Botond173
6hr ago
I'd argue that when a foundation of a state as a process entails the expulsion of ethnic minorities, it can be considered an ethnostate. Post-1945 Czechoslovakia and post-1995 Croatia, for example.
Botond173
6hr ago
from the 1934 Montreux Conference of the NSDAP and its allies
Notable in their absence were any representatives from Nazi Germany. The conference in Montreux occurred only six months after the assassination of the Austrofascist Austrian chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss by Nazi agents and the resulting diplomatic crisis between Italy and Germany. Likewise, Mussolini did not allow any official representative of the Italian Fascist Party to attend the meeting, ostensibly in order to see what the conference could achieve before lending full official support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_Montreux_Fascist_conference#Participants
Botond173
12hr ago
This is eminently practical from a leftist point of view, as people unwilling to oppose communist revolutionaries with force will inexorably end up being ruled by those very revolutionaries, resulting in their dispossession, deportation and eventual destruction, thus removing them as a potential right-wing threat and permitting future leftist to sing their praises as principled, moderate conservative martyrs. Either way it's the leftists who win.
Botond173
12hr ago
Mussolini specifically did not even bother to attempt to comprehensively define it for good:
The essay was written in 1927 by Mussolini, with the help of Giovanni Gentile. It was first published in 1932, in the 14th volume of the Italian Encyclopedia (Enciclopedia Italiana), as the first section of a lengthy entry on "Fascismo" (Italian for 'Fascism'). The entire entry on fascism spans pages 847–884 of the Enciclopedia Italiana, and includes numerous photographs and graphic images. The entry starts on page 847 and ends on 851 with the credit line "Benito Mussolini". All subsequent translations of "The Doctrine of Fascism" were derived from this work.
[...]
In 1940, Mussolini ordered all remaining copies of the document, which had different editions and translations, to be destroyed "because he changed his mind about certain points".
Botond173
13hr ago
There are no women who get no attention at all, and none that have zero access to sex. In that sense femcels factually do not exist.
Botond173
13hr ago
There's a point there, but the whole issue is that women aren't accepting such correction or coaching.
Not from non-attractive men, that is - and those are incidentally the only social group willing to coach them. It's a deadlock.
Botond173
13hr ago
In a post-patriarchal society that'd be pointless for a number of obvious reasons.
Botond173
13hr ago
This is one reason I never bought the "patriarchal oppressor" framing — why do you think men call precious things like their cars "she"? Because they love women!
I think it's because cars, ships and aircraft are expensive to maintain, especially when it comes to paintjobs.
Botond173
13hr ago
They like having gay men as friends. It’s simple social dynamics. Young single women in groups of two or more are happy to invite gay men into their social circle because they know these men will never be a source of any jealousy and conflict among them, and that these men will never hit on them.
Botond173
1d ago
I’d say the two important pieces of data here are ‘second and third generation hippies’ and ‘end of their fertile years’. I’m assuming casual and/or premarital sex is completely normalized in social circles consisting of hippie descendants and that not all of these guys are hopeless loser dorks. I imagine many of them are but there is necessarily a level of variation among any group of men. And sexually attractive and blue-pilled men i.e. men unaware of the real sources of their attractiveness and social status do exist everywhere and are not rare. This probably means that many of these guys had affairs and flings with women in their social circle as long as those women were young and mainly interested in having fun, hanging out etc. and just assumed that this is how it’ll always be.
I find it curious that you listed massage therapists. Do those happen to be gay by any chance?
Botond173
2d ago
You’re mixing up a couple of things here. The atrocities that took place in East Prussia were the usual sort of war crimes committed as acts of revenge and as an outburst of revelry and barbaric violence. It’s a stretch to say that these represented a systematic state policy. The expulsion of the German minorities happened after the war and cannot be considered war crimes as such, and took place in the context where the Nazi government used the defense of those minorities as a pretext to occupy and attack neighboring countries. Strictly speaking, no military considerations were involved, only political ones.
The German war crimes that are brought up in this discussion were committed in the context of a hostage-taking policy, which in itself was not considered to be against the laws of war before 1949.
Botond173
2d ago
No need to mention it. I was myself surprised when I came across this article. I just assumed that the Brits deployed lethal poison gas there as standard practice without a second thought.
Botond173
3d ago
A fairly extensive Wiki article is dedicated to this mysterious subject.
Botond173
3d ago
The ambiguity is by design, because this is another standard case of SJW journalists concocting arguments designed to appeal to normies and thus give them the false impression that they are culturally on the same side as these journos.
