hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
18hr ago
I believe the consequences of invading another country are always gruesome. Nevertheless it is the case that leaders make calls to war. I doubt you will find many who believe that the brutality of the fighting is to be blamed on the leaders who assumed the necessity of the war. Unless you're making an HBD case relating to Slavs and Anglos. The British have their own history of failed military ventures, after all. I'm not sure people would as earnestly buy the English bulldog bravado about their 'just' wars if they had GoPro footage from them.
I'd contrast Russia's failed military ventures with Britain's failed domestic policy. Importing millions of fighting age men willingly and then setting up a system of governance and justice that marginalizes the natives to a point where thousands of little girls can be raped by foreigners with little to no interference is, as far as statecraft goes, kind of worse. Leaving aside the brazen effort of population replacement. Which is maintained by the state through a network of media suffocation and political suppression.
Russian grannies might watch state TV, but nigh every man, woman and child in the west watches Netflix. I don't particularly care for the weight people put on the distinction between state propaganda and propaganda that happens to not be directly from the state. There's obviously a program being run by every government to get a message out there or to follow a message. And to drown out other messages. To that extent I don't believe the average granny in the UK is much better informed than the average granny in Russia in any way that matters. British people in general seem just as stupid as others when it comes to discerning reality from fictional propaganda.
Questioning the Core
Recently Tucker Carlson, who everyone knows, did an interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg, a former British MP for the Tories. JRM is a known quantity in British politics as an upper class Englishman with a neoliberal stripe who manages to say enough things 'wrong' for the far left and right to dislike him. But on the flipside he does say those things with a very pleasing accent. He earned this particular interview with Carlson due to his firm anti-Russia stance and recent agitation that Britain needed to prepare for war.
The interview itself was mostly boring. Tucker seemed to not really know what his own point was for the first half of the interview, aside from JAQing off about NATO aggression. And JRM didn't feel like giving Tucker any rope to pull on. To that end both parties came across as snide. JRM never directly engages with what exactly the point of NATO is or what Britain or the EU is even doing at this point, and Tucker never directly asserts that the liberal moral order has been the catalyst for more harm than good. Instead they both circle around their underlying points but never directly engage with them.
The surface level Tucker Carlson argument here is that Britain is weak, its allies are weak, and Russia is strong. So Britain should sue for peace.
JRM's argument is that Britain is good, and Russia is evil. So there will be no peace.
They are both correct. Insofar as Britain is weak, Russia is also weak. And as far as Russia is evil, Britain is also evil. Failing demographics with corrupt and inept leaders suppressing their subjects alongside shocking news of unconscionable crimes on a huge scale, signaling deep social decline. No offers of a positive vision for the future are anywhere to be found. Only fatalism and the faint promise of a coming metamorphosis. Worry not for your pain. You, the English, will soon cease to exist. And so will the Russians (as far as any westerner has an analog to what a Russian is). A complete separation of state and folk. The death of nations.
It's fair to say that neither party wants to engage with this reality. As admitting to anything real here would be tantamount to ponder whether Hitler was actually right. Since neither can, neither will. Though they do get close:
The Liberal World Order gambit that JRM employs is simple enough: If Hitler was evil, everything is vindicated. So we just repeat that for Putin, right?
Well, Tucker doesn't raise this point directly enough, but leaving aside the question of whether looking at world events through the eyes of a 10 year old to decide who is good and who is evil is beneficial or not, has the consequence of being on the side of 'good' been of benefit to the people? The obvious answer is no. And that's not the fault of Hitler, but the people who came after him. So why should anyone take their word for anything? They are fast becoming literally worse than Hitler.
Whilst not directly questioned, it should be. Are Angela Merkel, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Ursula von der Leyen really the best a man can get? Can you really take the light of critical inquiry seriously if it can only be shone at those who have already been determined to be evil? So we pretend the Ukrainian state isn't a cesspool of corruption and shame, but rather the bastion of good against evil. That the EU isn't a bureaucratic hellscape that hates its citizens. Or that the US isn't going to industrially and culturally decline along with its demographics.
