@ZeStriderOfDunedain's banner p

ZeStriderOfDunedain

Ze Strider

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 04:34:38 UTC

There Is Always Hope


				

User ID: 812

ZeStriderOfDunedain

Ze Strider

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 04:34:38 UTC

					

There Is Always Hope


					

User ID: 812

This reminds me of Jihadi John, honestly.

IIRC he had made a request on their website, and they required him to leave them his number so they could tell him where to meet the girl on text. It was some masseuse place as a front, he had to take the back door for 'special services'. I find it interesting that they didn't give him the quote right then or indeed list the prices on their website. Unless he was after something comically specific which, knowing him, probably isn't off brand.

Every single major company wants to make money first and foremost, true they do want to earn social capital but at the expense of pissing off their investors? And again, this is a billion dollar project, not your standard show.

Would this, in your opinion, mainstream the Third Position on the right? I see many (most?) American right wingers still arguing that socialism has infiltrated their institutions to birth much of the social ideologies that dominate the western zeitgeist today. Maybe Europe will take the "red pill" sooner?

Feminist history has always latched on to a superficial oppressor-oppressed analysis of gender roles and anthropology, rather than a natural order followed across most cultures and time periods throughout the world. History has become a battleground for the culture war, and current politics incentivises it.

But why is an ever climbing population still so idealised? Surely, having slightly less people over the next few generations shouldn't be a disaster. The key issue is the composition of the population, poorer sections and criminals having higher birthrates.

those have all been destroyed on purpose by the powers that be, and as they dance on their graves they will pounce on any burgeoning attempt at creating such things again.

Why do you say it's on purpose? Now I do agree the breakdown of families and fertility rates, high costs of education, housing crisis, etc., did demoralise many young men and true enough, the hard left seems to be gleeful about it. But is there any evidence that this is deliberately induced by the elite?

That's relieving to hear, now I'm a bit more hopeful for Snow. Boy, they need to let him grow from the "she's muh kween"!

Yeah, looks like every political tribe has some level of "intersectionality" mentality hoping that the "smart outsiders" would support them.

Ah right, yeah I confused the two.

And now, another killing.

I did once visit a gurdwara in Auckland a few years ago, it had an open donation box with call for support for Khalistan in Indian Punjab. No matter how dead the movement is in India, there does seem to be somewhat of a resurgence among the Sikh diaspora. I'm not convinced yet that the Indian government would pull this off on North American soil, but suffice to say that this really has seemed to have united all major political parties in India. I'd hardly call it a "Modi issue" anymore.

Either way, such a public call out is shocking, to say the least. Posting this from /r/geopolitics:

Also it’s common courtesy between so called allies that you do not name or call-out in public press conferences the station chiefs or the intelligence liaison of friendly nations that are posted in each other embassies and also actually known to the respective govts. Its mostly official communique done through the Ambassador asking for a recall and expulsion. These folks are generally present not to Spy on Canada but to run interface and share threat information , potential terror attack perceptions and/or any harm to citizens between the intelligence agencies of both countries. The Canadian FM went to a press conference and not only humiliated the diplomat by naming the expulsion but also exposed his intelligence alignment. Immature. When India did a tit-tat for expulsion , the communication only mentioned high ranking Canadian diplomat, though everybody would have guessed by know that he was the Canadian Intelligence station chief. Now all these intelligence sharing channels would have gone dark.

India and China who have fought wars never did that to each other. Even India and Pakistan who fought 5 wars have never done that.

There are certain unwritten diplomatic protocols that you breach only deliberately to pass a message .

The language here is very hostile, equally aggressive was the MEA's response and the aforementioned Shashi Tharoor statement. I feel like what people gleamed from what they see of India/Modi from the media has at least partially allowed this to erupt to this extent.

I'm not sure I follow. Perhaps I'm misreading your post and if so, apologies in advance.

Are you asking whether it's rational for one to fear for their life given the stats that show how many civies actually die in these situations? It's a hostile scenario, you're in a crowded train where everyone could very well go into panic mode and make your ability to maneuver that much harder. Even if you remember the stats at the face of your fight or flight instinct, that's no guarantee that things won't escalate to fatal proportions in this situation. A crazy person going crazy in the middle of a crowd is not being rational, so if you don't already have any experience subduing crazies amidst a crowd, odds are you'd act irrationally too just to save yourself.

