hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
No, it's the same institutions that brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. Made obvious by how vague and obscure everything about this conflict is. Which is one of the problems highlighted in the Afghanistan Papers, but was also intuitively obvious regarding Iraq. Why invade Iraq? Because of 9/11. Except they had nothing to do with 9/11. Well, the WMD's! Except there were none and Saddam had already accepted investigators to confirm they had gotten rid of all of those. Well, the oil! Saddam was already providing regional stability and selling it internationally. I could go on.
The US was using the exact same tactic back then as they are now, except the Venezuelans allow themselves to be bought, whilst the Taliban did not. Iranian officials seem to not be accepting any bribes at a broad scale. So what alternatives do US strategists possess?
We are still waiting on the results of this conflict, but as it stands I see no reason to believe there is anything different going on. A thousand people can analyze a hammer, that won't make it any better at screwing. All we've seen so far is the hammer. I'm still waiting to see the screwdriver.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
We have established two important things that we agree on:
-
Civilian casualties bad, but will happen in war.
-
We need a good reason to go to war, partly because civilian casualties bad.
The two points of contention were:
-
Why do the Iranians and Syrians deserve civilian casualties.
-
What will be the result of Europe turning the refugees away.
Neither of these were answered.
What I'm looking for is a distinction between the good and the bad. Why, for instance, was Oct. 7 bad? Or 9/11? If genocide is a militarily winning strategy, was the holocaust bad?
You might want to stop me here and mention that these questions don't need to have moral answers. Things happen. The causal chain of events that drives us towards our next disaster is too vast and complex for such simple terms. And I'm perfectly willing to recognize the salience of that position. But until that is done consistently, is there any reason for me to do so? Because the mainstream line has been that all of the above were bad, Iran also bad and that America is morally good. It is especially when America is doing morally bad that geopolitical realism is trudged out, claiming that, in reality, America needs to do bad to ultimately do good!
But even then. If we set morals aside, this Iran incursion can hardly be considered a positive move on the geopolitical side of things. If worst come to wear and there is a big refugee crisis, everyone knows Europe wont say no. They will let them in. Nations that are in a very precarious position demographically. Economies facing all manner of crises. This is practically every single modern ally the US has. How can this be justified?
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
This rhetoric of asserting I am Europe and that you are America is beyond juvenile.
I asked you a question. What is the option for Europe regarding the refugees of the wars America is engaging in on behalf of Israel? Kill them all? Let them starve on the border? Create a humanitarian crisis in Jordan and Turkey? What should they do.
Who in Europe asked America to get involved in Iran? As if there aren't enough problems with energy over there. America is in Iran because of Israel. Rubio openly said so.
Look I say this with love for Europe but it’s actually not all America’s fault here. However much blame you want to give us you are a continent of sovereign peoples, some of this is actually your fault
Some of what? What is the think that you are talking about here?
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
Trump has known about Kharg Island for 40 years so therefor I should not be skeptical or pessimistic about the still undetermined goal of a plan that would be drawn together by the same institutions that brought us Iraq one and two, Afghanistan, Lybia and Syria.
I'm willing to wait five weeks and be proven wrong. As I said before, worst case scenario they are throwing shit at a wall hoping that it sticks. That doesn't change the underlying contention here. Which is that there is no stated goal with regards to this invasion. So how would one be able to judge the strategic salience of any action?
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
This sounds like genocidal lunacy. What on earth did the average Iranian or Syrian do to deserve any of this? What should Europe do in the face of a giant refugee crisis? Create a humanitarian disaster in Jordan and Turkey? Let them starve at the border? Shoot them if they do anything else?
Maybe I'm being to hasty and my instinctive revulsion to your point of view is just a matter of ignorance on my part. Why do you say such things?
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
Two more weeks, trust the plan? Short term pain, long term gain? It feels like I'm tuned in to the news cycle alright.
The US bombs or captures Kharg Island, halting 90% of Iran's oil processing and then what? The Iranians throw in the towel? Strike a peace with the US and Israel and we can all go home to for peace and prosperity? Genuinely, maybe that can happen. One can hope. But it sounds silly.
Or will it be another slow grinding down of conditions for human life in Iran, just like in Syria? Or will we repeat Iraq? How many women and children did those sanctions under Albright kill? Half a million? We're not even counting the invasions yet. How many refugees did Syria net the world?
I'll reserve me some pessimism, if based on nothing other than the cavalier attitude people can have toward human life and the future of their own allies.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
You could stop bombing them where they live, for starters. That would stop them.