The big question is: Are any of the big movements that now define modern society worth dying for? Is continuing the status quo of 'good' in anyone's best interest except those who are evil? The cynic in me believes you can always draft enough young men to die in any war no matter what. And that indignance towards dying for the ruling class has and always will exist. And maybe I'm in that bubble of indignance. But I want to believe that things are different now. The current state of affairs is just so ridiculous.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
All Western legal theory falls apart when the subjects of the law start viewing the enforcers of the law as just another competing tribe. Same thing happens when the enforcers of law start viewing the subjects as a competing tribe.
To that end these discussions are very quaint. No one is interfacing with reality.
hanikrummihundursvin
23d ago
This seems like such a superficial take.
In the end, none of this happened since his death got bogged down in endless conspiracies.
So if there had not been conspiracies, the 'true conservatives' could have shown themselves and done the right thing? Yeah, I'm pressing X to doubt.
If there's one thing more delusional than the Q anon phenotype that exists on the right, it's the self proclaimed elite human capital on the opposite end.
'Conspiracies' and anti-authoritarianism have always been a thing on the right. This has nothing to do with MAGA. If anything MAGA is just a symptom of how poorly America has been managed. This is what decades of American right wing political theory has lead us to. On that front I don't think there's anything less worthy of respect than a gaggle of self proclaimed kings who try to justify their right to rule through how much they despise the peasants.
This captures why most people aren't actually against immigration. When they reach the precipice of telling other people: "No, you can't live here with us", they buckle. And it's not really a surprise given the media most people consume. For decades, news and entertainment have inundated the public with emotionally charged narratives venerating empathy for the outgroup. When boundary enforcement is systematically framed as moral cruelty, conservative voters absorb and even revel in that emotional conditioning. They favor closed borders in the abstract, but the moment execution demands personal backbone, their media-ingrained impulse to 'be soft' takes over.
To put things in context, conditons haven't been this bad for the left base since Bush Jr. Their footsoldiers are getting killed or jailed for their anti-ICE stunts that provide no tangible political or material benefit to them. They are to some extent demoralized to a point where their political coalition is fracturing in very polarizing ways.
All the right wing has to do is put their foot on the pedal and drive it home. Do a Charlie Kirk legislation, then do another, and another. Demonize 'protestors' who don't strictly abide by every law in the book. Arrest them on the spot. Call them terrorists. Raid their chat groups for dirt, sick the FBI on their parents or neighbors and ask about their childrens or neighbors potential terrorist activities. Every high card has been in the right wings hand for what, a year now? But no, neither the republican politicians or the republican electorate has the guts to maintain their society.
Law and Order is a slogan, not an actual thing most right wingers believe in. They feel angry when reading stories about repeat violent offenders miraculously getting off scot free for the umpteenth time, only to go out to maim or murder again. But there's no organizing around that problem. No consistent emotional animation. Not having law and order when convenient is just another thing the left gets to do that's filed under 'I guess that's just how things are now'. It's actually easier for right wingers in general and conservatives in particular to tolerate the raping and pillaging of their village than kicking out the rapists and pillagers since one has no positive emotional resonance in media whilst the other does. Not all outsiders are pillagers and rapists, don't you know?
I'm imagining that free white men of good character don't need to be weighed down by the obvious excesses of the luxurious societies they build. Part of maintaining that luxury for everyone is recognizing that it's just that, a luxury.
The short of it is that a sizeable portion of the population can't formulate a coherent idea of 'law' or anything similar that isn't just a system existing to personally benefit them. Having such people make decisions is untenable. And the weight of living under that system, knowing what it's made up of, makes everything more precarious.
Those folks are in one camp. Another camp tries to reason themselves away from this reality by pretending that what's going on isn't that, but some other factor: 'The law is actually complex, you see. 'Mental health is a serious issue!' None of these are real, none of these are relevant. It's just cope because there is no worldview that can both accurately fit in the Lindsay Clancy fans and not be incredibly sexist at the same time.
