hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Alas, he can’t come out and fire the transitioned member without losing corporate sponsorship and reputation.
He would also be losing a friend. Regardless of anything else, sticking by your friends is admirable. Especially when it actually hurts.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Not to be too much us vs them but reading some of the comments on that thread...
If you imagine a total opposite of Julius Branson, you get these sort of posters. Instead of making ten alts to continue the war effort, they buckle under the pressure of ten downvotes. But what they lack in tenacity they make up for with narcissism. So unlike Branson they engage in a cold war in their own minds, not having any tenacity or alts to rely on, until they can post some narcissistic masochistic historical revision about what 'happened' and why things are now worse since their 'status' was not respected. I've never read a more pathetic diatribe of self centered nonsense.
For the record I'd take a Julius Branson and five of his alts over any one of these whiners. Absolutely pathetic.
There has been a distinct and focus driven propaganda effort to marginalize certain peoples concept of an ingroup in the western world. More specifically, any concrete group like a nation or any concrete narrative of a shared suffering and hardship that has eventually been overcome together is, for certain groups, not allowed. The success of this propaganda leads to the conditions you describe.
You can't be angry at immigrants because there is no such thing. There can't be any immigrants since you don't exist. They are people, you are people. They live here now, you live here now. Without any sense of being you can't own anything. In clear terms: There is no you that can demand recompense without asserting, in some form, that you are owed more than the others. The quick and predictable reply to any of your supremacist assertions is the established fact that the Chinese real estate mogul that's lending out apartments for Indian workers is no less a human being than you are. Let alone the poor that are paying rent. You would have to be completely heartless as an individual to stand on your own two feet and maintain that your personal life is worth more than theirs on no greater grounds than because you feel that it is. (This is the base framing of every right winger in mainstream media since that's what they actually are when they buy into the propaganda)
If people had a sense of self and a coherent group identity they could demand, on the grounds of their common ownership of the land, that things change in their favor. Not as individuals but as a people. But if you reject that, you have nothing.
Most people in the west accept and regurgitate propaganda that is premised on the notion that they don't exist as an ingroup but rather an outgroup. At best they can defend themselves by appealing to the nihilistic universalism of money and 'common sense'. (As if it should make any sense to a Chinese person to privilege a bunch of Canadians from Europe. No, you pay rent. No rent, no house. That's common sense.)
I hope this makes enough sense to illustrate why I don't care about Canadians and their plight. I pity them, sure. I share a lot of their problems. But I can at least humble myself and recognize that the liberal humanist ideology I held as a young adult is deeply flawed. I was never a good person just because I felt I was selflessly tossing away notions of being a part of a coherent and exclusive group. I, in fact, wasn't being selfless at all. I simply otherized my ingroup and sense of self.
Canadians will be 'good people' with healthcare that tells them to kill themselves when the constant pressure of the cost of living finally breaks their back. And they will kill themselves, alone, isolated and suffering, because that's what a good Canadian would do in a world where we there is no such thing as a good Canadian. If you want to live, stop being a good Canadian.
I found her (Goldberg's) arguments to be the complete opposite of good straight from the get-go. The first point that stood out to me in her opening statement, that 'the media' is not 'ideologically captured' is just wrong. Like she doesn't understand what people are talking about. To reinforce her point she brings up the 'Red Wave' phenomenon the blue mainstream media were pushing in unison. A phenomenon that can be characterized entirely as 'I am afraid my enemy is going to win like they did last time'.
It seems to miss the point of what people have been saying about media bias. The point of the 'displeasure' of how the media was shilling for Hillary Clinton in 2016 wasn't that the media was saying that she was going to win. That was just a consequence of the actual problem. That problem being that 'the media' was obviously and completely in the tank for Hillary and an ill-defined political direction that we can code as 'blue'.
Because of this lack of understanding Goldberg's whole concept of 'over-correction' is just irrelevant at best. The media didn't 'correct' itself in any sense that relates to 'ideological capture'. It's still just as captured, just expressing itself differently. They recognized that they might have harmed 'the cause' and changed gears. They didn't change gears to correct their own beliefs. They changed gears so that they would stop harming the cause. From their perspective, in hindsight, it was obviously folly to say to your prospective voters that the election was in the bag. If you want to aid 'the cause' you must gin up your voters to vote. So you tell them that the enemy is mounting for an attack and that you must brace the gates, or you will lose everything you care about.
At risk of being too uncharitable to a person like this. Is she just that stupid? How can someone in her position look at this entire debacle, ongoing for years now, and still be so far off the mark? Is she a malicious actor?
She then moves into 'the big stories'. And says the mainstream media got most of them 'right'. She doesn't expand on what that means beyond that Trump and COVID where events that happened. Which, as a standard of 'rightness' doesn't seem to elevate mainstream media far above 'alternative' media but that's neither here nor there since she backpedals the argument a bit and says that you would be 'closer' to the 'truth' if you followed mainstream media and not 'alternative' sources. This is not really a truth apt claim since the 'truth' given out by blue media and non-blue media is simply not the same. This muddy language is then used to support her argument where she says that the hysteria ginned up about Trump was largely correct because January 6 happened. The problem here being obvious, one 'truth' says J6 was a coup attempt, the other 'truth' says it was a valid protest. If she is malicious, she is brilliant at what she does. If she isn't, she is an idiot savant at making stupid arguments.
