@functor's banner p

functor


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 January 12 12:56:52 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 2069

functor


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 January 12 12:56:52 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2069

Verified Email

Russia had no issue with Ukraine doing business with the west. It was the west who demanded that Ukraine cuts ties with Russia. An infeasible demand when they had millions of Russians in the country and deep economic ties to Russia. Western intelligence was deeply involved in the 2014 coup. Then our politicians who freak out over "it is ok to be white" had no problem funding people wearing swastikas who wanted to drive panzers into Russian cities while banning the Russian orthodox church and prohibiting the use of the Russian language.

Continuously shelling the Donbass, Merkel outright admitting that they were disingenuous during negotiations in order to buy time to arm Ukraine and building CIA bases right on Russia's border points to the US provoking a war.

As for Ukraine's economy their GDP increased 600% between the year 2000 and 2013. Since joining Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria in being border states to the US empire, their GDP has collapsed by a third over a decade. The polish option was never an option for Ukraine. Poland's export is labour. Poland's birth rate was substantially higher than Ukraine's and they have far more young people to export. Ukraine is demographically a combination of Japan's birth rate and Venezuela's emigration rate. Exporting labour when the demographics are comparable to the collapse of the Roman empire isn't sustainable.

I am sure there are Ukrainians who are fighting thinking that they can become a truck driver in Germany if they join the west but this doesn't account for the overwhelming political support from the west.

Funny how the western media loved a supposed nationalist. If Navalny's critique of Putin was that he wasn't nationalistic enough he would have gotten zero-support for Navalny. At best it would be like Ukrainian nationalism where they get to wave WWII paraphernalia while the government rams through neoliberal and culturally leftwing policies.

  • But in terms of performance, it has also been a non-winner,

It took half the planet to stop two fascist countries. Had the US had the land Germany had and the Germans had had the British empire, US, Canada, Australia, France etc the war would have lasted a week.

inflicting great amounts of human misery on the species before collapsing under the strain of expansionist wars

It was the least expansionist of the ideologies. While liberal states continue on a rampage of expansionism across the middle east, latin America and eastern Europe fascist states were more non interventionist. Their focus was on building the homeland rather than trying to expand into Nepal.

Liberalism is a way for the elite to claim that they have no responsibility or noblesse oblige. They are just people and world citizens who happen to be richer. Liberalism was the merchant class wanting the privilege of the nobility without having the responsibility or the discipline of it. The current elite want to live like kings, yet they don't want to live like knights. The way forward is to replace natural rights (defined by who? enforced by who?) with natural order. Some people naturally fill certain rolls. Humans are a tribal species.

Liberalism's has an equivalent to communism's labour value of theory, aka the false axiom. For liberalism, it is the idea that humans randomly spawn on Earth. We didn't live in the garden of Eve and then decide to create society, we lived in tribes long before our species existed. There is no social contract, there are no free independent individuals and existing in a social structure isn't oppressive. A human in a social hierarchy isn't more oppressed than a zebra in a herd on the Savannah. The oppressed zebra is the lonely one.

It is instictive. Women naturally fear men who have low quality genes. Rapists are often portrayed in media as rich men but in reality rape is a measure of last resort. Rape is the worst tactic for reproduction if a man has a choice. Women don't just find unappealing men not interesting, they find them revolting. Most guys don't really feel anything towards an unfortunate looking women. Life isn't meant to be fair, logically consistent or objective. We don't have a supremely rational and detached mind. We often rely on gut reactions based on what is evolutionarily advantageous. Throughout history women who avoided bottom tier men did better than those who befriended them.

Suburbia is souless and atomizing conpared to traditional towns and cities. There aren't people on the streets, there are cars. There are no natural places to meet people, distances are vast and people are isolated in their fenced in homes. suburbia encourages loneliness. It is quite absurd that people are so isolated that they prefer being in a cubical just to have people around them.