The feminist mantra of 'What's best for mom is what's best for baby' when talking about abortion isn't some one-off, it's a declaration of what reality is to them and how you're supposed to see it. The women supporting this aren't insane themselves, they just found a resonator in Lindsay who they can dump all their emotions into. And that's the thing, it's emotions they have. If they had at any point decided to kill their own babies, they believe they should not be punished for it. Their emotions aren't just valid, they're reality. And that's the system you live under today.
There is no delicate offramp here for the civil and socialized, who would sooner die than blemish their own ego by earnestly engaging in a low brow culture war, so they just close their eyes and keep driving straight, with no concern to where that leads. Which is how we got to where we are now.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
I'm not seeing the good reason. We're not living under a traditionalist society. Our leaders are not self-sacrificing. It's just a death spiral of weak men failing shit tests put to them by self interested women.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Karen Straughan managed to occupy a very odd niche of a woman who ingrouped men. Whilst I didn't keep up with Straughan entirely, so I would not be in the know if she foided out at any point, she is still seemingly the only woman that has earnestly done this publicly.
Most of the time this doesn't happen until women are old. And then it's not always a case of them ingrouping men but rather outgrouping a lot of women. Similar to how Ann Coulter is often at odds with her own gender due to political differences.
If we contrast Karen with the modern 'conservative' women and many of the 'MRA' women, who placed themselves as anti-feminist in some way, they were and are just making feminist arguments in a roundabout way. Where 'feminism and the left' are bad because it's bad for conservative women. What's actually good for women is traditionalism! Well... That's still revolving around what's good for women. I always saw that as completely different from 'This is bad because it's bad for boys and men'.
And when one sees through that you recognize it's just another permutation of the eternal feminist paradox, where the definition of feminism rests on who is defining who the 'real women' are. And all feminists who disagree with one another do is assert that they and those who agree with them are the real women.
Most modern influencer women who play the role of the conservative/anti-feminist can't keep the act up for long. They're self interested parties. They don't ingroup men, they ingroup women. Or are complete narcissists. That's the lesson that's been learned. They will say and do things for money like a cam girl will.
I had thought the 'boy mom' thing would maybe spiral into women and mothers interested in the welfare of their sons and by extension boys and men in general, but it kind of says it on the tin. It's more about a new identity for women of sorts.
To conclude, one can always easily sniff out who is an actual interested party with regards to the welfare of men. They ask and answer 'Is this good for men, yes or no? The e-thots can't do this. The 'boy moms' can't do this. The wifeguys and girldads can't do this. It's not that you need to be a good liar even. There are plenty of grifters and frauds in these spaces. They just can't maintain the act.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
How is that inconsistent?
If you enter the 'Who can get kicked in the nuts the hardest' contest and nab first place, where does that leave us? I can recognize that you placed 1st. I can also recognize the icepack on your groin. To ultimately conclude that you won nothing. Repeatedly telling me you 'won' because you placed 1st or that some other guy took a kick much worse than yours doesn't change that.
As I said prior: America in your context is just US foreign policy as dictated by zionists. No American person living an American life sees benefit from any of this. This is just money out of their pocket. The ZOG of America has more leverage in the middle east now. That's the actual extent of your definition of victory. In other areas, that operate on non-zionist assumptions, America is worse off along with the rest of the world.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
We are now two thirds of the way towards how things were prior to us attacking our enemy. None of this has benefitted a single American that is not a zionist. Total Victory!
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
It's certainly obvious she does have a different conception. The point relates more to how she can have such a difference in conception when the cases are functionally identical outside of the obvious fact that one is her ingroup.
To your point, there are plenty of people who view Israel as an invalid state that should be destroyed. I don't think she much cares to bend herself to the court of public opinion on that one. In fact she sees herself fit to actively fight against it and say that those who think that way are wrong.
It doesn't make any sense to assume she is making these decisions on a case by case basis and just coincidentally supported a concrete case for ethnic identity when it happened to be hers.
It's kind of ridiculous to even float that as a possibility when the factual nature of the matter is so obvious. Every ethnically British person in the world could believe that being British was civic and yet they would still be ethnically British whilst an Indian would not be. And if they though otherwise they would be factually wrong. Just like it's not a matter of opinion whether someone is white or black. The history is there.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
So why, if Phillips were a progressive, would her progressivism preclude an ethnic British identity but not her zionism? Sounds like it precludes both pretty clearly. Not that Phillips is necessarily a progressive or that she cares what they think. But if she cared for their opinion the contradiction remains.
