@crushedoranges's banner p

crushedoranges

Can Marx explain the used panties market?

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 19:35:13 UTC

				

User ID: 111

crushedoranges

Can Marx explain the used panties market?

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 19:35:13 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 111

I can tell you never have ever read any sort of far-right or Neo-nazi argumentation because that is absolutely what they say about America, Great Britain and the Soviet Union - that it was flush through with Jews. (Heck, WW2 being a Jewish victory over Nazism is probably a position you could argue in good faith, with the proper caveats).

Arabs couldn't beat Israel alone, even as a coalition, even before Western support and indigenous nuclear weapons. It is arguable that they have lost military capacity since 1948 with the complete failure of Arab socialism. The Jews are perfectly capable of defending themselves: American diplomatic and military aid is backstopping security, not sovereignty. Israel would not hesitate to expel the rest of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza if Americans withdrew their support: in fact, they would do it immediately.

Realpolitk has nothing to do with morals. There is no 'oughts' or 'shoulds'. Azerbaijan just did it. Who's sanctioning them?

Your assumptions are simply incorrect.

Sure, many would leave. But there is a sincere core of Zionists who believe that Israel was promised to them by their God and they will stay there to the bitter end. They will eat rocks and dust and do what they must before they let the Palestinians win. A impoverished state with nuclear weapons and arms - not that it would ever get that desperate - will never fall. The Arab leadership very well know where those warheads are aimed at.

The fantasy of the Israeli state dissolving itself after sufficient isolation is simply that. The onus is on YOU to convince me that it is the case. Just stating it as a matter of fact does not make it so. It is the Palestinian project that looks like it is on the verge of collapse, at this very moment. With no geopolitical sponsor, how could it hope to continue on in any relevant form?

And the Palestinians are, for the most part, impoverished uneducated lumpenproles who live off foreign aid and jihadist payments. Arab armies are jokes and failures. Hamas, Hezbollah, even Iran have been bombed to oblivion. Who is going to come to the Palestinian's aid now? Turkey?

The Israelis don't want to leave Israel. They don't want to leave it so much that they basically stole themselves nukes so that they'd never be coerced to do so. If the Palestinians are competing on who can make the other's situation shittier faster, then they'll lose that competition. If Israel has to choose between becoming an illiberal pariah state like North Korea or its nonexistence it will go for the former every time.

If it gets so desperate as to reach that point, why wouldn't they just murder every Palestinian and dare the international community to do anything about it?

Why are you so certain that their willpower to remain will give up before the Palestinians will?

I am not Jewish, and my argument would remain the same whether or not I was or wasn't.

I am Chinese.

The Chinese pushed out the Westerners and the Japanese not through impassioned appeals to international law or anti-colonial agitation, but through the barrel of a gun.

Similarly, the Chinese have taken the territories of Tibet and Turkestan for her own against the wishes of the people who live there, with the barrels of guns. If you have enough of them, any occupation is tenable.

I see no reason why the Israelis can't do the same.

I'm not a fan of Western support for Israel, but the Arabs have done very little in recent times but the occasional pointless terrorism and whining in every international venue that they can. If they want to reclaim the lands of their forefathers, they should strengthen their countries.

And no. Nazism is not the same. Back when countries actually could wage war, people put their chocks down and stopped them. The status quo is the equilibrium of the violence states are willing to achieve their political ends. If the Arabs can't summon the collective will to forge a state to defeat Israel on the battlefield, bluntly, they don't deserve the lands they claim.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

There is no inherent moral right to sovereignty. I'm sorry, you were lied to: the liberal international order is a spook. The breadth of your dominion is limited to the force of your arms - no matter how righteous or unrighteous you may be.

Did the last prophet, PBUH, not conquer peoples who had fundamentally no reasons to accept his order? Was not God on his side?

Similarly, the Israelites have made a conquest of Israel and Judea. Is God not on their side, now?

Possession is nine-tenths of the law. If the Palestinians want a change to the status quo, they should have cultivated an army to beat the IDF. Now they're beggars in the land of their forefathers with no hope of recovery. No, you're not getting your land back: the people with guns who took it aren't in any mood to just hand it over. It is for them to accept the reality of impotence and exile, as every people who lost wars before them have.

Actually policing its side of the political spectrum and ostracizing its perpetuators. You know, action.

I don't care about 'intellectual defenses', and honestly the only people who do are the cowards I speak of. What did the universities do to curb cancel culture? They institutionalized it. Title IX. The entirety of the media sphere. Hate speech laws. One feeble organization championing free speech does not cancel out an entire NGO complex of censors and sensitivity readers, the indoctrination of judges and legislatures, the complete takeover of psychology and medicine and every field of science...

Indeed, their wickedness is so wide-encompassing and total that it beggars the imagination to speak of it all.

