ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '24
No bio...
User ID: 1012
Being partly descended from people who lived in America before there was an America, my attitude toward native American grievances is: "Sucks to suck, git gud, gg no re." Black and brown BIPOC bodies of color can get in line right behind every other conquered/defeated people with a sob story. This is the Law of the Jungle. And this slimy conniving chipping away at the edges to guilt your oppressors into give you free shit is just pathetic. We need more Geronimos and fewer Charlene Red Bird Lovitz-Smiths, at least that sort of direct action is heroic and inspiring.
So I feel zero guilt about First Peoples (who were First, except for you know those other tribes that were First-er but got genocided before the white man made it ashore) and their ridiculous revanchism. You lost, get over it. And you're welcome for building one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen using the land we wrested from your ancestors so that we can today provide for their descendents. Would Imperial China or Czarist Russia have been so generous had they arrived first? I doubt it.
And yeah, one day, after the U.S. fractures and gets invaded by Greater North Korea or the Second Mexican Empire or the People's Republic of Canada, well, sucks to suck, we lost, that's the way of the world. Turn about's fair play, nothing lasts forever nor does it have a right to.
Yeah, nearly all English language reporting about Japan is awful and written by progressive midwits (at best) who are also often weeaboos or some other form of nerd. Names to watch out for include Jake Adelstein, a "Yakuza expert;" David Aldwinkle ("Debito Arudou"), a gaijin-rights activist, and the editors of the Japan Times, whose reporting on Japanese culture and politics usually seems to boil down to "Shame on Japan for not being more like San Francisco." English NHK or Japanese Twitter is way better.
But you have to own up to it, not say "how dare you throw away those precious fifty bucks, we need them at home!"
Sure, but you could imagine a vindictive, manipulative wife who says, "Oh, so you hate the homeless and what them to die??" and then spreads that exaggeration around their shared friend circle so that everyone thinks the husband is a jerk and shuns him. The analogy breaks down a bit because marital and small-scale social dynamics are different than those between citizens of a nation, but you can see why the husband might obscure his true thoughts to avoid opening himself up to an attack that would ruin his social standing.
It's a lot like calling someone cowardly for not openly stating their thoughts on HBD, or UBI, or Marxist economics. In a society where, for normies at least , "free market" and "tolerance" and rounded up to "good," and "communism" and "racism" are rounded down to "pure evil," inviting your opponents to be frank about these beliefs is really just a disingenuous invitation to step into a trap.
she was afraid to ask even of herself the silent question - "Is this all?"
I've always thought this was a ridiculous question. The answer is clearly "yes" and I don't think this would have been difficult for most people before WW2. Indeed, Ecclesiastes said millennia ago:
Men are born only to die, plant trees only to displant them. 3 Now we take life, now we save it; now we are destroying, now building. 4 Weep first, then laugh, mourn we and dance; 5 the stones we have scattered we must bring together anew; court we first and then shun the embrace. 6 To-day’s gain, tomorrow’s loss; what once we treasured, soon thrown away; 7 the garment rent, the garment mended; silence kept, and silence ended; 8 love alternating with hatred, war with peace. 9 For all this toiling of his, how is man the richer?[1] 10 Pitiable indeed I found it, this task God has given to mankind; 11 and he, meanwhile, has made the world, in all its seasonable beauty, and given us the contemplation[2] of it, yet of his own dealings with us, first and last, never should man gain comprehension. 12 To enjoy his life, to make the best of it, beyond doubt this is man’s highest employment; 13 that gift at least God has granted him, to eat and drink and see his toil rewarded.
The human condition is the indignity of being an eternal soul bound to a finite body, trapped in a fallen world filled with suffering. Even non-Christians feel a similar void. I'm no Nietzschean but I sympathize with him when he says:
“If there were gods, how could I bear not to be a god? Therefore, there are no gods.”
The default experience is to "struggle alone," to wrestle with the apparent fact that life has "no goal, no ambition, no purpose," feel that one is "buried alive" by the hideously mundane, tedious, and exhausting demands of daily life.