The issue is that we can't have 10 billion peole living a western lifestyle on a finite planet. The amount of water, artificial fertilizers, pesticides and antibiotics required for 10 billion people eating meat twice a day is simply not feasible. I don't think anyone is really enthusiastic over bug meat, it is simply an adaption to over population. Personally I would go for fewer people living on less industrially produced meat.

This reads like the equivalent a woke college student listing off

While opposing the wokest country in the middle east that is flooding Europe with migrants? The hivemind on this subject is the neo-con war machine and the media dominated by AIPAC and the ADL pushing for more war in the middle east and more refugees to Europe.

They created that situation for themselves by not chilling down with the suicide bombings and indiscriminate rocket fire.

Why would they accept being put in Gaza with their country split into two pieces? Why would they accept not being able to live where they or their parents grew up? If the Israelis could stop the occupying, they wouldn't get hit with rockets.

Because they launched 3 wars with help of their coreligionists and lost all of them

Again, why would they accept becoming refugees and not fight back? They have seen how Israeli zoomer soldiers hide in the bathroom and cry while trying to defend a strong point from an attack from a lightly armed militia. There is nothing that says they can't fight back and win. Fighting a large tank battle might not have been the best option. Fighting with FPV-drones, rockets and ambushes might work. Iraq and Afghanistan are great examples of how globalists were removed from a country by continuous small attacks. The Palestinian population has grown extensively since then. The Irish lost a bunch of armed conflicts against the British before most of Ireland became independent.

that work visa program could have turned into a permanent residency program.

Clearly, the Likud was instead creating a refugee crisis on Europe's boarder by expanding settlements and slowly growing Israel. Unfortunately for Netanyahu, his population is increasingly consisting of a woke people, haredi fundamentalists and muslims.

(and thus dealt with Muslim extremists)

Funny how large parts of the world have no muslim extremists whatsoever. It isn't a problem in places that don't have large scale immigration or a historic muslim population. The endless war on terror combined with mass immigration was a fiasco.

There's also a neat little cliff at the line of people who experienced 9/11 and did not.

9/11 was a valuable lesson. Due to immigration policy, people living in a cave in Afghanistan were let into the US. After predictable results the US decides to invade Iraq, a country with no connection to 9/11. The result is massive waves of refugees in to Europe and more terrorism, crime and social issues. Islamic terrorism exploded as a problem post neo con wars in the middle east. Young people have grown up seeing the 20-year fiasco of nation building in the Middle East.

If there is anything learned from dealing with muslims it is that the best outcome is stable arab states with no wars in the middle east. Interventionism in the middle east has been a resounding failure. Bombing Libya let a million muslims into Europe while creating a terrorist bastion on our boarder. Arming moderate jihadists in Syria led to waves of terrorism across Europe along with waves of refugees.

As for social media I remember the days before the invasion of Iraq when the entire media and population were against the war in almost the entire world. The exception was the US which was in a frenzy over wanting to invade a country that had done nothing to deserve it. The difference was the media in the US promoting the war while media in most other countries the media wasn't in a pro war frenzy. The US has a more pro Israel media than Israel itself and it is one of few countries in which Israel is popular. Americans being pro Israel is largely caused by the US mainstream media heavily pushing a pro Israel agenda. WIthout an extreme pro israel bias in the information space the opinions on the conflict would normalize to what it is in most of the rest of the world.

Blockading food and water to civilians is a war crime. Also Israel's illegal blockade along with their recent attacks provide Hamas with more than enough justification for fighting back.

https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/water-and-armed-conflicts

Yet you pretend that the Chinese are the worst people ever for putting their jihadists in camps even though hundreds of Chinese a year were being killed by jihadists....

In Scandinavia we are fairly successful in forced skin in the game by using the draft. The smartest, strongest and healthiest are the ones who get drafted. People from the higher echelons of society are more likely to be conscripted and therefore have more skin in the game.