To that point, Phillips has been about as consistent a zionist neoconservative as one can be. She is in no danger of visits from police in her home in Jerusalem where she spends the majority of her time. But even then, no one is asking her to express views that go beyond the law in the UK.
In any case, the pattern is rather consistent. She is willing to fight for zionism for jews but not for Brits. We can mull over why, but that's who she is. A jewish zionist who holds a concrete view of her own jewish ethnic identity whilst denigrating the ethnic identity of others.
The Civic Identity of my Outgroup.
Recently, Melanie Phillips, a jewish zionist conservative journalist and British media personality, wrote a post on X that raised some eyebrows:
This is very muddled. British identity is civic and not ethnic. It is totally different from Jewish identity, which is ethnic, religious and cutural. Judaism is the unique fusion of a people, a faith and a land. That's why the Jewish people, as a people, is entitled to live in its ancestral homeland.
This is different again from Israeli identlty. Arabs, Druze and others are also Israeli citizens with equal civic and religious rights. But (unless they convert to Judaism) they can't be Jews with their unique claim to self-determination in the land and their unique political right to a state of their own.
Because of the unique and multi-faceted nature of Judaism, there's no crossover with British identity. But as I have written for decades, the British are not only entitled to but should promote and defend their historic nation, identity and its culture. There's no conflict between those two positions, and the suggestion that Jews want to deny to the British the self-determination that the Jews have fulfilled in the State of Israel is false and disgraceful.
As can be seen in the link, she was replying to small time Scottish comedian and media personality Leo Kearse, who is also a self avowed zionist, but a 'zionist' for British people as well. Who tried to make equivocations between British and jewish identity which Melanie rejects.
There's a lot to unpack here. The Principal disagreement rest on the idea that the British should defend their civic identity, but, for some reason, not their ethnic one. American Dissident Right wing personality Dave Greene got to the heart of the matter:
This is a remarkable document as it captures, in perfect platonic form, the mode that ruins all Jewish-Gentile discourse.
- By linguistic construction, British people DO NOT have an ethnic, religious, cultural identity, just a “civic” one
- Also by linguistic construction, Jewish people DO have an ethnic, religious, cultural identity in addition to their civic one
- Both British and Jewish people have EQUAL right to defend their ethnic and cultural heritage, but since the former, by definition, has NO ethnic identity they don’t really have anything to defend.
- So obviously, by linguistic construction, we treat Jews and British people the same. Therefore any assertion of a double standard is “Anti-Semitism”!
What is obvious now to everyone is that “civic” identity based on a relationship to a liberal multicultural post-civil-rights nation state is meaningless. These types of “civic” identities are so broad they basically include the entire world, and in practice they just amount mewling easily-faked HR platitudes that no one actually believes.
Only ethnic/cultural/religious identity matters because it’s the only identity specific enough to wield power. But here Melanie Phillips, along with many other Zionist counter parties, build the double standard into the language itself.
“The decreed definition of ‘British/English’ demands that the identity not be ethnic!”
But who decreed that the British / English not have a valid ethnic identity? Was it history? Obviously not. Was it God? Maybe Melanie believes this, but I doubt anyone else thinks the Lord on High has intervened to justify her people’s special pleading.
But ,ultimately, it’s clear what’s going on. The reason why we are using this loaded language with an implicit double standard built into it, is because people like Melanie’s push it. They word-cast a double standard into the received definitions so it looks like British dispossession is just the will of the language / God.
And look, I know not all the Z people are like this, but guys, you gotta give me something else beyond an iteration of this little linguistic hat trick. We can see it a mile away, and it insults our intelligence.
Even if taken as a simple matter of fact, Melanie Phillips is obviously just wrong, as British nationalist and media personality Connor Tomlinson pointed out:
"the suggestion that Jews want to deny to the British the self-determination that the Jews have fulfilled in the State of Israel is false and disgraceful."