I don't think you could underpin the concept of 'ideological capture' better that Goldberg does in her opening paragraphs of her opening statement. Not only does she demonstrate what it looks like, and that she is suffering from it. She also demonstrates that if blue journalists were fish, 'ideological capture' is the water they swim in. Lacking self-awareness to the point of absurdity.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Mayor Adams Announces Plan to Combat Retail Theft in New York City
NEW YORK – New York City Mayor Eric Adams today announced the release a comprehensive plan to combat retail theft across New York City’s five boroughs. With the exception of 2020, the total number of citywide shoplifting complaints has increased year over year since 2018, with the largest increase — 44 percent — taking place from 2021 to 2022. The increase in retail theft has had a particularly significant impact on retailers that are still recovering from the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Retail Theft Report — created through a collaborative effort between retailers, law enforcement, and other stakeholders that came together through a summit hosted by Mayor Adams at Gracie Mansion — includes both upstream, program-oriented solutions and enhanced enforcement efforts, as well as information on existing efforts across New York City agencies to combat retail theft.
From the Mayor himself:
“Last year alone, 327 repeat offenders were responsible for 30 percent of the more than 22,000 retail thefts across our city. This hurt our businesses, our workers, our customers, and our city. This plan will help us invest in diversion programs and in underlying factors leading to retail theft, works upstream to stop some of the factors leading to a crime before one takes place, trains retail workers in de-escalation tactics and security best practices, and takes numerous actions to increase necessary enforcement against repeat shoplifters and deter organized crime rings perpetrating these thefts."
The plan is detailed as follows:
-
Establish two new diversion programs — “Second Chance” and Re-Engaging Store Theft Offenders and Retail Establishments (RESTORE) — to allow non-violent offenders to avoid prosecution or incarceration by meaningfully engaging with services to help address underlying factors that lead to shoplifting.
-
Install resource kiosks in stores to connect individuals in need to critical government resources and social services.
-
Launch an employee support program to train retail workers in de-escalation tactics, anti-theft tools, and security best practices to help keep them safe in the event of an emergency and to support employees who have been impacted by thefts.
To increase necessary enforcement against repeat shoplifters and deter organized crime rings perpetrating these thefts, the administration will:
-
Create a Precision Repeat Offender Program (PROP) in which retailers can submit dedicated security incident reports to the NYPD to better identify and track repeat offenders and facilitate stronger prosecutions by the five District Attorneys’ Offices.
-
Establish a neighborhood retail watch for businesses in close proximity to one another to share real-time intelligence with each other and with law enforcement in the event of a theft. This program builds upon the NYPD’s Operation Safe Shopper initiative created under Mayor Adams’ leadership as Brooklyn borough president to expand video surveillance camera usage among participants.
-
Advocate at the state and federal level for additional online sale authentication procedures to prevent the resale of stolen goods to build upon the federal Integrity, Notification, and Fairness in Online Retail Marketplaces (INFORM) for Consumers Act, which goes into effect in June 2023.
-
Establish a New York City Organized Retail Theft Task Force, comprised of retailers, law enforcement agencies, and other stakeholders to collaborate and respond to retail theft trends.
From my end: What prompts this entire rigamarole in the first place? Why can't you just go to jail for repeat shoplifting?
On the other hand I have no relatable experience from my own environment with this sort of thing. Shoplifting was just something teenagers did to get a free Snickers, or the much more rare person stealing clothing. This kind of behavior seems so alien and weird. Can you really maintain 'normal' shopping culture with this sort of thing happening? Or will this be 'solved' by more technology and automation where the most you will see of what you buy is an image on a screen until you pay the machine. Moving us one step closer to real life idiocracy.
I came across an interesting X post by a right wing Christian religious man on the topic of young people and dating and would like to share:
Jack Reacher Won't Ask Girls to Dance
I’ve had a front-row seat to the social breakdown hitting our young people. You can see it in a lot of places, but one of the clearest examples came from a mom in our church who’s helped run a homeschool prom for several years. She told me something recently that I’ve been stewing on.
When she first got involved, it was normal for boys to ask girls to dance—especially during the “snowball” dances, where the DJ tells you to rotate partners every thirty seconds. That’s the whole point: go find someone new, talk, move, risk a little awkwardness.
But this year? The boys wouldn’t do it. They stood around, clumped up with friends, goofed off, and refused to initiate. Some danced with each other, ironically of course. Meanwhile, the girls were standing around the edge of the dance floor—waiting. Eventually, they gave up and started dragging each other onto the floor. Some even went over and tried to coax the guys to come out. It didn’t work. There were 2 girls for every guy.
The DJ repeatedly re-explained the rules and purpose. Didn’t matter. Nothing changed. He was baffled by it. It didn't use to be like this.
The next day, one of this mom’s younger daughters said something that sums it all up: “I’m graduating, and I’ve never danced with a guy.” Contrast that with her older sister, who just seven or eight years ago came home from prom having danced with seven or eight different young men in one evening.
Something’s shifted. It’s not just social anxiety or awkwardness. It’s paralysis. It’s absence. And yeah—it’s unsettling.
The same trend was the focus of a recent video from Charisma on Command, titled “This Shift in Masculinity Is Scary.” It uses the Reacher series on Amazon Prime as a cultural case study. Reacher is a walking male power fantasy: big, competent, calm under pressure, lethal in a fight. And yet, in the modern adaptation, he is oddly passive with women. He never initiates anything romantic. In fact, the women have to all but throw themselves at him just to get a kiss.