I fundamentally believe that immigration policy would have been completely different if people who voted for diversity had the diversity in their neighbourhood. Their ideological binds wouldn't apply when it is their property. Suburbs were a terrible mistake in the US as it allowed cities to deteriorate without in impacting the elite. The problemen wouldn't have arrisen from the first place as they would have kept things from getting out of hand. Migration is only fun when it is happening to someone else's area.

The corrent eltie completely lack a sense of duty and nobless oblige. This can't be forced, it comes as the result of hard times. The US needs a proper crisis to solve the corruption within its elite.

The US has destroyed latin American countries, sucked resources out of them and bullied them for a century. Pretty much every awful social trend comes from the US.

The American order has been based on bombing and fighting constantly. Arguing that Iraq was better because they have forced Sunnis and Shias to stay in the same country is a stretch. Tearing Libya into a patch of warlords nominally under the same government was far worse. If anything Russia is giving the people in Donetsk citizenship and integrating them into the Russian medical system. The US left Yemen as ruins while taking no responsibility. Was forcing Pashtuns and Tajiks to live in Afghanistan together really a great humanitarian success?

Trump is bragging about destroying Venezuela and talking about how the US should have stolen their oil.

The US doesn't change borders, it forces countries to submit and then blocks medical supplies to the country if it doesn't obey.

Israel gives its settlements back and Palestinians can form their own state.

The left has a metaphysics based on humans being free floating blank slate soul that happened to be born as whatever they are. The highest heresy in left wing ideology is constraining the soul/mind by physical reality. Having randomly ended up in the wrong body shouldn't impact the soul according to their thinking. Therefore, it is expected that those on the left would be all for education. If we are blank slates tossed into a body randomly then anyone can become anything given the right circumstances.

The fundamental debate between left and right is essentialism vs existentialism.

At the same time non religious women's fertility is falling while religious women are still reproducing.

Religiousness is hard in a world when it isn't the norm. It is hard to be a genuine believer in a nihilistic society. Religiously inclined people who are pushed in a more liberal direction by the zeitgeist of society are becoming the dominant group along with the welfare class who fail at using contraceptives. Once religiously inclined people gain a significant portion of the population, they will move the norms in their direction, thus creating a religious revival.

Our society is heavily selecting for two groups: the religious with conservative values and welfare class people. The liberal left are not reproducing.

political ideology is 40% heritable

We have no massimmigration from Jordan, the emirates or Saudi araba. We had no mass immigration from Libya before the war. Mass immigration from Syria and Iraq started with the neocon wars. Afghans pretty much didn't exist before the war in Europe. The force pushing them into Europe is the US war machine.

Many partners =/= high quality. The lowest quality men don't have many partners but many of them are too weak to rape women. The man who has met many fat women on tinder or traded weed for favours from trashy women isn't higher quality than the man who is married and faithful.

Animals either have a fast life history strategy or a slow one. Slow life history strategy is to build long relationships, invest in the long term, invest greatly in your offspring and prioritize quality. Slow life history strategy works in a stable but harsher ecosystem. Fast life history strategy is about reproducing as much and as fast as possible. Quick high risk sex is valued. Fast life history strategy is better in a dangerous ecology with plenty of food. Species whose population is primarily limited by predators tend to have faster life history strategy.

Rape is the ultimate fast life history strategy. Extremely high risk, negative bonding, zero paternal investment and high time preference. The people attracted to that lifestyle will also be more into other forms of fast low quality sex.

A better measurement than number of partners would be attractiveness.

now waving the flag of Hezbollah who actually killed a lot of those troops.

If you mean in Syria, not many US soldiers have died in the occupation of Syria. Why on Earth would we respect them? Hillary Clinton's campaign to destabilize Syria via hefty sanctions while the US flooded the country with weapons has been an absolute disaster. Hundreds of thousands of people have died, 13 million refugees of which a great many are in Europe, and the destruction of ancient and Christian culture in the region is nothing to respect.