Melanie, you opened by denying the ethnic roots of British identity, and said Jewish identity was unique in it's ties to ethnicity, religion, and territory.
The English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish, prior to recent unwanted waves of migration, had ethnic continuity of over 90 per cent dating back to 927 AD. The Anglo Saxons converted to Christianity by 686 AD. The first Archbishop of Canterbury banned cousin marriage in 597 AD. Our historic faith has shaped our genetic inheritance.
We have some of the clearest genetic distinctions, and ties to faith and territory in the world. We're an Island, for God's sake. So if your definition applies for Jewish people, it applies for British people too.
And just as the Jewish people get to define their identity, British people get to define our identity.
So what is going on here? Why did she write what she did? It's not a matter of political fairness, like Dave Greene posited. Since this is obviously not fair. Nor is it a matter of factual categorical accuracy, like Connor Tomlinson noted.
The immediate answer is that Melanie Phillips is expressing her views earnestly as a jewish supremacist. She genuinely can not feel the emotional pull in her heart towards other identity groups as to when it comes to the jews. It does not emotionally intuit for her. She's simply honest in verbalizing her emotional state when faced with the concept of venerating a groups sanctity and integrity when that group is jewish and when a group is not jewish. To her they are simply not the same.
To that extent there's not much to take issue with. Zionism to Melanie is not nationalism. Zionism represents nationalism for one nation only. Within the zionist worldview there are no other valid nations than the jewish one. Every other identity is lesser or simply not a thing. That's genuinely what those like Melanie feel. That's why the holocaust is the most important and not the tens of millions of Russians who died, or why Israel has a special status before any other nation on earth, or why the jewish people are the most distinct despite being a hodgepodge of ethnicities more genetically diverse than the entirety of Europe. These are all verbal qualifiers empty of meaning or content outside of the emotions felt by those who express them.
What's less clear is why that is the case. Why does zionism not represent itself as the pan-nationalist identitarian movements in Europe? You have these right wing politicians and media personalities falling over themselves to praise zionism and Israel, but when the time comes for the zionist to scratch back, they don't. And it's genuinely bizarre. Because the insult here is far graver than what any mealy mouthed opposition to 'the left' can make up for.
The implication behind every oppositional argument to 'the left' from a point of view that's not explicitly nationalistic in the same way that right wing jews are zionistic, is that you don't have a right to exist. An implicit recognition of the fact that they don't believe that your identity, your family and your nation is valid. This is doubly highlighted by media personalities who stand on identitarian business for Israel, but make platonic arguments for everyone else. Ben Shapiro's famous 'I don't care about the browning of America' continues to echo throughout time.
The buck has to stop here. It's not possible to maintain anything else. Zionism is not just nationalism for the jews. It's not even Nazism for the jews. It's beyond that. In fact it would be safe to say that there is hardly a difference between how a zionist views non-jewish nations and how a radical open borders leftist views non-jewish nations. These aren't nations to them at all. To conceptualize of them in such a way just isn't valid. They are simply economic zones to be managed. Creedal nations. Ideas to be played with.
With all that said, ostensibly nationalistic people like Leo Kearse who think zionists are a natural ally are simply wrong.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Yeah, the emotional first response people get is that of sympathy, but that just serves to highlight how warped and disconnected people are from reality.
It's this odd dynamic of white people being seemingly incapable of internalizing the amount of hate that's directed against them. Which should put people like Jason Arday in a 'The Witch is Dead!' category, at the very least. But instead folks just feel sorry for him. Including many of his alleged political enemies.
One really needs to ask oneself why. Because the most immediate plausible explanation is that everyone knows this is all a sham. No one believes that black people like him are actually academics. There's an emotive/sub-conscious understanding that they are always in over their heads. Playing a prop in an elaborate theater. They are given a lot of power and prestige, but everyone also knows that they have to color inside the set lines. And even that is usually too great an ask.
In a sense Arday did his cause the ultimate favor. He exists as a refutation of every apology and vindication of every critique of western academia and modern western culture as a whole. A stupid serial liar can become a professor at what should be one of the worlds most prestigious academic institutions because he repeated vacuous mantras about race, and happened to be of the right race. Now he is beyond reproach and the rotten system is safe from criticism. Because it relies on manipulation above all else, to keep itself afloat.