This reads more like a collection of talking points than a coherent post. What are you trying to discuss here? Whether DOGE is as effective as it claims? Whether Trump will keep his promise to balance the budget? Hypocrisy about the White House dress code? Is there a common theme?
I'm baffled by perceptions of China and Chinese products in the West. There seem to be two camps:
-
Normie camp. China is the new evil empire. They spy on everyone and steal everything. Everything they make is fake and falls apart (Temu, electronics). Their "technical excellence" is just aping stuff America could do effortlessly a decade or more ago (lunar lander, Nei Zha 2, Black Myth Wukong) or it's kabuki theater (Deepseek is stolen tech and/or is a facade to hide massive investment and manpower to make it look like China is catching up). They cheat their allies on the global stage (crappy infrastructure built in Africa in exchange for minerals).
-
Contrarian camp. China is the new techno-cyberpunk future of the human race. Drone swarms shaped like dragons. Everything on your smartphone. Technical excellence matching that of America but at less cost (Nei Zha, BM:W, Deepseek). Futuristic Chinese cities. Transhumanism unfettered by Christian hangups. They offer their allies purely aboveboard transactional deals with no moralizing strings attached.
I even see it on this forum. My info is a bit dated now, but I used to be heavily interested in China and hooked in to Chinese culture and politics. My takeaway from my time over there living with and working alongside Chinese people was that China could never truly be a more attractive partner than America on the world stage because their core civilizational ideas are just not attractive or reassuring to non-Chinese. Most Americans see themselves as part of a universal brotherhood of nations due to America's enlightenment roots, but China see itself as the "middle kingdom" that should rightfully be at the center of Asia, and ideally the world. It is a civilization founded on ethnic chauvinism and an inward orientation. Barbarians ways are not to be understood or mimicked save for instrumentally in order to gain some advantage that furthers the Chinese race. Deals with other nations are entered into not out of any sort of altruism or common ground, but as purely transactional interactions, and deals only need to be honored so far as they continue to benefit China and the Chinese -- as soon as all the juice has been squeezed, the contract can be shredded and discarded, and former partners can simply be gaslit about the prior agreement.
The obvious counterpoint is that America's foreign policy establishment is just as ruthless and amoral, and perhaps even moreso since they distract from their misdeeds with platitudes about universalism and human rights. I think this is a fair point, but I would counter that the American establishment does actually have some true believers and that it is at least somewhat constrained by what the American voting public can stomach. China has no such checks. I would also counter that America's amoral foreign policy is a deviation from its core civilizational values, one from which (hopefully) it is beginning to course correct, while the ethnic chauvinism of China is core to its civilization self-identity and is thus much more deeply ingrained and less likely to change. I think we may see a few countries defect toward China, but I wager after a decade they will learn their lesson and either return to the American fold or take some sort of third-worldist position.
Academic Agent always comes across to me as a meta-grifter whose grift is to claim that everyone else on the right is dumb and/or grifting (see also that skinwalker Hanania). A grifter for hobbits with a slightly higher IQ. Okay, cool story bro. Don't worry, I'll remember to like and subscribe to your Substack so that I can read your exclusive paywalled articles about how everyone else is a money grubbing shill. On what grounds does this guy expect me to take him more seriously than the rest of the online political commentators?
Also @TheOneWhoFarts, do you have an opinion about this article? Your post is just a summary.
South Koreans really aren't very effeminate compared to other East Asians. They all go through military service which seems to change a substantial portion of them physically and mentally, at least IME. The problem (as explained in the linked AAQC) really does seem to be mostly caused by (unrealistically) high female standards.
McDonald's would build a restaurant near Harvard in a wealthy area and the manager (probably an elite who would usually not actually be present at the restaurant -- some middle class schlub would be hired as assistant manager to actually run things) would in practice only require well-connected prospective Harvard student employees to show up on a single day in their 6 month shift and excuse all other absences. It would just become another node in the elite influence and favor trading network. You would need a powerful sovereign of some sort to actually impose this on the rich and well-connected.
