hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
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
11mo 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
7mo 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.
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
12d ago
Men generally have a strong instinctive response to what constitutes fair use of violence. Sucker punching, 2 against 1, all this sort of stuff invokes strong feelings. In a sense this might even be worse PR for the police than the Nowak murder. It shows the police as a willing participant in an unfair use of violence. And its an instance of violence that the police didn't even instigate. So they are coming along as a secondary participant after the unfair use of force was observed and are siding against the victim. And its a woman officer that then relies on the mercy of the person she is participating in unfairly victimizing.
The left was ultimately correct. ACAB. There's no sense in ever subjecting yourself or anyone you care about to the whims of these lunatics.
The one thing that will come of this, as is the trend with all this stuff, is an increased harshness in society. Brutality of violence goes up. People stop seeing the human behind the eyes. Every instance like this chips away at the moral code of conduct in society. The next time there are riots there will be more people closer to the edge of throwing a bigger rock with more intent to cause serious harm.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
This post is longest form "We must maintain the post-war consensus."
It laments we are not maintaining it, but doesn't once tell us why we should maintain it!
Here's why I don't want to maintain it: It is ethnically displacing and disenfranchising Europeans.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Reading the interview, the interviewer was on a warpath. KJP seems to have stepped outside the party line with her book and now she needs to be brought to heel or pushed aside. Lines like this from the interviewer:
You’re talking about Biden like loyalty was owed to him. Isn’t loyalty owed to the country?
Wow, what a shitball of a question.
This comes after KJP maintains that the Democrats had no idea if they had a better candidate than Biden. Which has to be considered at least somewhat true. So points to her for that.
Outside of that, it's rather obvious KJP is carrying water for Biden. But to what end? Is he not out of politics? The earnest defense of his honor, whilst admirable, is a political dead end. Suicide, even. She's a fish out of water and the interviewer is hammering on that fact again and again. To a point where it obvious, which KJP picks up on at the end of the interview:
KJP: When I talk about the broken White House in the subtitle, I’m talking about the Trump White House. So what are the Democratic leadership actually doing to beat back and fight back? What are they doing?
IW: I’m not here to answer for the Democratic leadership. I would—
KJP: You’ve been answering for the Democratic leadership. [Laughs.] You were giving me their answers.
I think these final lines sum up the interview quite well. A politically daft operator and a democrat establishment shill embarrassing one another. Sure, KJP was floundering throughout the interview, and I'm sure the book seemed incoherent to those who feel which way the winds blowing politically, but getting caught off guard by a political hitman in a hostile interview can happen to anyone.
To steelman KJP: Running with Biden through the election and then benching him and getting Kamala in as VP was probably the best choice given they did not have a better candidate than Kamala. My guess is that the people behind the scenes got greedy, pushed Biden aside and went with Kamala to their detriment. To that extent, KJP defending the honor of Biden is just as much a political dead end as the interviewers defense of the current democrat establishment. Two political losers fighting over lost scraps.
Feel good stories told by liberal/progressive/leftists go something like this:
To connect the dots, adoption and / or fostering seems to be a great way for this old man to plant trees, especially if biological children are completely ruled out. There is undeniably a population crisis and replacement rate is an issue, but from a (gross?) utilitarian perspective the population crisis is about productive members of society. Adopting and / or fostering well kills two birds with one stone: it reduces the population that is at-risk for homelessness, and creates more productive members of society.
Wow, very noble and inspiring. It speaks to one on an emotional level, fills you with hope and positivity for the future. There is no counter argument without being a bad person or uncouthly bringing up some giant baggage of heterodox arguments that immediately look bad and emotionally divorced.
So @WhiningCoil gave a feel bad story as a contrast. Or a 'feel reality' story. Depending on ones predispositions.
You would not be the first non-right wing extremist person to fail to engage with the direct 1:1 mirror rhetoric you would otherwise extol as just and noble. Faced with forlorn elements of reality laid bare.
One would be inclined to blame your environment for keeping you away from any competing emotionally resonating narratives, but as can be seen, you are the one picking those. And as someone who spent years of his life making the aforementioned heterodox arguments against all the feel good stories, and having that very fact used against me as an argument, I can't say I have much sympathy left to give for your self inflicted predicament.