Do Hindu nationalists have a "utilitarian perspective" on society? (Honest question.)

This is probably answered by the sentence just prior.

Foreigners in a society aren't going to care about it as much as people who are actually indigenous to that society.

HinduNats believe they're entitled to a certain society that they haven't quite achieved (in their view), a society that's purely territorial and can only be achieved on the subcontinent. When subcontinental issues become part of UK culture wars, then yeah, they're gonna feel especially more loyal to their society of heritage and not their hosts. Because the one thing I can tell you is that Indians take things super personal. Are Brit Pakistanis who routinely demand that the UK must bring up Kashmir more loyal to British society or they are more loyal to Pakistan? After all, the tidings in Kashmir don't directly affect the average English in any way. It's just a rat race to "prove" that the other side must not be believed, but perhaps the Indians will find a bit more purchase because their demand (at least, insofar as Indian officials are concerned) is that foreigners stop making issues domestic to South Asia their own, stop obsessing about it so much and "mind their own business"?

Height is overrated. And when I say this, I don't mean women don't care about it much which is demonstrably not true. No, what I mean is, men keep stressing too much importance on this aspect of themselves. The outcomes can be positive if they work on areas that are within their control.

My anecdote: I'm actually below average in height, but I am fit and used to be in damn good shape before the 8 hour desk job got me craving to sink back into bed the moment I get home. I did get decent game in college, quite a few interracial successes too. Despite having been an introvert all my life, I managed to be a social butterfly. I knew someone in literally every store in the suburb I lived in, hell I don't recall even once paying for my movie tickets during my time there. And I wasn't even from the country.

And then there are two of my oldest friends. One of them is 6'2", mildly overweight, very social but too shy to ask anyone out, and somewhat below average on facial features. The other is 6'0, fit, very attractive but not too social. Both of them have well paying jobs. And both are still virgins.

That's an extreme example though. A 5'6" guy can reach most places he'd have to realistically reach, with more difficulty obviously.

If he asks her out on a date, which is the more conventional thing....this situation is maybe what...80% of what it is? I don't think it's THAT sizable of a difference.

Why so? If he'd simply asked her if she'd be keen for a cup of coffee the next morning (as in, make a harmless offer and make it clear refusal is a valid option) and she'd politely refused, it would be very different. Sure, she might feel weird around him for a little while, knowing that he has some interest in her as a potential date, but will likely still talk to him. And if he'd started seeing someone else (her proof that he's no longer trying to pursue her), it would be like he never asked her out at all. Definitely won't get into "permanently strained and impossible to mend" territory.

Can geopolitics also be culture war? I'd argue yes.

Not so much that it should matter in actual policy formulation. These remarks seem to solely be pointed at a domestic audience, just like their MEA Jaishankar's remarks vis-a-vis Ukraine which seem to be increasingly pro-Russia rather than neutral. There does seem to be a populist streak to it.

But the new world order is supposedly emerging as western influence in global politics is increasingly under challenge, not by the Third World but only by China and Russia. They're well aware that the US cannot contain China's influence anymore, they're hedging one superpower against another, not themselves. It's also worth noting that much of these countries are only "united" in their hostility towards the west, but if they wish to take authority over their own fates and become power players that matter, they'll have to confront the internal strife and frustration that plague them through no fault of the west. You're responsible for all your historical achievements but your current failings have to be pinned on an external force? Not how it works. I still see the future power dynamic looking like this: the US shall remain dominant in the west, China in the east, India remaining a distant third, while the rest of the world won't even be in the race.

I also found this about Sikh-Muslim clashes in the 80s. As noted in the thread, this was during the height of the Khalistan movement in Indian Punjab. There's a lot of political baggage in the subcontinent, not always easy to shake away. Nevertheless, since the Indian middle class felt absolutely fucked from above and below back in India (where they're both taxed heavily, deal with Malthusian growth rates and there's pressure from below which doesn't sufficiently distinguish between the rich class and middle class in its grievances concerning exploitation), they were more keen to shed their identities once they immigrate. This is largely true in the US but I think political competition with Brit Pakistanis kept it alive in the UK.

Thanks for your reply, I've saved it for future reference!