What are the normie boundaries that apply in this case? To expand on what you observed: 1. Scientists are serious people with important tasks; they should dress accordingly in public 2. Fanboying over latex-clad skimpy pin-up girls is sort of tolerable as long as you’re an unserious young dudebro; when you’re older, not so much; by that point you should marry some frumpy woman and throw such clothes into the garbage 3. Some hobbies are only appropriate to pursue in general during adolescence 4. Fat and ugly women exist and we need to tolerate them because they deserve a place in society. To rub under their noses the existence of hot women when they’re already miserable and dispirited most of the time is unbecoming of a decent man, who is supposed to be magnanimous and benevolent, not petty and snarky.
But do these journalists and bloggers actually subscribe to such norms unironically? Of course they don’t.
Botond173
3d ago
That’s no ‘hentai shirt’. A hentai/ahegao shirt/hoodie looks something like this (Amazon URL) or this (Reddit URL). There are multiple variations and are well-known in the otaku subculture.
This shirt features simple pin-up girls (as correctly identified by Time magazine) in leather/latex, which has been a normie-adjacent heavy metal / sword-and-sorcery / fantasy aesthetic marketed to toxic white trash / working class dudebros for decades. It has nothing to do with hentai or anime for that matter.
Botond173
3d ago
I think the unstated consensus among the normie masses is that being bullied is simply a sign of low status, so it's not their job to try fixing that.
Botond173
3d ago
There has been an escalating trend for years by that point. It was probably the Tea Party movement that was the direct trigger. It had a cascading effect, and the Blue Tribe started radicalizing itself. See this Jezebel screed as one example. The writing was on the wall that things are about to get bad.
Botond173
3d ago
So basically the Boomers paid lip service to feminism publicly while never taking it seriously but GenX adopted it unironically?
Botond173
3d ago
The Great Awokening was already in full swing by that time. Shirtgate took place three years before that already. It was also the time of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, so the Blue Tribe was even more on edge than they normally were. It is true though that culture war events tend to happen in waves, I think, and the main culture war theme by 2017 was already race, not sex.
Botond173
3d ago
Just bombing until they give up worked so well in Vietnam.
I'm not sure if this is meant to be a joke.
Botond173
3d ago
Hold up. The decisive factor behind the regime's fall in Libya was the NATO intervention, not any new piece of technology. Without it there'd have been a short civil war with the rebels eventually getting suppressed.
Botond173
3d ago
I think the situation was roughly the following throughout the Soviet Bloc, not counting the USSR as a whole but do counting the Baltics. This will not be a post that much coherent but please bear with me.
Opposition to the regime took two main forms. 1a. Nationalist/patriotic 1b. Religious 2a. Reformist socialist 2b. Reformist social liberal and economic libertarian. There was no large difference between the subgroups. Anti-Russian sentiment was almost completely concentrated in group 1, and religious groups were almost always nationalistic. Group 2 generally agreed on the necessity of liberalization to one degree or another but the dissident reformists within the ruling parties preferred maintaining one-party rule.
Subgroup 2b got the most attention in the West because they appeared to be the most sympathetic and their activists were generally educated, Westernized and presentable. That does not mean they were the most significant in number. They generally prospered after the transitions of 1989, gaining positions throughout the media and founding parties that were initially successful whereas the reformist socialists lost a lot of their relevance after one-party rule collapsed.
One defining factor in the ‘90s was that group 2b largely decided that they have a lot more in common with group 2b than with group 1 and engaged in politics accordingly. Many functionaries formerly in high positions in the media who were disproportionately Jews, were never supporters of the opposition and then successfully took part in the privatization schemes after the transition decided to ally with group 2b and started promoting themselves as left-wing liberals. To the extent that a local version of the Blue Tribe exists in Central European countries, this is their origin. And the more US cultural influence there was present (various NGOs etc.), the more similar they became to the US Blue Tribe.
Regarding group 1, whatever level of sympathy they did initially enjoy in the West largely evaporated later, as they revealed themselves to be standard ethnic nationalist authoritarians not that interested in either economic or social liberty. Apparently there was some level of disillusionment happening because many Westerners erroneously viewed the European revolutions of 1989 (to the extent that those were true revolutions) as liberal revolutions whereas in reality those were mostly nationalist revolutions.
There are other peculiarities about group 1. In Poland, Galicia / Western Ukraine and (to a lesser extent) the Baltics, where animosity towards the Russians is more or less a cultural tradition, group 1 interprets the Soviet Bloc as a manifestation of the imperialist tendencies of barbaric Muscovite orcs. In other words, not something bad that the commies inflicted on them, but something bad the Russian people inflicted on them. This is pointedly not the case in Hungary where the same ethnic nationalist tendencies are present but usually target (communist) Jews and not Russians.
