@DaseindustriesLtd's banner p
BANNED USER: temperamental dysregulation

DaseindustriesLtd

late version of a small language model

78 followers   follows 28 users  
joined 2022 September 05 23:03:02 UTC

Tell me about it.


				

User ID: 745

Banned by: @Amadan

BANNED USER: temperamental dysregulation

DaseindustriesLtd

late version of a small language model

78 followers   follows 28 users   joined 2022 September 05 23:03:02 UTC

					

Tell me about it.


					

User ID: 745

Banned by: @Amadan

I feel sort of bad about my sneer, Hamas really did an unusually repulsive thing, even by the standards of terrorist acts, and he is still commenting more tepidly than, say, most Ukrainians do wrt Russians. But yes, refreshing to see such clarity.

I don't get what you are arguing. Neither Russians and Ukrainians, nor Jews and Arabs, fight over genetically substantiated claims to the land. Well, there is some of that – Russians appeal to the absence of genetic ethnic uniqueness to downplay Ukrainian claim to sovereignty, Ukrainians appeal to evidence for the opposite, Arabs call Jews «Poles», Jews insist that Palestinian Arabs are just generic Arabs and don't get to claim a special state – but that's a side show. Jews, whether Ashkenazim or not, think they are entitled to the land based on their religion. Palestinians don't care about Fst distance to Mizrahim, they are a separate people. Humans don't explicitly think about objective genetic similarity as a basis for cooperation or enmity, only weird Western racists do.

On one hand I agree that this event might not even be the IDF's work (in fact this seems more likely now), and if it were IDF, there may be some sort of error (a spectrum of possible error/indifference options). There really isn't a compelling reason for the IDF to vaporize hospitals, from what we know. And on the surface of it, bombarding a mass of civilians is not so nasty as boasting of creatively butchering them… (or is it? Does it make moral sense to feel very differently?)

I wanted to make the comment to the effect that the most bloodthirsty Zniks were/are also uniformly denying Bucha and other more straightforward war crimes of Russia in another war you cover, as if Russian Armed Forces were inherently more squeamish than them; and it'll be ironic to see the same transpire here. But – sure, IDF to Israeli citizens really is not what RAF is to Russian ones.

On the other, I laugh at the handwringing about unwillingness to accept any "necessary" price. Your normal writing reminds me of that piece by Sam Kriss:

Liberal Israelis are obsessed with this idea: of being a normal country, like Denmark, maybe, or New Zealand. A Jewish state, but not a Jew among states, some special case sequestered in its own private ghetto and subject to different rules. A normal country is at peace with its neighbours and itself. In a normal country, you can hang out on the beach and eat falafel and spraypaint angry messages about veganism in a gentrifying downtown neighbourhood. In a normal country, political disputes are about normal things: the tax rate, the health system, the trains. It’s there in the stuff you hear from Israel’s advocates abroad. Why are you singling out this country, when you should be criticising China or Iran instead? How would you expect any other country to respond to Hamas and its rockets? Because that’s what they want to be. Not a messianic hope. Not a light unto the nations. Not a sign of the End Times. Just a normal country, like anywhere else.

[…] Outside Israel, coverage tends to focus on what this new government might mean for the Palestinians. Even for the most committed Zionists in the diaspora, Israel means the opposite of Palestine. But within Israel, the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are simply not a political object. All the major parties agree; the occupation will continue indefinitely. Why bother even talking about it? It hardly matters now; Israel hasn’t really depended on Palestinian labour since 1992, and a big chunk of Palestinian capital ends up being invested in Palestine’s only real growth industry, which is the construction of Jewish settlements.

Only echoes survive. I found myself thinking a lot about the last line of that graffitied manifesto. ‘Go VEGAN_._’ So many liberal Israelis have started veering heavily into their veganism. They have the sense that something terrible is happening, that their ordinary consumer lives are structured by a great hidden cruelty, invisible behind concrete walls, unspoken, unacknowledged, something that seems to very faintly mirror the darkest episodes in recent Jewish history. Something is giving them the guilt. And so they decide that it’s the animals. All those harmless cows and sheep, funnelled into the slaughterhouse to meet the shochet’s knife.

But of course you're more self-aware than those NPCs:

мирных палестинцев, которые станут невольными жертвами этой войны, мне жаль, но если нужно выбирать сторону, то для меня выбор очень легкий, мое сердце с израилем. не только потому, что с этой страной меня связывает множество нитей, но и потому что я малодушно стараюсь ставить на победителя, когда он очевиден.
и это как раз тот случай.