I was recently working with a Palestinian who had walked from Turkey to Austria, applied to refugee status, got rejected by all except one country and voila, now there is a family of 8 living in my town. Why did he spend 2 years away from his family, walking across Europe? He showed me pictures of his old house, and then again when it was just a pile of rubble on the ground. Then how the conditions in the camp in Turkey were shit. It was no place for raising a family. So he sought a better life.
What is the option for Europe here? Kill them all? Let them starve on the border? Create a humanitarian crisis in Jordan and Turkey? The situation is completely ridiculous. If Iran doesn't withstand this, we will be seeing a refugee crisis that will dwarf everything else.
Hell, no matter what, in less than 100 years we can expect a sizeable enough muslim majority in Britain to take relevant political control.
Honestly, I can't take your rhetoric seriously. If Europe wants to destroy themselves? The cold hard American realist can apparently just scoff. As if a Muslim majority country with fully functional nuclear submarines that can launch strikes anywhere in the world is a neutral development.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
By your logic it seems Trump is picking 'Islamize all your allies through mass refugee crises'. Which is the result of pretending that after the war ends, everyone just goes back home. America is doing a lot worse than pretend.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
Sounds like more bad news for oil prices.
At worst we are seeing a slow but emerging strategy of just running Iran into the ground like with Syria and all the rest. Where sub par targets get selected due to a lack of better options. The decision makers have to make decisions, after all.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
Oswald Mosley had a rousing speech about standing at the precipice of history. Which for the most optimistic of us might be where we imagine JD Vance is standing. I took the liberty of slightly editing it to fit America. Though it sounds a lot better after being edited by what appears to be some Polish nationalist living in the UK.
You're living in a historical hour. Do remember that always, live in that sense, I beg of you, of history and of destiny.
When that period comes to be written and men look back at it, if we did right, if we stood firm, if we stood greatly, it will be a matter of honour and veneration for generations to come. I could not ask to live at any other moment of history than this, because never has mankind, never has the human species been confronted with such possibilities, with such choices of disaster, or of greater heights and greater glories.
My friends, do live in that sense that you are American, that you come from people who have faced tremendous odds again and again. That much is against you, but you've got within you that will, that spirit above all, that faith and that belief which will lead the generations to come to look back at you in the pages of history with the proud words to America, to Europe, to the world, they were true!
Sadly, if one thinks back to Mosley's day, none then could even imagine just how much worse things could and would get. In that sense JD Vance has not demonstrated any characteristic that would lead one to think he is anything other than a less charismatic Trump. And things might get a lot worse than we think.
I would withhold any positivity until he proclaims he will personally start executing the worst violent criminals in the US right on the White House front lawn with a gold plated 1911. Or maybe I've been seeing to many rage baits here and on X about criminals with mile long records getting released again and again for some mystical reason. In any case, he has to do something. Being as he is, I can't see it as being enough.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
I appreciate the sentiment of this comment. We can direct all Iran war discourse directly at phailyoor.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
Can you not minimize the thread instead? Splitting the small userbase is bad for discourse.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
When your alleged strategy is that of regime change with the popular support of the people it seems like a rather big strategic mistake to bomb an elementary school filled with kids.
To that extent the people doggedly doling out wisdom on the cold hard realities of war seem to just be coping. To what end I do not know.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
It's all performative though. Hating them is like hating a piñata. Much the same as cheering for them is. Their personas don't represent anything real.
For instance, Stephen Miller has been doing his aggressive anti-immigration schtick for over a decade. Through 2 administrations. Where is immigration in the US today? The same place it has been for the last decade.
Hegseth has been representing the tough guy nothing but business soldier in charge. Yet the US starts a war in the middle east at the behest of Israel that is of no discernable benefit to the US.
Trump, the guy who promised to cut down on immigration and not do any wars in the middle east has resided over all of this. And people still boo or cheer this on as if it where a WWE wrestling match.
It's just so overbearing. As if Trump bending the knee to the Heritage Foundation in his first term wasn't enough, he's been talking about how illegals can stay if they are working. ILLEGALS. Has this rhetoric changed the tune of the left at all regarding orange hitler? Not one bit.
And on the flipside, Obama killed plenty of innocent families. I don't think a department of million men could get anyone to care about dead middle easterners past a single news cycle regardless of who the president is. America really does not care.