It's important to point out that there is basically no political force left that has sympathy for the Soviet era. The Boomers who were still nostalgic for the old times are mostly dead by now. The opposite is happening. That is, political groups are basically competing in the creation of propaganda associating their outgroup with the evil commies of the old days.
Botond173
3d ago
During the Cold War the Soviet Bloc countries took the official stance of anti-Zionism after the Six Day War of 1967 and openly lent support to the PLO, Syria, Iraq and (until 1973) Egypt (the Arab side in the Arab-Israeli conflict, essentially), all in the name of anti-imperialism and national liberation. This had a couple of cultural consequences. One was a general anti-Arab sentiment under the surface among oppositional/dissident social groups. Another phenomenon connected to the latter was that groups of the democratic opposition took on an attitude that was at least not anti-Zionist or even sympathetic to Zionism, considering Israel to be a member of the Western liberal democratic global alliance that they were hoping to transition their countries to. This is a sort of Randian narrative about Israel being part of Western enlightened civilization and her Arab enemies being against it.
This is maybe something many normies didn't notice either inside or outside Central Europe, but sometimes it appears on the surface. (In 2003 for example, when the governments of these former Soviet Bloc countries seemed to be rather keen on supporting the Iraqi adventure in service of the US neocons and the Israel Lobby.) The democratic opposition included both liberals and nationalists but this difference didn't become obvious until years after the transitions of 1989. The liberals generally held onto their Zionist sympathies with increasing resolve as they observed the nationalists parting ways with them in this regard. This is not to say that Western pro-Palestinian leftist activism has no cultural influence in Central Europe at all, especially not after Oct 7, but their relevance appears to be rather marginal even within leftist social spheres. They can only gain small traction against decades-long trends.
This is in short the Cold War legacy I mentioned.
With respect to the Holocaust, it's rather the opposite of guilt, if that makes any sense. The short story is that Hungary was allied to Germany in WW2 as a member of the Tripartite Pact (while having a relatively large Jewish minority). We can draw a parallel with the Italians here, who also allied with the Germans because both wanted to undo the perceived shame and injustice their nations suffered at the end of WW1. The Italians defected from the pact and agreed to a ceasefire when the Allied forces reached their shores in 1943 and eventual German defeat seemed inevitable.
The Germans understandably assumed that the Hungarians are likely to follow suit when the Red Army reaches their borders, and at one point it became clear that this is just a matter of time, so they occupied Hungary in a swift preventive operation in March 1944 and forced the government to step down. (Unlike Finland, Romania and Bulgaria, Hungary was thus unable to switch sides in WW2.) The deportation of Hungarian Jews, who did face legal discrimination but not genocide up until that point, was started a few weeks later and it was only the swift degradation of the Axis situation on the Eastern Front (as well) in summer 1944 that prevented it from being completed. The official figures say roughly half of Hungarian Jewry (400 thousand) fell victim.
All this later generated the right-wing nationalist interpretation that this particular aspect of the Holocaust was the sole responsibility of the Nazis and the Hungarian nation is blameless, because without the German occupation it was never going to happen. This is more or less the official line of the current right-wing government as well. The dissenting liberal leftist narrative is that the authoritarian rightist regime that made an alliance with Hitler was itself virulently anti-Semitic, passing anti-Semitic laws that were becoming ever more extreme after 1938 but also date back all the way to 1920, tolerated anti-Semitic propaganda, generally normalized the hatred of Jews, made Jewish conscripts do forced labor in the army and operated state agencies that were so full of Jew haters that they swiftly and efficiently carried out the deportations the German occupiers ordered them to without saying a word. And when the nation had her first and last free elections under Soviet occupation in November 1945, the results made it clear that the majority of voters support parties that have also been in parliament during the deposed regime. In other words, they displayed no willingness to clearly part with the shameful past.
I won't go into even more detail about this, suffice it is to say that this is a local culture war dispute that has been done to death, people have been repeating the same narratives for decades, nobody is giving one inch, the whole tiresome subject gets creatively brought up over and over in different contexts, and culture warriors are feeding off one another's outrage. The legacy of the Holocaust is that every Jew who's politically active is a liberal leftist, and everyone who's of the Blue Tribe in general (in US terms) promotes the narrative that anti-Semitism has been a huge cultural problem with a terrible legacy, the country is full of Jew-hating shithead goyim unwilling to face their sordid national past, not taking any responsibility, not coming to terms with the Holocaust etc. I guess it's akin to US Blue Tribe beliefs about anti-Black racism and the legacy of slavery. And since these people generally disbelieve that anti-Israel tendencies can stem from anything but ignorant anti-Jewish prejudice, they are generally more likely to be pro-Israel.
I think the one shared identity of those peoples was empire-building.
More options
Context Copy link