Everything you're talking about is a fig leaf of virtue on the unashamed and naked grasp for power. The people you think so highly of have worthless principles, and when their opposition was being brushed aside by illiberalism they stayed silent because the people that were doing it were their friends and colleagues and family. Their appeals to quokka principles landed on deaf ears: and they did not change their stance or escalate their action. They merely continued to make their impotent appeals to virtue while Rome burned.

Why then, should their appeals to my party have any moral weight or consequence, if it did not stir the hearts of the previous regime?

If this is the culture war, then they were the quislings and the collaborators of the other side, and I do not hesitate to condemn them alongside their masters. Only after they and their fellow travelers are driven from the field will I consider any action to form a truce to be a correct one. Until then, I will gladly use the master's tools to destroy the master's house.

Where have these 'significant number of people' been in the last decade?

Maybe the cancellations aren't to their principled liking, but if they didn't like it, they didn't make a fuss about it. Certainly not to change policy, or have any material impact on what actually happened. Actions speak louder than words, and by the inaction of these supposedly principled liberals their revealed preferences are known. Indeed, they did so little, it amounts to the same if they didn't exist at all.

In the real world, it doesn't matter how highbrow and principled you are if you do nothing for them. If you sacrifice nothing for them. You're just a coward. And the beliefs of cowards can be casually dismissed without argument.

The right knows exactly how miserable it is to be cancelled and to have their livelihoods threatened over political beliefs: my evidence is having lived through the past ten years. They don't care anymore. All of the moral principled arguments lost all purchase and force on them. Being bombarded like Palestinians by threats and catty remarks by psuedocommunists has inured them to the calls of hypocrisy.

All of the lost jobs, job opportunities, scholarships, and social damage isn't going to avenge itself: this is the new normal. We live in the postliberal Friend-Enemy Schmittian power dynamic and the left is responsible for it.

It brings to mind the nuns murdered and raped in the Paris Commune, in the Russian Revolution, in Republican Spain. If you bring that up to a leftist today, they will twist themselves into knots into trying to justify it. Yes, even the feminists. Some pithy statement on how they were part of Christofascism or something.

Nuns.

I think it is clear that there is no level of innocence that a Communard agitator will not justify as tainted and full of sin. It doesn't matter if he wasn't a saint. There is no bottom to the depravity of which these people can find. There are many on reddit and bluesky and in real life who are fundamentally illiberal and want others dead for having ideas they dislike. That's a plain fact.

Putting someone out who is in my house without permission is violence, in that the intruder is the one committing it. This is a basic axiom of English common law. I have already suffered an injury. It doesn't matter if the intruder is a beggar or the King of England, if he doesn't leave then I am justified in defending myself from the harms already committed.

If BC had any shame he'd never post anywhere on the internet ever again after he posted such vulgar blood libel, but God preserve us, he will likely return.

I recognize the steelman, I really do. I just really, really hate this argument. It boils my piss. The leftist framing of what is violence against them and what is violence on their part is always a definitional game that somehow excuses terrorism on their part but prevents speech on my part and thus I have an allergic reaction to the violence-discourse.

Protecting one's borders is no more violence than locking the door to your house is violence to your neighbors. The left's position on this topic is, frankly, nonsense. Understanding it does not justify it.

The poisonous conception of the schoolmarmish imagination that ideas can be dangerous as drugs. That, for the good of people that certain ideas must be censored to prevent their 'radicalization' goes against liberalism and democracy.

Who, whom? Who are these exalted figures who get to determine what is and what is not permissible?

Trust the science, except when it goes against the narrative. Free speech and academic freedom, except when it upsets our deep-seated beliefs - that are not beliefs, but just moral decency.

I am tired of it all.

I realize that I just duplicated your post - yeah, Ezra is a dumb policy wonk who is trying to pretend that he wasn't a fellow traveller of woke to push neoliberal policy. If he recommends anything, much like the anti-compass, we should do the opposite - because anything this smug prick recommends or advocates for is the the will of smuggest of LA radlibs.

Ezra Klein is a woke idiot who lied about Charles Murray to push blank slate liberalism and he did it knowingly, and not out of ignorance, because the narrative was more important than the truth.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=IeWMw2hb4gY&ab_channel=Motte%26Bailey

So why should we believe him now?

Edit: Tretiak beat me to the punch, but I directly linked to the podcast he mentioned. Take a listen. If Ezra Klein posted here, on the motte, with the same tone and argumentation he did on the podcast, he'd be permanently banned within the hour. Why should we listen to someone who would be just as obnoxious as Alexander Turok or BurdensomeCount?

ach! I'm crusader-kings brained.

It was women. Always the women. Radlib tumblr progressive-lites whose grand queen was JK Rowling.

Then the trans issue grew into the cause de jour, and suddenly being a moral crusader became sharing female spaces to bearded AGP transexuals.

Most liberal women were not onboard with that, and so quietly left... and were replaced by said BAGPTs.