This part especially hits true:

All in all, what I see is guys 'discovering' and embracing masculinity beyond just the superficial brand that Redpill/manosphere types tend to shill. Its not just an image they're projecting, it is a complete renovation of the self. And all it took was learning to deliver an efficient and effective beatdown.

Which underscores the biggest problem with the redpill grift, its not so much about offering its followers a solution to their problems as it is about making them feel good about having them.

Specifically, the dynamic is different because pre-1991, countries could get away with things the US didn't like as long as they were willing to suck up to the USSR.

The opposite is also true, states that sucked up enough to the US did get away with committing such atrocities, for instance Pakistan's genocide in Bangladesh.

I'd say it's a multitude of factors playing together.

  • The debates surrounding Israel and American policy in the Middle East in general has been red hot since 9/11 and the Iraq War. The nuclear holocaust scare that came with the Cold War mentality against Russia never really went away and if anything, has just taken an adrenaline shot in the last year. China is a relatively new "threat" in comparison. Whereas a full generation of American thinkers cut their teeth on Russia/MENA.

  • The US has been the uncontested superpower between 1990-2010, as a result a lot of American foreign policy thinkers believe there will always be enough resources to do anything, anytime, anywhere.

  • Lots more big and rich allies are in Europe, so European concerns will trump Asian ones. How many "true" Asian allies in the most traditional sense, let alone allies (as in, not including "major partners" like India) to whom China is the number 1 security threat, besides Japan and SK? The "pivot" to Asia is just not happening soon enough.

  • And yes, China has historically bided its time, got in bed with American elites and kept their purses protruding. It's deeply integrated with Wall Street and Hollywood and makes American supply chains dependent on it. How many films have you seen of suave American action stars taking on the robotic, reticent KGB agent as opposed to a Chinese one? Hell do most Americans even know what the Chinese intelligence agency is called?

  • You also require a lot more creativity and deep policy reforms to meaningfully counter China, Russia is much smaller and therefore easier to pick on in comparison. Just keep doing what you do now and Russia will eventually bleed.

  • America is divided. The Great American Culture War is it's biggest novel cultural export. It's very difficult to spend time on social media without seeing something about an American culture war issue one way or the other. Various political tribes hate one another far more than they hate any external foe. Recall how to a lot of American progressives, the notion that Trump, their number 1 enemy, could be a "Russian plant" is a strong unifier against Russia. That's right, a fellow American, a former POTUS no less, can radicalise an entire party and its voters against Russia. And even now, some Republicans do believe that Russia "rightfully" belongs in the western bloc. The China scare just couldn't unite the culture war factions.

This sums it up, really. 15% of Gen Z's are apparently queer, but I think they just saw the biggest zeitgeist in society that also comes with a very easy ticket and went about seeking validation and care they never received at home elsewhere. Many socially maladjusted folk join online subcultures because of this too.

What dilemma does he face? He's walked back on his own free speech absolutist promises with American users, see Alex Jones, Ye and the leftist journalists he'd temporarily suspended. He cares about India insofar as it is an important revenue source. He's a businessman, doesn't care about Indian politics, has an axe to grind with American progressives and doesn't want to be blocked off from such a huge market. The Indian government has made it plenty clear multiple times that they don't take kindly to foreign criticisms over internal affairs, be it those farm bills/protests that led to the 2021 debacle with twitter or the BBC doc or the Canadian commentary on the recent crackdowns on separatists in Punjab. A line that Elon is more than willing to toe and doesn't believe he needs to answer for.

And that IMO is the biggest problem with the manosphere - it doesn't offer you solutions to your problems, but makes you feel good for having problems. And of course, it also doesn't take away from the fact that, as much as feminists hate them, confident and materially successful men do rank very high in the sexual market. That's why guys like Tate can say can go as far enough as they did and not face any consequences.

Yeah, by "red pill" I meant if the European right will become less committed to upholding capitalism. I agree with your 2nd paragraph too, I once spoke to a paleocon from Minnesota years ago and he'd propounded the view that the alt right movement is largely Jacobin in its visioned role of the state. Which may be true, but yes, they probably don't care what political or economic system they need to employ in shaping their socio-cultural agenda. I just don't know what kind of comeback the right would do in the US, nearly all big businesses generate a lot of social capital by espousing liberal values which show no sign of going out of fashion anytime soon. Perhaps they'll just wait until the free markets "correct themselves"?