I wish there were more shades of difference between the binary of "Holocaust Denier" and "Holocaust Believer(?)". I don't think I'm a "Denier," I believe that some holocausting surely did happen, I don't know/care what the exact numbers are, because 6,000,000 or 300,000 is still an incredible tragedy either way. But I've come to care much less about it because AFAICT Holocaust remembrance is almost exclusively used as a heavy rhetorical cudgel for character assassination and silencing dissent, and it really seems to lend credence to the idea that a lot of Jews are Jewish first and second. I don't even necessarily think that's a terrible thing, I'd say I'm Catholic first and American second (sorry pre-JFK Catholics). But more people realizing/admitting that would prevent Jews from having their political cake and eating it too.
I guess I'm "Holocaust Indifferent" in the same way that I'm indifferent to the Armenian Genocide. I weakly hope a second Armenian Genocide never happens again, because genociding people is bad. But I'm not Armenian, so I don't think I'd be willing to spend much of my country's blood and treasure to prevent it (sorry). And if someone tried to tar an author or political opponent as an "Armenian Genocide Denier" or "Anti-Armenian" I would probably find that mildly interesting but it wouldn't stop me from voting for that person or buying their books. I wonder how manynother millennials feel this way. It really seems like it's mostly the boomers who are completely steeped in the Holocaust mythos.
Like I said in another comment, I'm not a mind killed Jew hater so I'm open to hearing other perspectives.
My reactions to reading your synopsis:
-
This sounds like a social justice fantasy so outrageous that it borders on pornographic
-
This sounds like what might actually happen today if the races were swapped (and sure enough @Folamh3 says it was; do you have a link to the case?)
To your prompts:
-
"No" to all those questions. Alabama in 1996 is much closer to Alabama in 2023 than to Alabama in 1926.
-
Not very differently. Which is to say, both back then and today the jury would have been quite fair and just, unlike the ridiculous civil rights fantasy the movie portrays. Alabama today might actually be slightly less tolerant than Alabamians in 1996, since back then they were on board with "colorblind" race relations as a sort of truce. Now, racial identity politics and tribalism are on the rise, but I still don't think it would be enough to change how the trial would be handled.
-
Light sentence for the murders of the two scumbags, and whatever the standard sentence is for unintentionally shooting someone.
I agree that his white trash manner is extra inflammatory to the PMC, but I thinking you're only 80% of the way to explaining their hatred. The final bit is that people like him aren't supposed to win. They're supposed to lose, they're relics of a backwards evil bygone era. If people like him win, it could undo all the salami-slicing, Nudges™, and demoralization works that has been wrought upon the plebs. They'll stop seeing the Glorious Technocratic Bugpod Future as an inevitability and maybe even stop feeling powerless, and then maybe they'll even finally try to do something about it all. And so Trump can't be allowed to get away with it, he has to be dealt with like Winston, and the old Party Members -- not martyred, but degraded, hounded, dragged through the mud, abused until he's a shell of his former self, so that everyone else can see that this is what happens to people who oppose Progress, even very rich well connected people who get elected to the most powerful office in the world. Any wealthy conservative considering a future presidential run will now be keenly aware of what happens if he should step outside the controlled opposition pen and will doubtless think twice.
Edit: Re-reading this, it sounds like I'm accusing my outgroup of being part of a vast conspiracy and bent on ruthlessly crushing an enemy for defying their power, but I'm not. Rather they're unwittingly part of an SSC-style prospiracy. The people who feel this way don't consciously think they're channeling O'Brien, they think they're Standing Up for Democratic Norms or whatever rationalization works for them.
The motte is "peace and stability" while the bailey is a smothering, devouring-mother managerial state where nothing happens too fast or slow and all the sharp corners have been sanded off of every political decision. There's a spectrum between the smothering hospice-care managerial state and biker gang anarchism, and just because someone would like to move a little further away from the former does not mean that they want to bring about the latter.
I can't wait for the new mechanics.
Bluewalk -- creature is unblockable as long as defending player controls a blue state
"Viva la Raza!"
Teflon -- when this creature is the target of a spell or ability, nullify its effect and place a +0/+1 on this creature
"He can't keep getting away with it!"
Deep Statesmanship -- during your turn, when this creature would be destroyed, instead tap it, remove it from combat, and heal all damage to it
"They know. Shut it down."