BAGPTS are histrionic, drama-queen lolcows that rot any organization they join from within. As brown vanguardism destroyed academia and politics from within by replacing Jewish human capital with Islamists, so did the woke censorate lose its feminine inviolability. The individual women who lost out on positions within woke organizations to intersectionality's apex predator no longer contributed their social capital to wokism. Thus, decline into farce and irrelevance.

All military is relative to the competency of the belligerents. You wouldn't say that Hannibal was a incompetent loser if he was bushwhacked by a time-travelling Marine Corp Expeditionary regiment. To bring up the Ukrainians and the Russians, either side would be completely annihilated by a modern western combined-arms military in a war of maneuver, but we wouldn't say that Slavs are incompetent at war.

So who counts as 'white'?

Can non-white countries adapt 'white' ways of war?

To interrupt your thesis, Shaka Zulu was clearly a military reformer whose innovations of 'having reserves' and 'enveloping the flanks to crush the middle' were superior enough in his local enviroment to cause the Great Bantu Migration. I'd also point to Paul Kagame as a leader of the RPF in fighting guerilla war against a numerically superior opponent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kitona is basically what the VDF tried to do in Ukraine but failed miserably at, again the Rwandans.

I would say that Jews have bought a little too much into their own national mythology, and seeing themselves as the perpetual underdog has not prepared them to wield power. It manifests in the obviously authoritarian crackdowns in the west against anti-semeticism that even the most blind liberal has noticed. No one can honestly claim the Jews have no power in the west, and they have obvious tribal enmity with the Arabs. Is this not the prejudice and power that progressive constantly scold against?

Something something, golem...

I caught up on the thread during my ban and I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this yet, the real reason why the Democrats hate him so much. It has nothing to do with rational reasons. Indeed, the dislike goes beyond any explanation rooted in logic. We must go back to more primal human urges to explain the vehemence of his opposition.

Trump has violated the sacredness of the republic and for that he can never be forgiven.

It is a cliche that the right wing never fails to bring up the Romans: I'm bringing up the Romans. As I understand it, republicanism in antiquity had a sacral, religious quality that continues on in all republics that followed in its mode: that elections were not just two wolves deciding on the sheep to eat today, but a duty before the gods themselves - that no matter how many maniacs and power-hungry warlords ascended into authority, the process itself was sacred. Long after elections became meaningless, people still became senators and consuls pretty much until the end of the Principate.

That is his crime: making a mockery of the goddess of Democracy, grabbing her by the hair and wooing her by force. Trump is a idolator in the temple of liberal democracy. He profanes the altars, the most sacred places... he rejects the authority of the institution itself. Those who fear him and hate him do so with the intensity one might reserve for the raper of one's virgin daughter.

That they themselves have abused the republic is no reason for sober self-reflection. That is in character for Optimates, to be hypocrites. It does not make what the Populares do any better but as HBO Rome so eloquently put it: "People want bread, not clean elections." All of the men of virtue and integrity are long gone: the last of the Americans perished from this world a hundred years ago.

I feel bad for this dunk, because you went to so much effort to steelman it, but it has to be said - political hysteria when your opposition tries effective means to enact their agenda is fundamentally silly. Did they, like, just get used to the ineffectual opposition so much that it became a norm? The sort of wink-wink, nudge nudge 'we won't actually try and get what our voters want while you get to make all the reforms you like?'

They called Bush a fascist, they called McCain a fascist, they called Romney, of all people, a fascist.

So I'm not inclined to believe that Trump is a fascist, or that those previous figures are suddenly bipartisan magnates of genteel character. The left will always smear their enemies as fascists. Fair enough. If they're going to give you the time, you might as well do the crime. Actions have consequences.

Have you actually visited Auschwitz and Treblinka? Seen the physical evidence for yourself?

Or are you, to put a blunt point on it, blowing smoke up your ass?

No, you'd probably have some pithy response to that. Okay. How about you go to Tuol Sleng? Or you can go to the Balkans where freshly uncovered mass graves are something of a regular occurrence.

I am very right-wing. I have resided on very right-wing parts of the internet. What I am saying is that you are being a coward. You lack the honest and brutal character of a Serb, who, confronted with war crimes, will go: "It's good that it happened, and we regret that we didn't get enough of you." The fact that you are evading and speaking of apologia is evidence that you know that the crime of genocide is something to be ashamed of.

The lady protests too much, methinks.

To put it in frogtwitter terms, you are a theorycel, an academycuck. If you had the balls, you'd be with the other WN shitposters calling for a second Holocaust. Even the pro-Palestinians have more courage than you. David Irving-style denialism is a relic of the past, and you look ridiculous. The cool zoomers who want to put the Jews in the oven right now sneer at you for even bothering to engage in academic debate in the first place.

If you're not even at the most extreme edge of the Overton window, why bother?