What is anyone even cheering for or against? On the ground numbers show no relevant change in any relevant aspect. The American machine is chugging along as usual on its slow downward spiral. And getting anyone to care about that reality is like pulling teeth out of a donkey.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
Yeah. I guess I'm just not geopolitically tuned in enough to intuitively understand what 'improvement' looks like or for who. So far the track record of US 'improvement' in the middle east has been lackluster to say the least, so I'd argue some pessimism is warranted.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
I'm not sure anyone is arguing the war is good for Iran. More that it's not good for anyone else either. So if the US wants to settle for being the undisputed king of the decimated third world they can do that. But if that's all they can do one has to admit that the shine of the US empire has dampened a little bit.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
The caveats, disclaimers, inb4's and all the rest are impressive in their meticulousness. Same goes the '300' ways. I think that, whilst kind of autistic, it manages to speak in rhythm and terms that could easily reach a masculine minded woman. Which a lot of feminists are.
That being said, in a grander scheme of the old feminist/manosphere culture war, it's also just a very clever guideline for feminists to use as verbal cover to further chastise men for creating the patriarchy that harms women AND men. To that extent I'm not sure to where this work moves the needle.
I still see modern non-radical feminists trudge out long lists of half truths and outright lies about the plights of women and how unfair society is to them, punctuated by a much shorter list of how men die in wars and are homeless. This is a distinct change from the early internet feminist rhetoric that did not have the aforementioned punctuation, but any honest observer can tell that the feminist heart really isn't in it by the time they get to the mens issues. It's just an obvious inb4 to ward off the ghost of Warren Farrell and the likes. This fact invokes the broader question of why feminists have a hard time empathizing with men.
You are approaching the issue from a factual angle. They simply don't know enough about men and their experiences, so they can't see their pain. And how could they? They are not men, and most men aren't exactly advertising their emotional turmoil. From that perspective this book is theoretically perfect. Here is the list! But on the flipside, this blindside has been there for a while. So one could half jokingly wonder: Could the feminists not have asked?
This leads to the more pessimistic view of feminism. What's at the heart of feminism is ingroup bias. Ingroup bias felt by women for other women. Men are the outgroup. You don't empathize with the outgroup. Simple as.
From that perspective the book can at worst simply invoke cognitive dissonance. Like writing a book aimed at Christians to garner sympathy for the devil. But at best it can act as a sort of battering ram to knock down the fake reality of a radical feminist who has maybe spent too many college years engaging in performative man hating lesbianism.
At any rate, my personal critique of the position of the book and the modern state of 'masculinity' in the gender war is that it conforms to women, women's emotions, women's understanding of emotions and seeks to better men in a direction that conforms to womens conception of progress. In a crass 4chan post that I'll try to succinctly paraphrase in two sentences:
Never lift for women, and having sex with women is gay because pleasing women is gay.
That's an obvious hyperbole, but behind it is a kernel of truth. All men lift weights to look better to have better chances with women because they want to have sex with them. Working hard, flashy cars, big house, everything. In a word it's all peacocking. Men fighting other men to win the attention of floozy HOPS who are playing the same game against each other.
In such a world both sides of the gender war reach a similar conclusion, the only form of true love is gay. Because men/women aren't there to ruin it. But most men are rather repulsed by masculine homosexual activity, and the sexual boredom of lesbianism and repressed heterosexuality eventually kills the rebellious radfem lesbian that lives inside an otherwise surprisingly conservative young woman.
The only active players trying to work society out of this predicament are traditionalist religious types. They hold no real power or answers to any of the problems faced by the modern man and women other than hopes and prayers, and the insurmountable fact that if you wont overstep your own emotions and hangups regarding the opposite sex you will never have children and will grow old, bitter and finally extinct.
I'm not sure if there exist any gender reconciliation movements on the left outside of 'Not my Nigel', but the world could certainly use one. As I would prefer a government that could both reconcile the sex wars and not invade Iran.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
I don't understand the relevance of the difference you point at. The point is working men look at media where the success of public prostitution is advertised and they respond with a series of doomposting, copes and other dismay. Something about it fundamentally emotionally affects them.
How? Why would they do that? You don't own the scenes.
By asking the publisher. Professional porn production is a small world. Most want to keep a good reputation with former or would be actors. There are also laws regarding personal privacy. If you've quit for a few years you can easily make a case that your privacy is being harmed by the publication of pornographic material involving you.
I am sure there are a few kids who have had a hard time because their moms did porn. But there are also a lot of pornstars no one remembers or sees. The notion that they will all be facing hard times just isn't accurate. In fact most of them wont.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
Yeah, yeah.
From Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, and the Frankfurt school adjacent work on prejudice and later mass propaganda, you have the academic underpinnings of the modern anti-white paradigm. As documented in detail by Kevin MacDonald and Andrew Joyce, these were jewish intellectual movements. Their influence is not just felt in various adjacent fields but their lies are still explicitly taught as fact in many.
To make a long story short, the majority of people have no conception of where the world they live in comes from, why it exists how it does or who made it to be that way. Black people just disproportionally appear in advertisements because... They just do! It's not as if there was a giant jewish academic movement centered around deconstructing 'white prejudice' through mass propaganda. That would be insane.
Academics in social sciences think racial categorization in humans is a social construct because... They just do! It can't be that there was a giant jewish academic movement centered around deconstructing biological distinctions between humans. That would be insane.
On top of that there exist large political movements driven by jewish intellectuals on both sides of the political isle that center around either explicit or implicit jewish interests. The Civil Rights movements and Marxism on the left, and the Neoconservative movement on the right. Both sides have supported mass immigration, of course.
It's hard to argue this, as jews have a very high nose for their own excellence. Anything bad that happens as a consequence of their self centered advocacy is just collateral damage in the wake of their righteous ethnic ego. If they even dare admit as much to themselves.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
The feelings of blue collar workers are not invalid just because they are not in the top 1%. I don't understand where that contention comes from.
They're not looking at engineers or sports stars going 'life is so unfair, this economy is a joke, how could these people make more money than me'. They are seeing prostitutes publicly sexually denigrating themselves on camera and making millions and it revolts them on some level.
If your argument is that they should not feel what they feel because of a wage comparison between clue collar workers and prostitutes then you are missing the point of the contention. Because it's not just about the money.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
How about, you are Indian, think you are Indian, see others as Indian or not Indian, and act with indignance and arrogance at the mere suggestion that European people should not be ethnically replaced by infinity Indians.
To that extent I have no opinion of Indians other than they are not my kind. They work toward their own benefit and see themselves as worthy of whatever privilege they can find in any country they reside in. And that's enough for me to not want them. They, similar to every other ethnic group I can gripe about, have no reverence or care for preserving the native populations. To that extent, like jews being parasites that weaken it, and browns being locust that devour it, you would be a symbiote that slowly but surely outnumbers the organism you engage with until there's nothing left but you. Not overtly hostile, not overtly threatening, just a slow inevitability of numbers.
But those descriptive differences are all irrelevant to the ultimate point that none of these groups care about the existence or wellbeing of the organism they are interacting with. They, theirs and their needs always come first. There's no understanding of where the natives are coming from, no recognition of what they've done and overcome. It's just an infinite struggle session of browns fighting tooth an nail for any privilege they feel should be granted to them. With no recognition or respect for the needs of the other.
I genuinely hoped that Indians were just westerners with brown skin. That they could emotionally intuit and understand the importance of recognition and respect for the continued existence of other peoples. But no, Nationalism is for Indians. Ethnic pride is for Indians. India is for Indians and so to is every other country in the world. And if you disagree, how could you! Don't you understand the plight of Indians!
It's just wild to me. I can't imagine ethnically replacing another group of people. Yet the majority of the planet seems to think it's OK if they do it to others. There's just no thought or care.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
That's who the blue collar workers are comparing themselves to when they see news about the latest OnlyFans sensation making millions in a week or Bonnie Blue sucking off a small township. It's not just about the money but how you get it.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
I don't think it should. There has always been a large portion of the red tribe that's seeped in outlandish conspiracy theory. They have to go somewhere.
Even then, the things they believe are, to me at least, no more outlandish than believing infinity immigration is a good thing or that evolution in humans stopped at the neck.
There are also a ton of Youtubers who don't do Patreon. I think her popularity makes sense once you factor in the Qanon market. There might very well be bots, but there are also a lot of conspiratorially minded Americans...
I'm comparing things generally considered to be bad by Americans with the morally neutral geopolitical framework supplied by LazyLongposter. Which I think he is using to selectively justify Americans doing things we all known are morally bad.
As he stated, the US could have won the war in Vietnam had they just intentionally bombed the civilians harder. But because doing such things is too awful in the eyes of the public, the US stopped. Using that morally neutral standard, what is the problem with the holocaust? Killing your enemy is a winning strategy. Is it better to starve to death in camp than it is to be burned alive in a firestorm that was intentionally created by dropping incendiary bombs on wooden residential areas?
More options
Context Copy link