I am not aware of that and still feel that some babies were beheaded, so idk, update accordingly.

It's an outpost of my civilization, organized on principles I agree with, inhabited by people I could live at ease with. They defend themselves, their borders, their interests, with the kind of vigor and thick-skinned determination I'd like to see my nation display. (If only!) I admire them and wish them well.

John Derbyshire most likely cannot live in Israel or among a representative sample of Israelis any more than he can live among immigrants to the West he hates so much.

I increasingly suspect that the only correct decision for any sane person is converting to Judaism or at the very least relinquishing any claim to being white, because Christian whites are just brain-damaged and cannot tell a universalist ideology (even "nationalism") from a population's game-theoretically advantageous modus operandi. Strong vibe of round-headed Slavic Hitlerists.

It is absurd to assume that a more competent entity sharing your material interests is your ally rather than a competitor.

It's interesting reading A.Vorobey (old rationalist blogger, Soviet-Israeli Google SWE, epistemic minor league, math, poetry, puns, very much the same Jewish Rationalist stock our community ultimately descends from, except with biological children) these days because he's very squeamish, very eloquent, and fully wed to Israeli culture and currently writes about the horrors of Hamas, how nice are all the people helping tourists, Middle Eastern Castalia blah blah we are fully justified (he's not very connected to its more virile, younger side). Here he is from October 13, independently making the comparison to Dresden:

In a nutshell, for those who really want to understand, I don't have time for arguments or careful framing with all the references:

The Israeli army has dropped 6000 bombs since the start of the war, and a report from the army says it's about 4000 tons. I first estimated from at 1000 tons, using a typical 500 lb bomb size I saw somewhere, but I may have been wrong about that. The argument works with both the 1000 ton estimate and the 4000 ton estimate.

According to Wikipedia about 4000 tons were dropped on Dresden Feb 13-15, 1945 and casualties are estimated at 25,000 to 100,000. I believe that the fact that Gaza has less than 2000 casualties shows - in this comparison - that Israel bombs selectively, on buildings and targets known to be Hamas-related. Surely sometimes mistakes and innocent casualties happen. The Dresden development was apparently (can be verified) much less crowded than Gaza.

Further, I have come across the following convincing evidence that we are nevertheless trying to avoid civilian casualties: 1) a general warning at the beginning of the war telling residents of different neighborhoods in Gaza which areas to move to for safety; 2) although we announced that we were eliminating the need to practice "knock on the roof", in some cases it has been documented in recent days, the army seems to be using it according to circumstances; 3) there have been examples of calls/texts to residents of a particular high-rise before a missile 4) we have not just sent a warning to residents of northern Gaza to temporarily move to southern Gaza, but are expending considerable effort to make them aware of it, including thousands of fliers in Arabic printed and dropped from airplanes.

People who find a moral equivalence between thugs entering a peaceful village and killing everyone in the streets and in their homes, women, the elderly and children, and the army bombing terrorist targets in dense urban environment and, despite considerable efforts to avoid it, killing civilians in the process, are scum.

I suppose that with all those qualifiers about density and scum all it will be no great shame indeed if a hospital or two is vaporized. Or, indeed, if any other necessary price is paid. After all,

Shylock may have his pound of flesh but only if he doesn't spill a drop of blood.

Israel may defend itself, but only if no civilian is harmed.

In other words:

Shylock does not get his bond.
Israel may not defend itself.

Only abstract rights for Jews, and no "Christian" love.

We can't have that, can we?

You're really grasping for straws here.

Hand to heart, what do you think his odds of remaining in the upper echelons of Israeli politics are? He has failed catastrophically, but if he executes the «flawed but reliable tough-minded leader carrying us through the uncertain times of crisis» move well… I am not sure it'll work. But also, that's much of his expertise and genius.

That idea was stupid and immoral. I have myself called that idea “inhumane and impractical,” as well as a “moral and philosophical error.” It is also worth noting that the same people who decried the transfer column as genocidal and ethnic cleansing were very much in favor of forcing every single Jew out of the Gaza Strip in 2006, and seem fine with complete destruction of Israeli settlements in favor of a Judenrein Palestinian state.

"inhumane and impractical":

Some on the right have proposed population transfer from the Gaza Strip or West Bank as a solution. This is both inhumane and impractical. Moving millions of Palestinians out of areas they have known for their entire lives will certainly not pave the way to peace. Moreover, these Palestinians will have no place to go, since their brethren across the Arab would prefer to keep them cooped up in dismal poverty than house them in their own lands.