A quick nitpick:
Every European country values youth football. Nations like Norway and Croatia are not exemplifying a distinction by having a good run this WC. Smaller nations periodically field strong teams, usually due to a coincidence of a talented generation synergizing at the right time to fit the right tactic. What historically separates the "big" football nations is their sheer depth.
A larger talent pool allows managers to select players who fit a specific structure, rather than being forced to field every decent player they have out of necessity and then organize around it. They are also more tactically flexible, whilst the current Norway squad, for instance, would find itself lost without Haaland at the top, there would be no lack for creative midfielders for Spain. Ultimately, no country in Europe treats football as meaningless. Every major club and most minor ones run professional and serious youth academies.
A more general thought on youth academies and the representation of foreigners:
What the mainstream often ignores about youth development is the role of HBD.
Many Sub-Saharan African players mature physically at an earlier age, making them dominant in youth cohorts. Whilst undeniably talented, their early physical advantages can skew academy recruitment. As clubs increasingly fill limited academy slots with these early-maturing players, local European prospects find themselves competing for fewer opportunities.
This can manifest in predictable ways. Where, to take an American example, dynasty establishing talent like Tom Brady can only shine through via high resistance to adversity. Or where team defining players like Travis Kelce are far from first picks. This early peak contrast becomes clearer in adulthood. Players who relied on early physical dominance at the youth level and are described as having a lot of 'potential' often plateau after 20. Meaning there was no 'potential'. They were at their peak at 17 to 20.
The most extreme examples being Freddy Adu, Macauley Chrisantus and Dominic Adiyiah. All extremely accomplished on the youth level with golden boots and the whole charade, but falling off a cliff when the physical advantage wasn't there for them to rely on. Compared with European players with 'potential' like CR7, Messi or Rooney that had 'potential' as teens and then hit their stride in their mid 20's. There is an obvious skew there despite the many variables and complexities of football.
What are the reactionaries reacting to? I'll just make the case as quickly as I can since you brought it up.
Collective guilt is the game being played on all sides. That's why, when black outcomes aren't on par with whites, we blame systemic racism, which is allegedly perpetuated by the existence of white people.
So whites swallow their ingroup bias, funnel trillions to a minority group that disproportionately rapes, robs and murders, all whilst being continuously bombarded with crap about how evil whites are. Yeah, it is a pretty... 'magnanimous' thing to do. I'd call it hateful and coercive to do that to whites or any other group of people, but whatever.
Given that state of affairs, I don't feel like an increase in the black share of my environment, near or far, is unrelated to me. So to borrow a phrase from our friend: THAT FUCKING AFFECTS ME. I'M WHITE.
Chi_Wara is sitting in a forum reading a direct argument for his own ethnic subjugation. These are being presented as equivalent burdens requiring equivalent restraint. They are not.
Hmm. Maybe we should take a step back here. Unless I am missing context, RR didn't say blacks should be subjugated or enslaved.
Regardless of that, my point was that two people had an ethnic grievance directed at each others group. One chose to make a point that can be verbally engaged with, the other called him slurs and said he deserved to be killed.
As most know, there has been a media battle within the Con Inc ecology. I want to go over some of those developments. If you know the lore you can skip the story so far.
Story so far
On October 27 Tucker Carlson did an interview with Nick Fuentes on The Tucker Carlson show. Sitting at a comfortable 6 million views, it’s one of his most viewed videos. Following that interview, jewish ethnonationalists like Ben Shapiro and Jonathan Greenblatt made the rounds condemning and calling for disavowals. But condemning and disavowing Tucker Carlson is easier said than done.
When the Heritage Foundation released their condemnation video, they distinctly claused out Tucker from their criticism. This, for jewish ethnonationalists, was outrageous. Eliciting remarks from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Ted Cruz, and other jewish ethnonationalist stooges. Tucker needed to be firmly disavowed, and Fuentes was not to be talked to or debated, but ostracized and ‘canceled’. Heritage Foundation president, Kevin Roberts, went back like a beaten dog and put up a second apology video saying as much. Still, it was not enough and condemnation articles, calls to resign and protest resignations rained in.