This isn’t how Reacher was written in the books. And it’s not how male leads used to behave. Go back and watch The Girl Next Door or Casino Royale. Whatever flaws those movies had, the men at least wanted something—and they acted on it. Desire was visible. Rejection was a possibility. And risk was part of the reward.
That’s what’s missing now: initiative. Reacher has been reimagined into a man who wins without wanting. He gets the girl without having to pursue her. There’s no risk, no rejection, no emotional vulnerability. He’s strong in every arena except the one that requires personal agency.
And the problem is—it’s not just fiction. The video rightly points out that more and more young men are living like this in real life. They aren’t avoiding women because they’re ascetic or holy. They’re avoiding women because they’re afraid. Afraid of rejection. Afraid of misreading a situation. Afraid of being embarrassed, canceled, or misunderstood. So instead, they scroll. They lift. They build. They wait. They distract themselves endlessly, preparing for a moment they never plan to seize.
I thought this was overstated, but I digress.
It’s not that they don’t want anything. It’s that they’ve lost touch with how to act on what they want. They’ve been taught to suppress desire instead of disciplining it. They’ve learned that passivity feels safer than pursuit.
I used to think this was mainly a problem in my own circles. I’ve harped plenty on the socially stunted sons of Reformed households—the boys who can quote Theologians from memory but can’t make eye contact. But let’s be honest: this isn’t a Reformed problem. It’s a cultural one. We’re just producing our own brand of it.
A lot of young men today have rightly rejected the old “just be yourself” lie and embraced the call to “improve yourself.” That’s a good shift. You see more of them focusing on fitness, career goals, and personal discipline. But that growth often stalls out when it comes to relationships—especially with women. They’ve learned how to level up, but not how to move toward someone.
They’re told to develop themselves but warned off pursuit. So they become hesitant, uncertain, stuck. What’s needed now is the courage to carry that same sense of purpose into the social realm—to risk, initiate, and act with clarity and resolve, even when the outcome isn’t guaranteed.
So maybe we need to say this to our sons directly: If you like her, ask. If you want something, step up. If you get rejected, survive it. But don’t stand on the edge of the dance floor waiting for someone else to make the first move.
P.S. This is merely one angle of the dilemma. I know there are issues with the girls as well. Next time.
The replies to the post range from supportive and understanding to hostile. One that caught my eye said:
I genuinely mean no malice when I type this: this showed up on the time line, I got three paragraphs in, and thought "I bet this is a Based Pastor or something." A few seconds later I figured, girldad. I'm right on both counts.
You write effeminately. You don't seem to have any fellow feeling for young men as young men. Until you reckon with that, you and your dj are going to remain confused.
A 'girldad' has either all girls or a mix of boys and girls, and holds the girls to a standard that elevates them while holding the boys to a standard that denigrates them. It's why Con Inc. tells boys not to go to college and work in factories, and girls to work in STEM.
I like this reply since it has a little edge to it, but I am left wondering, to what extent does empathizing with young men just translate to validating their crippling anxiety and fear over interacting with the opposite sex? Does that do them any good? To me a lot of the replies about fear of getting 'cancelled' just seem like an overblown and hyperbolic expression of that anxiety and fear. The real question should be why that anxiety and fear exist in the first place. And to what extent the responsibility to overcome it rests on young men rather than someone else.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Perhaps after the end of Trump, the USA will be in a position where it can apply for readmission to the human race...
I'm no fan of the USA, but considering the rest of the world, that statement is not serious.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Had some trouble getting through the struggle session of TracingWoodgrains and Walt. Primarily because of how bad Walt's responses were.
No politically 'center' person called out how insane the anti-white politics are since they seem to lack to cognition to understand just what is going on. The principal 'center' response to anti-white hate is individual and verbal. The principal fuel for the fire that is ethnic tension is group based and emotional.
There are groups saying things where the direct implication is 'I hate you and want you to die'. They celebrate the suffering of your group and its demise. They believe firmly that when bad things happen to you it's a good thing, because you deserve bad things happening to you.
It reminds me of a TED talk, where the feminist geneticist lecturer or whatever is talking about the Y chromosome. She gets asked by a man about the Y chromosome disappearing. She laughs it off and says that whilst some women celebrate it, men have nothing to worry about since it won't disappear in at least 4 million years if trends continue.
I felt an emotional response to that question and answer. I realized I don't like the idea of men going extinct. I never thought about it but the idea that a grouping I am made a part of by others is doing poorly makes me feel bad. The idea that there are people out there who celebrate this makes me feel worse. It makes me feel like I have an enemy.
Now please realize that the feminist geneticist did not answer the actual contention of the topic at hand. There are women out there, credentialed academics, holding positions of power, that hate my group so much they celebrate its ultimate demise. Me being told that, actually, extinction will not happen to you personally but rather in 4 million years, is not an answer relevant to the emotional turbulence the theory invokes. Since that turbulence is driven by the fact that there exist people today who are gleeful over the idea that 'bad' things happen to my group. However long in the future that badness will be.
