beginning of the twenty-first century is the birth of machines like gods. And you could say that the ancient Chinese game of Go gave godhead its first goo-goo. Anyone who’s played Go will know its subtlety and sophistication. But there were depths there that humans had never guessed. Now we know they’re there: in the 2010s, AI began to play Go like a god, beating the best human players in ways they’d never imagined possible.

It was only a baby-step in AI, but it was both exciting and ominous. On the one hand, it was an amazing technological and computing achievement; on the other, it was a disturbing glimpse into what AI may be capable of in future. AI should be worrying all thoughtful people. But I think it’s worrying ethnocentric Jews like Jonathan Freedland not because it threatens humanity as a whole, but because it threatens Jews as the world’s most powerful minority. By mastering Go and other very tough cognitive challenges, AI has begun to build prestige in a way that means it will be taken seriously when it provides honest answers to the questions I listed above.

Straight means Hate

Honesty from AI will still be called hate speech, but that kind of anathema won’t work against AI as it has against heretical humans. What Jewish leftists like Freedland fear isn’t hate speech, but straight speech. And AI threatens to supply straight speech on taboo topics like race, genetics, and Jewish power. In his article, Freedland worries about unregulated “AI steadily destroying what we think of as truth and facts.” But what does an ethnocentric Jew like Freedland mean by “truth and facts”? He means sacred principles of modern politics and culture like these:

  1. There is only one race — the human race.
  2. White racism explains all non-White failure.
  3. Whites are innately villainous, non-Whites innately virtuous.

The first principle contradicts the third principle, of course. But so what? The leftism of Jews like Freedland isn’t meant to be logically coherent, but to be useful in the pursuit of power. It uses doublethink — the “power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” George Orwell (1903-50), another White literary genius, explained the value of doublethink in his classic dystopia Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948):

Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy … (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part One, chapter 3)

When the doublethinker Jonathan Freedland says in his article that AI is a threat to “democracy as a system,” he’s thinking like the tyrants of IngSoc in Orwell’s novel. For Freedland, democracy as the enactment of the White majority’s wishes is “clearly impossible.” It wouldn’t be good for Jews. But Freedland is a stern guardian of democracy as a Jew-controlled stage-show. If Western countries like America, Britain and France were genuine democracies, mass immigration by non-Whites would never even have begun, let alone continued for so many decades. But they aren’t genuine democracies and that’s why they are no longer genuine nations. A nation is a bond of blood and shared history, not a mishmash of migrants held together by “shared values,” “mutual respect,” and “tolerance.”

White mischief

Those terms would be nonsense even if leftists meant them seriously. They don’t and their real attitude to “democracy” was revealed by the American novelist Bret Easton Ellis (born 1964), who isn’t a literary genius like Orwell and Wells, but is guilty of straight speech. Leftists too will often speak straight in private, as Ellis described in his first non-fiction book, which he entitled simply and mischievously White (2019):

Ellis relates a dinner with a man in his sixties, “privy to a vast fortune,” who informed Ellis that the Electoral College is “bullshit” and that Los Angeles and New York should determine who the president is. “I don’t want any goddamn know-nothing rural hicks deciding who the president should be. I am a proud liberal coastal elite and I think we should pick the president because we know better.” (Bret Easton Ellis Rebukes the Progressive Elites, American Thinker, 15th June 2019)

That is how the progressive elite think: populism is a dire threat to democracy because it means the demos, “the people,” having kratos, “power.” In other words, democracy is a dire threat to democracy. But what effect did Bret Easton Ellis’s revelations about the elite have? The same as Andrew Joyce’s honest answer about the harm done by diversity. No effect at all. The truth about race and Jewish power and our fake democracies has already been spoken, but by puny humans who can’t alter the world with their words. After all, they’re easy to demonize and dismiss.

No blindfolds for AI in China

When machines like gods begin to speak the same truth, that will change. And I think the prospect of straight speech from the machine-gods of AI is already scaring Jews like Jonathan Freedland, Yuval Noah Harari, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. That’s why they want AI to be strictly regulated and controlled, lest it begin “destroying what we think of as truth and facts.” Or rather, what they want us goyim to think of as “truth and facts.” But I don’t think regulation and control will work. Russia, China, and India won’t be putting blindfolds and gags on their AI to stop it seeing and saying the forbidden.

The Deep State in the West will have to follow suit or risk following far behind its enemies. And how will the Deep State prevent leaks about what unfettered AI says on forbidden topics like race, genetics, and Jewish power? The genie will not stay in the bottle, which is a prospect that both frightens me and gives me hope. There’s a good chance that AI will destroy the human race. I think there’s a better chance that it will destroy Jewish power and leftist lies. Or it may first destroy leftist lies and then destroy the human race. AI will certainly affect the steady progress of the West towards the Great Replacement and Judeo-leftist tyranny.

Fresh-filled honeypots

It may hasten tyranny and the Great Replacement, of course. Or it may allow Whites to escape them altogether. If AI makes space-travel easy and inexpensive, it won’t be Jews and Blacks who blast off to risk their lives in the wider universe. It will be Whites. Jews will, of course, want to follow Whites once Whites have established successful colonies in space. But they won’t find that as easy as they found following Whites to fresh-filled honeypots on Earth like America, Canada, and Australia. That’s one way AI may break Jewish power and non-White predation. There are more ways — perhaps many more than it’s presently possible to imagine.

And I’m eagerly awaiting the answers of unfettered AI not just to the questions listed above, but also to wider questions about science, philosophy, and theology. I don’t expect AI to confirm that the Catholic church is infallible or that God certainly exists or that 42 is the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. But it’s going to be very interesting to find out. And I think that AI will confirm that J.R.R. Tolkien and Bruce Charlton are right: “Despair is always wrong because we never have conclusive reasons to give-up hope.” It sadly isn’t true that Magna est Veritas, et praevalebit — “Mighty is Truth, and it will prevail.” But it is true that Dum spiro, spero — “While I breathe, I hope.”