In the end, both right and left agree that a population separation is necessary. That does not mean Palestinian statehood, which will undoubtedly result in another Iran directly on Israel's borders. It means instead moving beyond utopianism and making mental peace with the fact that no solution will be permanent. Israel will have to protect its citizens, and it will have to continue to police Palestinian borders. Settlements are not the problem here. Removing settlements is not the solution. The problem is intractable.

Ben really is very good at kvetching and handwringing. Every time I notice such an amusing character and see how much attention and respect American conservative gentiles afford him, I also remember my more hot-headed sentiments about… well, we all can grow up to some extent.

The fact of the matter, though, is that he provides no argument against ethnic cleansing (why won't it pave the way to peace? why should we believe he won't regretfully admit it's the lesser evil post factum?) and does not accept that any deescalation by Israel would be «part of the solution». His «retraction» of endorsement for explicit cleansing ends in justifying expansion of settlements, thus it serves as just another, cleverer defense for the slower form of cleansing that Israel conducts. "Population separation", but no statehood, no concessions, no dialogue, just more bulldozers and control points and increasingly bold settlers. He has grown up from a trigger-happy youth into a professional propagandist moving in lockstep with Bibi's long term project. Good for him.

But in any case, now you have "heard" him say they need to be removed.

I'm 60% sure we will have GPT-4/DALLE3 level systems available for local use even with the harsh crackdown that's coming. Please wait until 2025 at least.

And I think it can be very easily argued that people like Shapiro are afforded quite a bit more charity than other people. Transfer is not a dirty word, Ben'2003:

Half measures merely postpone our realization that the Arabs dream of Israel's destruction. Without drastic measures, the Arab dream will come true. In the short term, the establishment of a "Palestinian state" based in Judea, Samaria and Gaza cuts Israel to the bone. In some places, Israel would be an unthinkable 9 miles wide. In the long term, the growth of the hostile Israeli-Arab population within pre-1967 Israel bodes ill for the future of the Jewish state. As University of Haifa professor Arnon Soffer says, "The trends and indicators all point to an economic and ecological catastrophe waiting to happen and of the death knell of the ideological dream of a Jewish state."

Here is the bottom line: If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper. It's an ugly solution, but it is the only solution. And it is far less ugly than the prospect of bloody conflict ad infinitum. When two populations are constantly enmeshed in conflict, it is insane to suggest that somehow deep-seated ideological change will miraculously occur, allowing the two sides to live together.

Unfortunately, this insanity is generally accepted as "the only way forward." President Bush accepts it because it is politically palatable. The Arabs accept it because for them, it is a Trojan horse. The Israelis accept it because they are afraid that if they expel the Arabs, they will be called Nazis.

For anyone who lived through the Holocaust, or who has relatives who died in it, being called a Nazi is unspeakably terrible. That is the secret weapon of the Arabs. Any time the Jews get wise and threaten mass expulsion of Arabs, the Arabs pull out their big stick, equating Nazism with Zionism. Their cartoons merge swastikas with stars of David. Their newspapers call Ariel Sharon another Adolf Hitler. Their spokespeople cry "Genocide!" And the Jews cower in fear that they could be equated with their parents' murderers.

The Jews don't realize that expelling a hostile population is a commonly used and generally effective way of preventing violent entanglements. There are no gas chambers here. It's not genocide; it's transfer. It's not Hitler; it's Churchill.

[…] Arab-Jewish conflict is exponentially more volatile than German-Polish conflict ever was. And the solution is far easier. If there was "room in Germany for the German populations of East Prussia and of the other territories," as Churchill stated, there is certainly room in the spacious Muslim states of the Middle East for 5 million Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. If Germans, who had a centuries-old connection to the newly created Polish territory, could be expelled, then surely Palestinians, whose claim to Judea, Samaria and Gaza is dubious at best, can be expelled.

It's time to stop being squeamish. Jews are not Nazis. Transfer is not genocide. And anything else isn't a solution.

Now, granted, he was 19 at the time. Perhaps he has mellowed out, realized there are still softer ways to solve conflicts… As did Hanania.

Incidentally, like a third of Israeli population is younger than 18.

On the object level, I even agree with him that population exchanges and land swaps work. As does overwhelming power.