People point out that it's not his fault, 'We all killed Jason Arday'. Modern academia has a demand for soft spoken brown people who can verbalize extreme hatred for white people within a certain linguistic framework. But it's just a stupid cope to get away from facing the reality of the situation. That this is modern academia in the west. This is a product, an outcome, of what has been advocated for in the past decades.
Both the 'left' and 'right' will make use of this cope. Since the existence of Jason Arday isn't just a refutation of the 'left' and their academic theater, but also the respectable 'right' and it's inability to deal with the reality of immigration and multiracialism.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
In any case I commend the effort of this post. I just now ceremoniously added the 50th downvote for the high score. I hope this doesn't dissuade you from writing more posts, since the discussion it created was entertaining and that is valuable. It further provides a relevant perspective from a more progressive angle which is sorely lacking in this place.
Also a 3 day ban was excessive. There was clearly an element of a writing exercise here to stir up emotions. But I think it was necessary to get the actual point across.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
People who are not like me choose to bring about conditions that would necessarily tear down western ideals. This happens because they don't understand what western ideals are or where they come from.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
HAHAHA! What a wacky time! Glad we stopped doing that, right? Stares at you maniacally
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Shape rotating black guys with white guys doesn't really work since the two aren't the same. Which is highlighted by the obvious fictional nature used that denigrates Tyrone but then doesn't apply to Richard. Like being willing to violently confront and kill innocent people or being driven by malicious envy or vengeance.
In fact the actual story hits so hard since it's functionally the inverse of the Columbia style racist fiction that's been pushed on white America since the 60's. Where the assumption is that otherwise good and capable black people are being passed up because of their race, or in favor of a racial ideology that is malicious, wasteful and unfair to good people. It's practically the entire script.
But instead of a Hollywood happy ending where our hero inner city black lawyer is the only one who knows the racist nature of the criminal justice system well enough to be able to save a bigoted old white man who's been wrongfully charged, and then the bigot cries in the end for having been so evil racist and wrong his entire life, our hero just kills themselves. Because this isn't Hollywood and there are no magical negroes.
The actual negroes in their quest for racial justice are out there knocking white women out for sport, despite somehow having been arrested 9 times prior in a span of 34 months for various violent offenses including assault with a deadly weapon.
Hunt was talking about a "real issue" in a separate video that was filmed on July 21, where he was walking past a woman who was holding a "get well" balloon. “Nah, don’t wave to me,” Hunt yelled at the woman, going on to knock her to the ground. The 220-pound repeat criminal hovered over the woman, striking her face multiple times as she lay motionless on the ground, screaming the n-word at her.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
When Iran's neighbors ally with the people bombing Iran, shelter them in their countries, allow them to build bases and collect intelligence and sometimes even launch strikes from their countries then they're not neutral. Iran threatening to stop shipping and proportionally retaliate where they can is not a Samson option strategy at all.
Israel and American also arms and train militias everywhere. So do some of the Gulf states. Iran is doing nothing that a rational geopolitical actor wouldn't do in that environment.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Defining Americas enemies based on their reaction to a foreign policy that exists in the service of foreign interest and not the American people is nonsensical. They're not the enemy of America. They're the enemy of zionism.
There's nothing anti-American about the events you mention. They're a rational response to a hostile foreign policy dictated by foreign agents. Meanwhile Iranian citizens, despite everything, continue to hold favorable views on American culture.
Odd geopolitical enemy that. Almost like what I said on the outset is just completely true. Unless you define every nation that isn't a puppet to America as a geopolitical enemy, Iran simply doesn't qualify.
It's so silly. They're our geopolitical enemy because we bombed them! Why did we bomb them? Well, for the interest of a foreign entity. Oh... What makes them our enemy then? Well, after we bombed them, they bombed us! Oh... Would they have bombed us if we had not bombed them? No? Well what an odd geopolitical enemy to have. Like calling a hedgehog a predator because they can hurt those who try to eat it.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
They take hostages only to return them. Bomb army bases during wartime, sometimes giving a warning beforehand, attack neutral shipping as a last ditch defense deterrent and fund militia groups region wide as a response to decades of proxy wars and terror campaigns being waged against them and the entire Middle East. Principally by the US and Israel at the behest of zionists.