Centrist critique of anti-whiteness takes issue with the expression. Alt-Right critique takes issue with the emotion.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Jordan Peterson positioned himself as that guy perfectly, aside from his age. Anti-feminist enough, but not overboard. Anti-establishment media in theory, but pro-everything they are doing in practice. Anti-radical politics that could otherwise influence or inspire young men. Focused on short term tangible real world goals like working and being reliable. Too bad he turned out to be a drug addict that raised a single mother who got railed by Andrew Tate but... eh. The hate he received is extraordinary even when he was the perfect Trojan horse that could potentially 'pacify' young men.
The alternative seems to be the 'cool' feminist types in internet media who are either fat, literal cucks, or in the throes of transitioning into womanhood. All on drugs, legal and illegal.
Can't wait to see what 'they' manage to cook up.
Suddenly everyone is a luddite.
I just finished listening to a radio show where the hosts, a young man and woman, were fretting over the potential dangers of AI. Even managing to make a mock AI radio broadcast. (That's exactly where the real danger is, by the way, very scary). They even talked to a very concerned NPR journalist who made it clear the potential AI takeover was no laughing matter and was a threat facing journalism that needed to be met head on. And the list just keeps growing of the various educated folk fretting over their potential obsolescence.
However, it seems rather late to say that we can't do X, Y and Z after the last 30 years of mass immigration. Why should the economic slot of 'actor' or 'journalist' be better protected than construction work? If there was automation possible in any blue collar labor it would be automated immediately. But gasp my CAREER? How dare they...
On top of that the movie industry is a cesspit of nepotism, greed and every nasty human impulse you can imagine. Sorry, I'm not all that miffed that the last 2% of the new Marvel picture that isn't CGI is going to be AI generated CGI of a Hollywood actor instead of the real life unholy blend of nepotism and narcissism in human form. (they're so lifelike, almost like a real human beings)
And for opposite end of the movie industry I'm not all that bothered by the proposition that 'movies are art' or whatever. If I want real Hollywood art I can find it AI generated depicting the various Oscar nominated actresses attempting to suck on Harvey Weinsteins deformed penis, next to a compilation of them thanking him during their Oscar acceptance speech. Followed by their #metoo headlines where they claimed it was all rape. (No trade back though)
I'm ready for the hostile AI takeover of modern high culture. Crossing my fingers that the AI version of a man in a dress trying to sell me beer is more palatable than the real one.
It's the same thing that been going on in Sweden and France for a long time. Just to name examples I know of.
Reporting on crime increases ethnic tensions. The role of media, as dictated by the state, is to decrease ethnic tensions. (Ethnic tension translates to white people being angry they are being robbed, raped and killed by foreigners.)
Solution? Stop reporting on crime. But some media outlets don't play along. There's now a market for ethnic tension news. So the state swoops in and stops recording stats. The natives are no longer capable of expressing their anger at being raped and murdered. As their emotions can not find any external resonance in society. Liberal representative democracy has solved the problem!
Demonic pigskin talking about bringing back slavery. Fuck the "norms" you deserve to killed fuck you cracker bitch
Now this is the kind of energy holocaust deniers need to cultivate. Proactive. Assertive. 'The holocaust didn't happen, but keep citing Nizkor and it might! Right here, right now!'
I've long felt that the reason progressives and similarly minded don't do well here is that the ruleset is kind of stacked against them. They argue differently. It's a lot more emotional and haughty. It challenges you on a different level. It's more personal. And, frankly, it's also more earnest and fun. They're more viscerally and honestly channeling their emotions through text.
But the flipside of that is well... everyone else can also do that. So whilst this might not be the venue for that kind of clash, I'd also ask, do you really want it to be? I have had faith in some progressives I've argued with. Their wit and tenacity was impressive, if nothing else. But are you one of them? If this is all you can muster before crashing out then I don't fancy your chances.
You're getting a fair amount of sympathy because you're black. I don't understand why. Your post was probably the worst thing one can write and I find everyone coddling you to be absurd to a point where I barely have the heart to engage with it.
Now I know my outburst was against the rules, it was uncivil, I was reacting with anger, and I knew at the time I'd get banned for it. But I don't know, when I see someone essentially laying out a justification for bringing back slavery, how am I supposed to respond, as a black person?
If white people can muster the strength to walk past all the white victims of black crime without just calling every black person the n-word all the time, I think you should be able to do something comparable when one of the whites finally has enough and allows themselves to verbally wonder in a scarcely populated recess of the internet whether this whole civil rights thing was worth it.
Comically, your reply was probably the least dignified and most validating argument in favor of such skepticism possible. You offer no sympathy, no understanding, just go straight into the most selfish and aggressively verbalized ingroup/outgroup pathology possible. Leaving no room for interpretation other than that there will be no sympathy for the white devil. He shall continue to give life and limb to the continuous project of racial reconciliation in America to the benefit of your ingroup pathology.
I can't imagine a position less deserving of sympathy than yours. Why you are receiving any is, again, absurd.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
It's not just the presence of these events, it's the absence of others.
I remember being shocked as a kid when a bad guy in CSI: Miami turned out to be black. In almost every other case it was some sort of white person. And oh boy was it righteous and great when a white man tried to frame an innocent black man and got caught because of it. Gave an immense justice infused confirmation bias high to my progressive young self.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The Internet was full of a bunch of socially awkward, socially shunned nerds, and the Internet offered them a venue not only to express themselves, but also vent their frustrations. Once Facebook arrived upon the scene, the Net was colonized by a bunch of privileged progressive whites who began imposing their cultural norms on geek culture - a form of colonization.