I remember you know Russian. Jews, at least, believe that the archetypal modern pogrom was encouraged by state actors:

the April 1903 Kishinev pogrom, in which 49 Jews were killed, 92 were gravely injured, and more than 500 suffered other injuries, including the destruction of more than 1,500 homes.

Or in other words, Jews were being scapegoated for economic downturns. In the town itself, there's evidence that public officials also cooperated with the rioters, enabling this tragedy.

Cossack pogroms were also not simply about villagers-with-pitchforks.

I agree that pogroms are supposed to be bottom-up, but they largely are even in this case – the settlers have long been raring to go, and Israel as an ethnonationalist country naturally complies with the people's wishes more than could be expected in the Russian Empire.

@SecureSignals quotes Hanania but not his cleverest recent tweet. I think DR is irrelevant. Here's something that gets at the heart of the issue:

Everyone on the right agrees that the establishment is anti-white now, but that it's tactically more acceptable to criticize them for being anti-Semitic.

Regular conservatives are being smart, understand that whenever you can hurt BLM and campus radicals, it's generally a good thing. Anti-whiteness and anti-Semitism and socialism all come from the same source, philosophy of losers.

Anti-semites on the right though prioritize their dislike of Jews, so sit around sulking, even take the Palestinian side.

Sulking is bad and doesn't get you anywhere. Calling out anti-white discrimination on the right has never been more acceptable, so things are moving in the right direction. But it'll have to ride the coattails of philo-Semitism. This is just reality.

According to this argument, this will «open people's eyes to "Jewsish power" in the West» in the sense that it'll teach right-wingers to directly appeal to it, to legitimize their own, by default low-status and illegitimate, political demands. The great mass of whites can be pissed upon by progressives for decades; but if you bludgeon them over the head with their documented support of genocidally anti-Semitic Muslims, suddenly there's a chink in their armor and you can have their policies rolled back.

I don't think this can work, nor is this even a novel idea; but have to once again applaud Hanania's poasting power.

From normie liberals to leftists describing settler activity as "pogroms", Jews have been vocal opponents of both Zionism and Israel for over one hundred years.

Israeli settlers and soldiers have killed 51 Palestinians in the West Bank this past week, with two villages entirely depopulated after attacks.

Out of curiosity, how would you describe this particular kind of settler activity and why does «pogroms» not apply? In Russian, погром means simply «trashing» or «smashing» or perhaps «wrecking» a community.

Which sworn enemy?

But even if Israeli did provide clandestine resources to Hamas 35 years ago, how does that relate to today?

This is quite a take.

In any case, we know that half that time ago Israel refused Fatah's request for support against the takeover of Gaza by Hamas.

Diskin told the American envoy that although Fatah was desperate, its leadership was behaving as would be expected of people faced with such a difficult situation. He told Jones that Fatah had thus turned to Israel for help in attack Hamas, which he termed a new and unprecedented development in Jerusalem's relations with the Palestinian Authority. "They are approaching a zero-sum situation, and yet they ask us to attack Hamas," Diskin said. "This is a new development. We have never seen this before. They are desperate." Diskin is also cited opposing a U.S. proposal to supply ammunition and weapons to Fatah, fearful that Hamas might get its hands on them instead. Diskin went on to share with Jones sensitive details relating to the cooperation between the Shin Bet and the Palestinian security and intelligence forces in the West Bank. Palestinian security was sharing "almost all the intelligence that it collects" with Israel," Diskin told Jones. "They understand that Israel's security is central to their survival in the struggle with Hamas in the West Bank," he said, according to the cable.

The cable also exposes Diskin's concern that Abbas had begun to pose as a problem for Israel. "He's a paradox. He cannot function and do anything. Why is Fatah failing? Because Abbas has become the 'good guy' whom everyone is trying to do everything for in order to keep him alive. "He knows he is weak and that he has failed ... to rehabilitate Fatah. He did not start to take any action when he had the chance in 2004. Instead of choosing to be the leader for Fatah, he chose to be a national leader for all Palestinians," Diskin said, according to the cable. A few days after the meeting with Diskin, when the clashes in Gaza had reached their peaks on June 12, Jones met Israel's then-Military Intelligence chief Amos Yadlin. In the cable sent to Washington, Jones said that Yadlin had been quite satisfied with Hamas' seizure of the Gaza Strip. If Hamas managed to take complete control then the Israel Defense Forces would be able to relate to Gaza as a hostile territory and stop looking at the militant group as an undiplomatic player, Yadlin apparently told Jones. A few weeks later, Israel's cabinet indeed reached the decision to relate to Gaza as a hostile territory. A year and a half before Israel took offensive of the Gaza Strip in Operation Cast Lead, Yadlin referred to the territory as the fourth most hostile place in the world – following Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.