Hezbollah has had a neighbouring country flooded with jihadists who are down right genocidal toward Hezbollah and Syrians of the same religious and ethnic background as Hezbollah. Why wouldn't they fight? It is absurd to call Ukraine an American interest and then condemn Hezbollah for fighting ISIS next door.

Conservatives make a grave mistake simping for troops. They did absolutely nothing for you. The military industrial complex has wasted trillions, murdered millions and is if anything spying and influencing far more than China and Russia combined.

The Russian steel industry is more or less at American levels. Meanwhile the US has to fight a bunch of wars in the middle east and compete with China. It isn't that Russia is an insurmountable problem, it is that the combined weight of all problems is greater than the capacity to deal with them.

The west would have benefited from Russia taking Ukraine in a week. Ukraine's pensionsystem is a complete mess, their infrastructure is worse than Russia's and they would have gotten 20 million new citizens that hate them. Combine this with sanctions on Russia and it could easily have toppled Russia. The plan was probably to give Ukrainians light weapons, training and let Ukraine become a Soviet-Afghan war 2.0. Three billion dollars of aid to the taliban played an important role in sinking the Soviet union. The architects behind the war had experience from Iraq and saw poorly funded militias cost the US tax payer the equivalent of the GDP of a medium sized country.

Instead they have gotten a nightmare in which Russian mass produced drones are being shot down by 250 000 dollar missiles in limited supply.

The neocon plan was to pull out of Afghanistan, have a quick collapse of Russia and then focus on China. Now they are the supply line for a Ukrainian military the size of the American force in Vietnam at the height of the war that is fighting a far more intense war while Russia is turning into a large arms factory. The aid won't stop when the fighting ends. After this war a force 4-5 times the size of the US marine corps including its reserves has to be completely rebuild and then sustained. They now have a military the size of the French, British and Germany military combined that is consuming supplies at WWIII levels and will need a complete restoration after the war. The pivot out of the middle east ended with a 7+ month war over a tiny strip of resourceless desert.

Meanwhile China builds more tonnage of military ships than all of NATO combined.

The issue is that would be like trying to maintain the support of Likud voters and Hamas.

Sanctions, Israeli bombing of Libya and Israeli support for jihadist groups did not help at all. Israel has clearly seen Syria as an enemy and has done its best for decades to undermine and destroy Syria.

Why do these rebels end up with air support and expensive weapons? Who trains these militias? How did thousands of mercenaries show up in Libya and why was Libya bombed to pieces from the sky? The countries in the middle east that haven't been bombed are more stable, more peaceful, don't have massive outflows of refugees and are far better to live in than the ones destroyed by interventionists who attend AIPAC conferences.

Jordan, Egypt, the UAE and Saudi is stable. Iran is unusually stable for a country that has fought a major war and has had a neighboring country invaded three times in the past decades.

It is probably different in the US, but in Europe Israel is deeply unpopular among a large part of the right. Israel and the neocons make war, Europe gets flooded with migrants. Borrowing trillions to bomb the middle east, destroy the last of the remnants of the Greek culture in the region, flood Europe with migrants and force feminism on the middle east wasn't popular here. The Palestinians want Palestinians to stay in Palestine, Israel wants a massive refugee crisis on Europe's doorstep.

Israel, apart from having the largest gay parade in the middle east, has worked to destabilize neighbouring countries, finance jihadist groups in Syria and push migrants into Europe. The Israel lobby has been vocally pro diversity, wars in the middle east and immigration. The ADL wasn't exactly on the white nationalist coalition's side. Trying to build a coalition between European nationalists and Israelis is borderline impossible as the two groups have completely different goals. Europeans want Palestinians to stay in Palestine and the middle east to have stable states. Israel wants mass migration from the middle east and a weak Syria/Iraq/lebanon.

As for the Palestinians being weak, they have showed impressive fighting spirit.

Not if the population of Israel largely consists of people who migrated from Eastern Europe.