I disagree with this narrative a lot.
tl;dr: it's not the normies that fought the old internet and won. It's the lolcows.
Old internet places were normie-proof. The first and most simple reason for this was that normies have lives to live, no-life internet losers do not. So in any given area the internet culture was always dictated by the no-lifers since they are always there.
A secondary reason is emergent culture. When similar people engage with one another, you get a form of culture. These people were, back in the day, no life white dudes. The cultural expression was indirectly just young white men. Not being that sticks out like a sore thumb.
The third reason is that caring is weak. If you care about something you can be made fun of. If you value something it can be desecrated. So in order to be bulletproof you can't care about anything.
The thing that killed these places and led to the 'New Internet' we have today were a few things. Primarily it was different kinds of no-lifers mixed with grifters mixed with weak men with power. /v/ after GamerGate is a great example. Grifters create drama, no-lifers join in to point and laugh, weak men with power, i.e. mods and moot, side with grifters and /v/ is turned into a 'no fun allowed' zone since weak mods are enticed by grifters.
That wouldn't be enough to kill everything off though. The second nail in the coffin can be seen with reddit. Starting with places like SRS. It turns out super motivated no-lifers who obsessively care are much better than unmotivated no-lifers who have made it their entire thing to not care at all. Especially when the weak men with power are completely ready to abandon fun in favor of attention from women, since that happens to be a thing men care about a lot regardless of what they say on the internet.
The third nail in the coffin was the 'New Internet' realizing that having no-lifers on the internet laugh at you doesn't matter all that much. Sure it hurts, and the old no lifers can get under your skin and create better internet memes and whatever. But in real life they have no power. So what does it matter? Just ban, laugh, and lie. The old truth can never reach anyone that way.
The final nail is simply that you can out-no-life the old no-lifers. No one is 16-25 forever. Sooner or later real life rears its head and you stop being permanently online. And for a lot of white men that happens. But what if you are a professional no-lifer? What if you are way past thirty and your entire life revolves around modding the biggest social media sites? The ultimate NEET lifestyle so coveted by the old no-lifer. Living rent free in real life. But instead of the old idealism of just playing video games, going to the gym and buying the occasional hooker, you intend to enforce your will unto the internet with ideological fanaticism and fervor that defies reality and reaches depths of depravity so great that no shock documentaries of hoarders or maniacal weirdos even come close.
The new internet is the lolcow. And they make sure anyone who laughs gets the stick.
If you want a glimpse of the future, look at Call of Duty. A bunch of transparent grifters running around a multi billion dollar game franchise desperate to please the lolcow community managers so they can get more power, status and money to continue grifting off of the sub-100 IQ brown normie playerbase. The entire thing is so degenerate and disgusting I have no words to describe it. But it's the norm.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
These articles are the dumbest thing. There's seemingly an entire industry of women giving men bad advice on whatever topic women know nothing about. 'Masculinity' is probably the worst one. What is only slightly less worse is the retreading of ground everytime it comes up. Where people pretend 'masculinity' is even a thing.
You are not your grandfather or great grandfather when it comes to physicality, but you are your grandfather when it comes to your brain.
In the 1940's a bunch of American soldiers came to Iceland to occupy it due to WW2. The social consequences where that of Icelandic women falling for the exotic soldiers. This became recognized as a social phenomena. Icelandic men didn't like it, Icelandic women didn't care insofar as there were no consequences. Given that the occupation forces almost outnumbered the male population of Iceland there was plenty of Icelandic male 'hysteria' surrounding the issue.
I like that example since it gives way to some very obvious truths. It doesn't matter how 'masculine' you are. There is no objective barometer. If the woman wants you then that's that. If she doesn't, you eat shit. No matter how much you work, no matter how big your hands and forearms get, you are always liable to be outcompeted and women will never apologize for choosing what they want. This is a competition. Be a winner, not a loser. Because believe me, you will never work as hard as an Icelandic farmer in the 1930's.
Similar story to be heard from Japan after the war. Was this veteran turned beggar not masculine enough? Did he not prove his worth? Fighting for the cause? No, because he's a loser.
You can replace the nerd lore of this guy with all the nonsense of 'becoming masculine' or in any way 'worthy'. It's the same dude otherwise.
Not to sound too much like something from MEMRI TV but in a world where a woman is opining on how men should best prove themselves to win her affection there is no 'masculinity'. Just pathetic men with no control over their society.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
This theory, similar to the latest Matrix movie, describes a sort of rebellion of the artist against the industry, medium and ultimately the audience. Like a band that is tired of playing their hit song again and again so they instead smash their instruments to close out the show.
To me it's always felt petty, childish and self absorbed. A critique I'd levy against many modern artists. Worse yet, it implies that the artist is above the audience. That they know how to make something great, but are choosing not to. Which is simply not true.
The proposition that the Wachowskis could make another thought provoking Matrix movie is unfounded. The proposition that Rian Johnson could make a great Star Wars movie is unfounded. If either had teased that they could deliver exactly the kind of experience everyone wanted, but instead took it all away at the end, then they would at least have the merit to call themselves trolls. But they could not muster even that. Worse yet, neither managed to rebel at all against the industry that owns them.