You know, I like this situation for how it exposes the vileness of people. The US sometimes deposes hostile leaders in its growing sphere of influence, and is content to leave sycophants in charge; charitably, it even has some compunctions to have those sycophants not be utterly psychopathic. Israel, however, plays by a harsher rulebook: it encourages the whole opposing people to fall into extremism, to then be justified in their dehumanization. And what do we get? Buck-broken power worshippers nodding approvingly: «civilization is entitled to remove barbarism».

Some light unto the nations. Gamma rays probably.

nuclear exchange

Nuclear exchange with whom, though? This is some "violent clashes" journospeak. Just say "if you don't help, we'll nuke Tehran".

I am not saying they are representative of their group, just that it has reached even that group; and the moral sanction for ethnic cleansing won't be as hard to procure as their usual sympathies suggest.

https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1712673207202070883

Israel just told the UN that all 1.1 million people in Northern Gaza should leave within 24 hours

I don't think this will not be highly visible, at the very fucking least.

I am not. Seeing AGP transsexual, BLM-fists, colored-hair, tear-down-patriarchy, immigrants-welcome, religion-sucks, Israel-is-a-colonial-power, Bibi-is-a-fascist Jews in my network absolutely froth at the mouths and clamor for genocide (supported by kind Christian doctors), I do not believe that the Diaspora will need any more coordination on this topic than long-standing Zionist organizations and the collective shaming of dissenters by people who've just lost their relatives (and Jews tend to be acutely aware of their distant cousins and aunts, so there are very very many Jews in mourning now), and their friends, provide. Crucially, I do not believe there is very much capacity and coordination needed to overcome lobbying of Palestinians, or even broadly Muslims.

But we shall see – both how this goes, and what it costs Israel. For now I predict that there won't be genocide (@2rafa, probably referencing the idea of "decimation", tentatively defines it as "200,000 or more Gazan casualties" and I'm inclined to agree, so – there'll be less then that), and there won't be any lasting cost in the West.

Saudis sure are embarrassed already, though.

Here's the solution (if the problem ever presents itself): Diaspora members commit to obstruct hiring for "supporters of Hamas" and nobody makes Israel a pariah state. Indians are already aware of this technique.

I think Israel will do just fine with «if you kill your enemies, you win» logic.

As Netanyahu (easily an intellectual and moral peer to those founders) has said five years ago:

PM Netanyahu: Shimon aspired toward peace but he knew that true peace can be achieved only if our hands strongly grasp defensive weaponry. In the Middle East, and in many parts of the world, there is a simple truth: There is no place for the weak. The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong, for good or for ill, survive. The strong are respected, and alliances are made with the strong, and in the end peace is made with the strong.

The rapidly growing Muslim American population will continue to elect representatives that align with it, and they won’t drop the Palestinian cause either.

Ilhan Omar is not a Hamas representative, though, even if some people would like to present her this way.

I suppose non-insane White Democrats will also be repelled by all the Hamas butchery apologia. But the core reason for this is that Jews, who (accurately) perceive normalization of such shit as a personal existential threat in the long run, will make it into a Big Issue and a topic for edifying National Conversation that cannot be just brushed aside and dropped from the news cycle like some embarrassing but non-representative freak accident.

Otherwise, rabid anti-white rhetoric would also have sufficed to discredit leftism.

The golem joke is of course starting to show its age; I think David Cole did it best 2019.

I remember once commenting on the thesis of NRx, to the effect that «Cthulhu swims left and left, until He crashes into the shore of New York to be slaughtered» (@2rafa later recalled it in a context vaguely similar to today's). But now, this seems to be happening in earnest. I've observed a few ordinarily peaceful, very liberal Jewish academics who openly threaten they'll remember leftists who've been cheering for Hamas in the wake of this catastrophe. Unsurprisingly, many Jews who've been on board with the identity-driven, anti-white/male progressive rhetorics and policies so long as they did not cross the line of cheering for gleeful murders of their own people now have began to «truly see». It all has happened before, of course – multiple times even, from the «wow Stalin a psycho actually!» in 1937 to neoconservatism to the stuff that Sailer pedantically documents; but I think the demography is currently ripe for a permanent phase transition of Diaspora Jews to a more conservative platform, in following with the younger, more virile and now morally redeemed Israelis.