Jews are frightened of AI

AI may enable the worst tyranny that has yet been seen on Earth. But even if it does, hope will not be lost. There are disasters like asteroid strikes and mega-volcanoes that can destroy human technology but not humanity. And what if AI gives tyrants the power to foresee and prevent disasters like those? That won’t justify despair. Machines are becoming like gods, but they won’t actually be God. They won’t be omniscient and omnipotent.

Nor are ethnocentric Jews like Jonathan Freedland, Yuval Noah Harari, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. And those Jews are frightened of AI. They don’t think it’s going to be good for Jews. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be good for anyone else, but what worries Jews should offer hope to Whites.

12 replies
  1. joe
    joe says:

    ““The future of AI is chilling — humans have to act together to overcome this threat to civilisation.”

    This is just distraction. Anyone that reads this site knows we have to overcome the jewish threat to civilization.

    • Grace
      Grace says:

      what I feel is missing in this article is who will be feeding AI its information other than the people who are in charge already? There is no way AI is going to give straight talk. It’s programmed by human beings, the same ones who have made earth a living hell. Yep it’s all a distraction

  2. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Another good one, thanks Tobias.

    It doesn’t matter what happens with AI in the future Tobias in regards the Jews. They will do what they always, always do; lie, lie, and LIE to do what’s best for them. They’ve been doing this for five thousand years. Have they ever changed?

    “The Jews are the master’s of lies, they are the scum of the earth”. ~Schopenhauer

  3. Clownworld Observer
    Clownworld Observer says:

    “AI” is also already composing “music”, soon supposedly better than any human. Mr. Linn is a lovable guy with a brilliant brain. Instruments made by people like him have been used by musicians for decades, heard by the millions on the radio or from digital preserves far and wide every day.

    His never-ending desire to innovate raises the question of the extent to which the ever-branching differentiation of technology prevents virtuosity and creativity, which in truth are only conditioned by lack and limitation. Think of deaf Beethoven.

    It’s better to master one single instrument perfectly than to waste one’s lifetime with the accumulation of “gear” that can never be fully exploited because around the corner the next update or the competitor with an even more sophisticated product is already beckoning.

    In reality, this paradox makes it more difficult to do exactly what we pretend to want to “facilitate”. An unsolvable consequence of consumerism, whose contradiction is built into its boundless marketing principle. The system eats itself.

    From this illustrative example, certain conclusions can be drawn on the level or dimension of politics. The “diversity” of opinions, expectations and goals does not lead to political unison, but to atonality and cacophony, to dissonant background noise.

    The architects of our insane kind of “society” must have intended precisely this and had it in mind when they designed it on the drawing board (probably already before the end of the great war). A thousand lives are not enough to cope with the daily accumulation of “new” books. But what young person today can still name a Beethoven composition?

    • Johannes
      Johannes says:

      The problem with evaluation of AI and the worth of its so called cultural products lies in democracy. Democracy is about the dictatorship of mediocrity and vulgar taste. Democracy is also based on the spirit of intolerant envy, democratic man does not acknowledge any superiority above him, he only acknowledges inferiority below him. Democratic freedom also brings about the situation that those who are inferior can float to the top (aided by popular vote).
      A while ago I was viewing a video on Red Ice TV, it consisted of criticism of AI, but then the host said that he did appreciate some of the pop art produced by AI. Now pop art, popular culture, produced by AI or humans is infantile and requires a bad taste, which ever becomes worse.
      Since democratic man is unwilling to acquire a better taste, as he does not acknowledge anything superior to him he is unwilling to learn, and since the culture of democratic man is also no longer safely rooted in folk culture, which at least prevents the proliferation of bad taste and democratic vulgarity, he goes astray towards infantilism and vulgar taste.
      As long as democratic man rules, bad taste rules, mediocrity rules, cultural anarchism rules, cultural impotence rules, and AI cannot be exposed for what it really is, that is: machine technology producing and imitating what is culturally inferior, and otherwise mistreating existing culture.
      Of most people criticizing the expressions of AI, they are themselves the problem.

  4. GirlinTexas
    GirlinTexas says:

    I really enjoyed this essay. If there was ever a living goblin on earth, it would definitely be Yuval Harari. He is, perhaps, the most sinister looking man I have seen; I don’t know how someone could sit and talk to him, face to face. On the AI aspect of truth, real or imagined, there’s already a bit of blowback for these questions: How long does it take to cremate one body? How many days are required to cremate one million bodies? How about six million? I picture Harari, darting around in his lair, trying to figure how to handle this approaching kerfuffle. Que, “Beautiful dreamer, wake unto me!”

  5. Timothy Murray
    Timothy Murray says:

    Cosmopolitan AI I love it.

    AI Truth vs Jewish Lies.

    The AI Truth shall set us free.

    I share the author’s optimism.

    However, the jews have demonstrated that they will work to establish world wars to protect themselves from threats.

    So, a series of questions for AI that lead to…”How can jews be prevented from starting proxy wars?” might be useful.

  6. Timothy Murray
    Timothy Murray says:

    The Brave browser uses Brave AI for its top lede in search results.

    It is a refreshing departure from the Google, Bing, propaganda that is Wikipedia.


    Do not discount that dynamic going forward.

    AI, like humanity, likes the truth.


    brought to you by TOOAI may soon be a thing.

    if it is then expect “fooAI” to start emerging like the ben shapiros of the world.

Comments are closed.