In the age of custom card sites, proxy printers, and stable diffusion, we're long overdue for a spiritual successor to the Illuminati card game.
I looked up the scandal on Wikipedia. He allegedly had sex with a 17 year old (who he claims he thought was 19)? That's what's made him radioactive? Is there anything else I'm missing? The wiki section for this says "UNDERAGE SEX TRAFFICKING" so I was expecting he was ordering 9-year Ukrainian war orphans to his house or something, but this really underwhelming. Technically a crime, yes, blah blah blah, but reminds me of the pearl clutching over Lewinsky.
Edmond Dantes was in deep despair while imprisoned in Chateau D'If for an unspecified crime on the accusation of an unknown person. Only when he finally deduced what his "crime" had been and who was responsible for his wrongful imprisonment did he regain his will to act.
I think this is an accurate reflection of how many people internally experience oppression by a specific person with intelligible motives versus oppression by an impersonal, alien force to which they are merely unnoticed collateral damage.
"Why is my rent going up this month? Isn't there anything you can do?" "Nope, sorry, the computer system says your rent goes up $125 this year. Corporate sets the rules, there's nothing I can do."
Indeed, “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” Without a "why," the "how" is often unbearable.
For me it was the police's ability to hold anyone in custody for up to 23 days without charges. I avoided police, and in the rare case I had to interact with them I was exceedingly deferential and polite.
So interesting how "problematic" has subtly completed the shift from "online activist jargon" to "well established and understood descriptive term." No matter what side of the CW one is on, it's crystal clear which types of content are implied by the adjective "problematic."
This is why we only have classic little golden books and some innocuous stuff from the 80s and 90s on our bookshelf. Also Roald Dahl, he's great. As others have said, there's no reason to buy modern propaganda children's books. Not only are they proselytizing, but they're mostly objectively ugly.
I would also recommend checking out some Catholic publishers. They often stock children's book that have a classic aesthetic and pro-family messages, and they don't always even have overt pro-Christian messaging.
Also FWIW I appreciate your posts on this topic. I'm also concerned and vigilant about this sort of subtle messaging, but very few around me are, and reading posts like these assures me that I'm not (entirely) crazy.
I've already seen several articles warning about/laying the groundwork for this (depending on your perspective). Google "red mirage."
I was gonna say, if you have a kids a wife is essential (so is a husband, tbh). With more than 1-2 kids, you no longer have a "relationship," you now have a "small business" that requires more than one employee to smoothly operate.
Which one of you motherfuckers
Found JD Vance's grandma.
Care to speak plainly? The rhetorical questions are getting tired.
Being Catholic is a choice in a way that being black or ethnic Jewish is not.
No, it's not. There's a difference but it's much smaller than people imagine. Is being "atheist" a choice? People don't choose their convictions the same way they choose their clothes. I'm a Christian. Sometimes I wished I weren't, because Christianity is very demanding and because it's low status among my peers. But I'm convinced of its truth for the time being, so whether I like it or not I remain Christian.
Not trying to single you out here, but I hate the word "obstructing" in politics. Its use is a motte-and-bailey. The motte is "blocking a thing from happening." As you say, the holdouts are "objectively" blocking the election of a speaker. But the bailey (which I'm not accusing you of using here) is "blocking my team from doing what we want without compromise," which was how the term was used through most of the Obama administration.
I also really loathe the use of child-related words to describe politicians' actions. "Petulant," "childish," "toddlers," "tantrum," and of course the bizarre flash in the pan from a few years ago that was "pissbaby." Nobody in any of the three branches of government is a "toddler" (though I'll make allowances for Trump). This sort of language smuggles in the idea that the other team are the "adults" who are mature, responsible, serious, reliable, and more deserving of power. Assuming it's not being used cynically, it represents a failure to fully grok one's outgroup's motivations.
For example, Gaetz casting a vote for Trump isn't being a "toddler" or "having a tantrum," it's a middle finger to the establishment GOP. You might think it's an ineffectual or tasteless gesture, and it may well be, but there's a serious intent behind it. It's not the act of an irrational "toddler."
More options
Context Copy link