The Wachowskis were goaded into making another subpar action flick that could make Warner Brothers some money. Rian Johnson tried to sour the new to protect the old, but all we get is an endless stream of crap so bad the old gets stained with it anyway. Rian intentionally making a bad movie changed nothing, he just got the 'sub par directors makes shitty Star Wars slop' party started early.
This type of endeavor is perfectly described here.
In an age of mediocre slop and mass produced thoughtless timewasting, the rebellion is making something good, deep, pure and thoughtful. But Rian can't do that. Maybe he lacks the talent, maybe he was constrained by the industry, or maybe the mass audience is simply too fractured, deracinated and mentally fried to ever be reached with a meaningful message, or maybe it's something else. In any case, as an artist in a world of slop, Rian isn't above anything or anyone so long as he participates.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Immigration discussion is two faced. You are either talking personally about individual people, in which case the average conflict averse person will have nothing bad to say to anyone's face, or you are talking broad statistical trends that factor over larger populations, in which case the argument against immigration is a very clear and resounding 'not very good'.
These two positions are held at the same time, but never in the same room.
The Communist Party supports the right of trans people to live free from discrimination and prejudice. This attempt to change the law does nothing for their access to health, medical, housing, advisory and other services sensitive to their needs.
It's a very 'conservative' mealy-mouthed statement that seems desperate to look for an excuse to not put themselves behind placing men into womens prisons. Here's a pro-tip for center liberals and the CPB: If you say you are in favor of trans rights, open your eyes and recognize that these are men asking for the rights and privileges of women. If you are in favor of that don't act shocked or walk back your support or hide behind excuses when those men take advantage of those rights and privileges.
Worries about legal implications and consequences for the broader system are, in activist terms, called growing pains. To give an example of this, the desegregation implementation in the US impacted prisoners a lot. We are talking untold numbers of beatings, killings and rapes. All for racial justice. Similar stories can be found in British society and in British prisons as a consequence of immigration.
The morbid facts of those matters are not of any significant inconvenience to anyone who pushed for the policies of desegregation or immigration and integration. It's at best an inconvenient bump in the road that, in hindsight, should have been handled slightly differently, but never will be since doing so might make the whole thing look worse. But there's no grief there or anything. No one loses any sleep over it, ever. No matter how gruesome and horrifying the consequence of their advocacy was and continues to be. Most people never even think about it.
Compared to that, what is the worst case scenario here? What am I being asked to think and care about? A trans person rapes a woman in jail? Or, to put it in a way that is consistent with the CPB's own statement, a woman rapes a woman in jail? Sorry, compared to the rest of the progressive program, an increase in rapes in womens prisons isn't something I'm going to be losing sleep over. Nor should anyone in favor of desegregation or third world immigration if they in any way shape or form care about consistency. It's actually just a gender inclusive joke now. Don't drop the soap!
All in all, I find the whole clash between trans issues and womens issues to be highly illustrative of just how much more society cares for women than men. We are seeing strides towards gender equality that no MRA type could ever even have dreamt of. All off the back of a few guys who pretend to be women. Like, as a man, the actual mechanism for more equality is to pretend to be a woman.
Trouble in Paradise
A guilty hobby of mine is to follow up with the trad dating scene. Not so much the 'Real Housewives of Alaska' style, but in a more terminally online way where various trad talking heads air out their honest opinions on substack or X that then turn out to be dirty laundry to the opposite sex.
A part of the draw to this is the fact that outside of explicit gender warriors, a lot of the online right has ceded ground to the idea that traditionalism is the way to fight against the modern gender war. We need forgiveness and to look at the broader picture. 'The opposite sex can not be your adversary', 'we are in an age of strife and suffering' and so on.
That sounds good on paper. What are things like in practice?
A Dating Crisis in the Orthodox Church? A Woman's Perspective. Archived link.
tl;dr: A Church going Orthodox woman voices a complaint as old as time: The men aren't good enough. They need to step up.
The following article is pulled in part from conversations with other Orthodox women looking for a husband, from the survey of 41 responses from Orthodox women- recently married or engaged, conversations with my Priest and older married men, and my own personal experience.
Let's see the results:
“The problems shift with age. Younger women (17–25) often deal with immaturity, hygiene issues, or lack of physical attraction, aggressiveness, ghosting after “love-bombing”, or pressure to be sexual, then ghost when her boundaries of chastity are put up.
Women in their 20s (26–29) struggle most with compatibility, “too online” rigid orthobro energy, emotional instability, and financial unreadiness (i.e., a stable job or career that they feel would support a growing family).
Older women face a shrinking pool of men who also seem to want someone much younger, despite the men already being in their 30s or 40s. Often these are widows are women whose husbands have left them and have children. The single dads often still do not want to court them either.
Now... This all feels awfully familiar. Hanging a cross over our problems didn't make any of them go away. People who flock to a place that promises solution to their issues, usually have issues to be solved! It's clear that Traditionalism does not neutralize ordinary mating-market dynamics.
The good news? Several women in the survey did marry or get engaged to kind, stable, normal men. I personally know many great men. They happen to all be married!
Yeah. But great men and women don't need a church to get together, though. That's kind of baked into what makes them great. They also meet and make families living as radical left/liberal/progressives, for example.