I might be wrong but that seems to be what the excellent Crémieux hints at, too:

An interesting detail of this war was that Japan probably would have lost were it not for the efforts of a single American banker.

Jacob Schiff was an important proponent of American railroads and he ran numerous major corporations, like Wells Fargo, Union Pacific, and Equitable Life Assurance. He was also Jewish.

Schiff's advocacy on the part of Jews was renowned. He actively fought to combat anti-Semitism at home and abroad, while bankrolling Zionist efforts. One instance that drew particular ire from him was the April 1903 Kishinev pogrom, in which 49 Jews were killed, 92 were gravely injured, and more than 500 suffered other injuries, including the destruction of more than 1,500 homes.

…Or in other words, Jews were being scapegoated for economic downturns. In the town itself, there's evidence that public officials also cooperated with the rioters, enabling this tragedy.…

Schiff had developed a hatred for Russia due to this and several other incidents, so when he saw the Japanese and Russians engaging one another, he offered his help. And help he did!

Schiff floated $200 million in bonds to provide Japan with the modern equivalent of more than $7 billion in war backing. This was equal to about half of Japan's total expenditures during the war and, accordingly, when Japan won, Schiff was lauded. He would go on to receive the Japanese Order of the Sacred Treasure and the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold and Silver Star from the Emperor Meiji himself.

Or as the TabletMag has suggested some time ago:

If the Jews committed an incredible moral and cultural sin and deserted en masse to the GOP, exactly how would the Democratic Party ever win an election again?
Jews contribute two-thirds of the money and probably provide 80% of the political energy in the Democratic Party. So you can’t eliminate them, but you can subordinate them. And I think that’s what’s going on here.
The Jews will continue to support progressive policies, but they’ll be subordinated. Some of their places will be given away in the name of justice. The majority of Jews who remain will be made to feel insecure and therefore work really hard, really, really hard to prove that they are adequately woke and not Zios—which is a word David Duke invented and that progressives have now picked up.
Because, even those Jews who say they really don’t like Israel might be crypto Zios. They might be practicing their Zionism in secret. So they have to work really hard to denounce Israel and even to abandon traditional forms of Jewish belief and practice.
In fact, they have to abandon reality entirely, so that LBGTQ Jewish organizations can affirm that Saudi Arabia is friendlier to gay people than Israel.

Well I think that's a pretty bogus forecast. Democrats will continue to win elections. They'll just have to jettison this whole pro-Hamas wing, because after all this graphic stuff, acting in a sufficiently anti-Zionist manner will become a bit too much for any Jew with a modicum of self-respect, and doing politics in the US on the platform «We hate Jews, Jews hate us» is not exactly a winning proposition.

One can hope that, as with Stalinism, some loathsome policies concerning gentiles might be abolished as well.

EDIT: here's Noah conveniently spelling out that Stalin after 1937 bad

But the bloodthirst pouring out from leftists in the streets and on the internet suggests that there’s a deep sickness in the Western leftist movement. It’s one thing to believe that Israel is an apartheid regime and that war against it is justified; it’s another to believe that massacring random festival goers is an acceptable way to prosecute that war. And even if you do think that our modern definition of “war crime” is too restrictive, and that killing large numbers of enemy civilians is an acceptable way to force a belligerent to throw in the towel, it’s still repugnant to joyfully cheer that slaughter, and to march side by side with those who advocate genocide.

… In any case, don’t let my analytical tone hide my moral disgust here. People always have a choice whether to cheer for atrocities or to refuse to cheer for them. When your rallies end up with swastikas and “Gas the Jews” and people making fun of dead innocents, well, you made the wrong choice. This episode is going to show a lot of Americans that the leftist movement contains, at the grassroots level, a lot of very inhumane, bloodthirsty people. Ultimately that revelation will hurt the movement in the eyes of progressive Americans, draining some of the goodwill it built up over the last decade.

Yes, he's not a scrub loser to appeal to some predefined theoretically just table of ranks. He is saying instead that this hierarchy is established in a contest of strength; that might makes right through its very utilization. It's an explicitly Hitlerist argument, ironically enough – except it doesn't presuppose proven superiority of Aryans. But this does explain, to some extent, why Hitler believed in such tender kinship with Anglo-Saxons.

(fuckduck9000 would say that this he is exactly correct, as demonstrated by German loss and British victory).