There is no ground for calling them an enemy of America unless you define America as an arm of zionism. As the continued actions the the US in the region are not in any way representative of the interests of American people and only make sense in the context of zionist ideology.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Yeah if you make up novel definitions no one else shares you can try to claim to win the argument a priori.
Basing the interests of a nation on the nationals that live there and what benefits them? Novel indeed.
Iran is one of America’s greatest geopolitical enemies and has been for decades. They take Americans hostage, bomb American bases, attack neutral ships and fund terrorist networks throughout the Middle East.
Not a single one of those examples can stand under any scrutiny. Unless you define every nation that isn't a puppet to America as a geopolitical enemy. Which is coincidentally what zionists are wont to do.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
I'm adding the context you perpetually leave out to maintain your rhetoric. If America is winning a war that is of no benefit to anyone but zionists then I don't fully subscribe to the notion that 'America' is winning given the nature of the conflict.
Following that: when you narrowly define 'America' as just being a measuring stick for whether zionism is better or worse off, then you can say just about anything regardless of what is actually of benefit to American people.
America’s leverage is growing This is bad news for everyone but America
How has the 25 year middle East adventure benefited Americans? Let's clarify some things. America in your context is just US foreign policy as dictated by zionists. No American person living an American life sees benefit from any of this. This is just money out of their pocket. The ZOG of America has more leverage in the middle east now. That's the actual extent of your definition of victory. In other areas, that operate on non-zionist assumptions, America is worse off along with the rest of the world.
You can just say America is winning and you wish they lost because you’re on Iran’s side. That’s more respectable than whatever this is.
That would be the opposite of what I am saying though. Beyond that I would not give a penny for what you think is respectable given your glee in cheerleading for this war.
If you could simply make children out of GDP going up you would have a point. But that is not the case. And as far as I can tell the 'good' see little reason to care, and would rather short circuit the system with mass immigration and mass female employment, since it's much easier and they can make more money that way in the short term. Every other effect, including the baby boom, was secondary.
The most crucial thing the third Reich promised and delivered on, for the short time it existed outside of wartime, was an increase in births. Low birthrates were already a looming threat back then, and the threat was met and dealt with. To that extent there is no indication that they would have stopped doing that. On top of that I would argue that the claims of the German economy relying on slave labour are quaint Libertarian fiction. Germany is, after all, the most industrially and technologically proficient nation on earth. To assume they would rely on labour camps in perpetuity is childish at best. Similarly, the term 'extraction based economy' is just silly. Every economy importing raw materials is extraction based. But if you happen upon resources during wartime that are necessary for your wartime economy, what do you do? 'Not extract' them? Again, to assume the Germans would have settled on a perpetual wartime economy is quaint Libertarian fiction.
Aside from that I don't see your point. Was Russia not on the good side in WW2? The entire war was practically a war between Russia and Germany! My argument applies equally to both the European West and the East. In fact one could argue the 'good' side winning is directly at fault for dooming the East to suffer under the Soviet Union.
You, me and every migrant on earth can enjoy those very same benefits at your expense. Hence why the EU is burning down one way or another. I'd prefer to burn it down before the rot reaches the nursery. And personally I'm tired of hearing stories from my new coworkers of how they walked from Turkey to Austria, before taking a plane ride to my hometown.
As far as you want to personalize the excellence of the EU nations, I want to tell you that you suck. There is no coming back from what is going on today.
I don't disagree. Which is why I don't understand the veneration of the 'good' side, given we see the disastrous consequences of their supremacy. Your nations, culture and people are living on borrowed time for reasons no one can articulate. Is it greed? Corruption? Power? All anyone can say when asked why this is the case is to backpedal towards Hitler and how he was evil and therefor, by defeating Hitler we are good no matter what comes after. That's a pretty cheap rubric to fall under, in my view.
More options
Context Copy link