It feels as if the Traditionalist sphere did not have many solutions to any problems. The initial thrust of 'we must rally behind the cause!' similar to other slogans like 'workers of the world unite!' sound good to those who buy into the group pathology, who implicitly believe that we could solve every issue if everyone was but sufficiently devoted to the cause. But there's a seeming lack of realism to what the problems actually are and how one can solve them outside of a faith based cultural revolution, which the author of the article proposes:
We must stop pretending the problem doesn’t exist. Parishes need real community, not forced “single dances” that feel like Protestant youth group 2.0, but actual family-style fellowship where people of all ages eat, talk, serve, and get to know each other as brothers and sisters in Christ first. Priests and godparents can gently guide the catechumens toward a healthy understanding of vocation, marriage, or monasticism, without shame or pressure. I do think that marriage is too heavily emphasized in our post-protestant culture, where if you are unmarried, you are somehow second-class citizens. I think we as a church need to do a better job lifting all those who are still single and find a way to integrate our young people in a much broader vision of family life within the local parish. Married couples need single people and vice versa. Our monastics need our support, and we need them. We should be visiting them often.
The young men need older men to look up to and mentor them. I have seen this work very well at our parish. The babuskas need muscles to help around her house and hungry men to feed. We really do not need more awkward matchmaking and pressure to force things to happen, but rather organic opportunities for people to grow into healthy members of a big family, for friendships to blossom between men and women organically without all the weird red-pill approaches, and to acquire the skills and virtues of well-adjusted Orthodox Christians.
And we, as laypeople, have to be honest with ourselves: Are we praying for our future spouse like it actually matters? Are we forming ourselves into the kind of man or woman the Church needs, or are we waiting for the perfect trad spouse to drop out of the sky to then begin our life in Christ?
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!
The contradiction here seems clear enough. People who have their stuff together don't need any of this. Confident, socially adept well put together men with good jobs and a vision for the future, as desired by the author, are not going to spend their time wallowing around an Orthodox commune filled with incels being bossed around by babushkas. It's just ridiculous to expect successful well adjusted people to saddle themselves with such things in the modern world. Same goes for well put together women that know how to attract men. The real world operates on a 9-5.
Now, that might definitely be to our overall detriment. A key issue with modernity is a lack of real world communities, of course. But a community of needy weaklings is largely what the church has become and it has not made it stronger. And more pertinently, real world communities fall apart in modernity for a variety of reasons. Saying that they would be good to have, which is most likely true, isn't doing much to solve that problem.
This entire thing feels like a giant knot of contradictions and conflicting interests. Much like... nay, exactly like the old gender war. There's a reason why the 'Based Pastors' are doling out "weird" repackaged Red Pill material to try and meet the needs of young men. There's a reason why this woman is regurgitating utopian communalism and anti-red pill platitudes in an attempt at finding men who meet modern standards. Both might very well be correct in their observations. But it's clear they are not seeing eye to eye.
Edit:
I said I was not into this topic for the 'Real Housewives of Alaska' dynamic, but I wanted to see why the article got deleted. Turns out our author deleted the article and much of her online presence after it was alleged that she was sending men nudes. Well... I guess she can now better focus on praying for a husband.
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
Never underestimate 'There can't be any "members" of Antifa. It's just an idea, not an organization, bro.'
I get a distinct 'something is off' feeling every time I hear someone say that. I don't know why exactly but I'd like a name for it. Like when you hear something you know is wrong but also know that if you tried to explain why you'd be getting nowhere.
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
The quintessential dude asks: Would you suck a dick for a million dollars?
A lot of people today will never marry. A lot of peoples children will turn out to be screw-ups. A lot of people have no social standing, get no respect, and are at the end of whatever stick is being swung around. They, unlike Bonnie Blue, work very hard and still get no money.
I think what most people feel when thinking of the huge amounts money these women are making is denigration. They see their own lot in life as even lower than that of a prostitute.
Bonnie Blue is the most extreme example, and is only held high since she is doing viscerally disgusting things that people can look down on. I mean, fuck a thousand dudes for a million dollars? Hell no. But outside of that there are thousands of girls making executive level salaries dancing on TikTok with an OnlyFans on the side. Every blue collar working guy is an objective loser in comparison. It's humiliating to know that there are teenage girls shaking their ass on camera for more money than they will ever make. The economy has to be a joke and your participation is the punchline.
To that end, no, most of these girls will never have trouble finding a boyfriend or creating a small bubble of privacy with all the money they've made. It's all cope. They can buy mansions, hire maids, babysitters, tutors, and never work a single day in their lives after grinding OnlyFans for a few years. There are plenty of pornstars that disappeared and their kids are growing up just fine since the old porn has been long buried with the new.
I can't find the article but a fair few years ago there was an Instagram model owning the Red Pillers back when RooshV and all of that stuff was at a highpoint. She wrote, as I recall, explaining how she got invited to Dubai or somewhere similar. She sucked a few dicks, denigrated herself in front of some rich arabs, and a few weeks later she was out with enough money to last a lifetime. She detailed how she set up investments and savings accounts, she bought an apartment near a university where she would start studying and so on. All in her early or mid twenties.
To a red pill 'high value man', this girl is crushing it. She can do whatever she wants. She looks good, is young, has more money than 99% of her peers. There's no argument. She has the power, men gave it to her.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
You can do this type of reductionist deconstruction with every story.
As a counter argument: Using the 'correct' view, good stories are about the journey. Not the Shyamalanaman plot twist, clever subversion of tropes or badass value shifts.
It's easy to get overwhelmed by these short term moments, designed to give you an emotional high, and lose focus on what's actually good when you're born into what's effectively a vortex dragging your brain towards this sort of short term stimuli on an ever-accelerating repeat. But we should be able to spot it.
This vortex afflicts both the consumer and creator. As can be seen, for example with projects like Star Trek. One of the big problems with new Star Trek, to kick that dead horse, is the narrow scope of the overarching narrative. It's not about a transcendent view of humanity, that existed in the older versions. It's about... Brexit? Immigration? Racism? It loses sight of what makes the 'journey' of watching Star Trek and being immersed in that universe feel good. None of the bells and whistles of the new era matter since the journey you have to take to enjoy them involves wrapping yourself in some sort of post-progressive pessimism where humanity is still constantly tripping over itself.
By the same token, categorizing fairy tales by their plot elements is just... For a lack of a better term: Not getting it.
You don't really need a plot twist at the end of a story with a simple moral message. And whilst the OG versions of these fairy tales often had a quite a... 'convoluted' message, they lived on to serve a different purpose. In short: These movies should be wrapping the viewer in the warm embrace of a loved one that's just sat down next to them on a sofa with a grandfather clock rhythmically ticking in the background. Ready to soothingly tell them a story from memory. Instead the movie is contextualized in political feces before it's even released.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Another example of 'rationalism' and related isms, just being conflict aversion.
If you hide your preferences behind an 'is' you've rhetorically/aesthetically removed yourself as a motivated actor. You're simply a 'rational' being doing 'what makes sense'.
It would be permissible to excuse certain actions and beliefs on the basis of objective reality. And we certainly shouldn't believe things that are false. But the inexplicable predicament many 'rationalists' have to contend with is that their view of objective reality somehow manages to conform itself precisely within the lines of the mainstream Overton Window. Often rubbing shoulders with the more left leaning parts of it. It betrays their alleged pursuit of truth and reason as little other than social conformity. Furthermore, their seeming inability to notice this and question in an endless ocean of articles and blogs paints them and their social networks as, at best, childishly ignorant of their own motivations.
Sadly, for the 'Third Side', it finds itself falling into the very same trap it laments the 'good' side falling into.
Steve Sailer isn't a racist. He's just correct about the wrong things. Calling him a racist is just an appeal to the mercy of the 'good' side.
The 'good' really want to replace Cpt. Sully with Cpt. Shaniqua. Sailer is not wrong or racist for pointing this out.
The 'good' dress up their efforts that pervert the meritocratic process and discriminate against the more qualified to lift up brown people to a level they don't deserve by using pretty looking brown ladies in advertisements. Sailer correctly points this out and mocks it. He is not racist for doing so unless, of course, you presuppose the browns to be better than they actually are. Which makes you not just racist but also wrong.
The 'Third Side', spearheaded by the likes of TracingWoodgrains, can't handle this. I don't know why. Though I'd theorize oversocialization, social status and the trauma of watching Civil Rights propaganda took their toll on them like it did everyone else. In any case, if I had to read 5 paragraphs of excuses and 'well actually' every time a racist had been proven right before I could allow myself to acknowledge it, I'd start thinking inward as to why I'm doing this to myself. Because this entire rigamarole is absurd. It would take less effort to get through the cognitive dissonance of a 15 year old.
I can accept liars who just ignore these things or tow the party line to not lose their jobs. At least they know what they are. But the 'Third Side' is not that. It genuinely believes it's honest and standing up for truth. When in reality truth rests with the likes of Sailer. There's nothing 'more right' about not mocking the perverted and shameful nature of modern DEI. There's no respectability in claiming that, whilst the Emperor might not have any clothes, it might be because he was sleepwalking, and not because he is vain and has poor judgement. It's just groveling at the feet of those with power.
British RAF describes applicants as "useless white male pilots" in leaked emails.
In a bid to increase its diversity, an organized and systematic discrimination of white men was implemented. Leaked emails from RAF staff include vehemently racist and sexist remarks, reports have revealed.
Under a subject line entitled: "BOARDING PROFILE", a squadron leader wrote:
The emails date back to 2020. But even before then there had been a focused anti-white anti-male effort to discriminate against white men in a bid to get women and browns into service. The full article linked above gives further account to the full extent of the conspiracy that kept multiple white men applicants out of service and further discriminated against those that managed to enter. In contrast with women and browns who were fast tracked through the process.
As is noted in the article, the conspiracy was temporarily halted as Group Captain Elizabeth Nicholl resigned from her post in protest to what she thought were unlawful hiring practices back in 2022. Voicing disagreement with Air Vice-Marshal Maria Byford, the RAF's head of recruitment. The row led the RAF to claim that no discrimination was taking place, as a Ministry of Defense inquiry was launched into the nature of Nicholl's resignation.
And at the time the evidence for 'strict' discrimination was lacking. As then leaked emails only noted anti-white sentiment in propaganda creation:
Nicholl's replacement, Group Captain Dole, saw no issue with furthering the conspiracy of active anti-white discrimination and went on to be awarded an OBE in the 2022 New Years Honours List. As the RAF proudly met its target of 20% women, 10% browns. Thankfully a part of the racist and discriminatory process by which the goal was reached is now out in the open.
Contrasting this anti-white conspiracy with last years report that China was "luring" UK pilots to train its pilots, what exactly does a white person owe a state that actively discriminates against them?
More options
Context Copy link