Despite all this chaos, Roberts kept his presidency, Tucker remained unfazed, and Fuentes was only emboldened by the attention. releasing an hour long monolog on the alleged overbearing fact of jewish ethnonationalist influence in American politics and his position on the modern JQ. The jewish ethnonationalist front had to hit back somehow.
Enter Chuck Schumer, proposing a senate resolution to condemn Nick Fuentes and the platforming of him by Tucker Carlson.
Whilst Fuentes is only emboldened by such attention, it might be different for Carlson. It is, after all, harder for a man of credibility and standing like him to shrug off an official disavowal like that. Though it could not have come from a better direction as far as a right winger is concerned, it is still bad.
The Carlson Rebellion
Missing from the firestorm of outrage and shock from the Fuentes Carlson interview is the simple question of... What exactly is Tucker Carlson doing here? Unlike Fuentes, who lives for this type of spectacle, Tucker is, one can imagine, an actual person with connections and things to lose. So why?
In a recent episode Tucker laid out his answer to the Fuentes Question. Young mostly white men are flocking to the extremes, both left but mostly right, because America sucks. Everything from the housing market, job market, education, media, domestic and foreign policy. It's all anti-white. It's all anti-male. What exactly does anyone expect young white men to do? What confident identity is even available to young white men?
To that extent one can sense Tuckers ire towards the establishment and those who shill for it. How is it possible to allow things to go on like this? To ignore it? Telling young white men to be individual whilst every other group is forming coalitions to outcompete them is suicidal and stupid. Why can't we tell them something else? Something they actually want to listen to. Well, that might lead to another holocaust in the minds of paranoid jews so, no, we can't. Young white men just have to die alone and abused.
Say what you want about Fuentes, but Tucker, at the very least, has a proposition that is open to compromise with the ethnonationalist jews on the right: This individualist free market zionism stuff isn't working anymore. Things, as they currently are, have to change. And if the only response to that reality is calling everyone an anti-semite or a nazi then what is even the point of this?
Whilst I've only worked in completely male dominated places, the stories I get from my acquaintances who are in more diversity are always along the lines of 'There is an obvious sex based preference being acted out every single day, which is always to my detriment' but there is never anything concrete. Just an endless stream of second hand examples.
Tracing the chain of causality that drove a bitter loser to complain about how unfair the system is, is practically impossible. But when so many of my smartest acquaintances tell the same story I'm left wondering how it's possible they are all just delusional.
If they are not all delusional, one would ask why nothing gets done about the state of affairs, and the answer is obvious. If you complain you are a loser. The big bosses of society have already decided that things will be like this. You don't have a say. And because it is true that anyone who notices and complains about this comical state of affairs is a loser, they can't do anything. They can't quit. They are completely replaceable and there is no place for them to go. They are not just losers, they are humiliated losers. Every day their hard work means less because there is some frivolous gender crap sucking up energy. It's in their face every single day and they have to suffer it. To that extent your post is pointing at a very important reality.
The only problem I have is with the men who don't notice or complain. Chances are their predicament is no better than that of a complainer. But because they don't notice or complain they delude themselves to feel superior to the losers who outed themselves as being emotionally disturbed by how things are. But it's fake. They are all in the same lot.
There's an interesting Culture War drama example of this on my YouTube feed. Comedian Akaash Singh had a small podcast beef with some manosphere guys. Akaash, along with his married friend, made it clear that they were not the losers, but the other guys. They were happily married, not complaining, the manosphere guys were unmarried losers complaining about women. Well, a few years later it looks like Akaash is, to borrow an old phrase, whipped. Similar to Will Smith and such. So whilst it might be true the manosphere guys were delusional losers complaining about women, it's obvious Akaash was also a delusional loser defending them.
Now, I don't think you can derive a lot of good truth from e-celeb drama on the nature of Akaash's marriage. Maybe it's being portrayed unfairly. But it's a good example to remind us of the fact that the world is filled with losers who won't look reality in the eye no matter what. And that they are delusional in all directions.
I remember reading horror stories about youth training camps in Nazi Germany where they would sometimes bring the boy and girl groups together and have them do all sorts of activities with one another. The horrifying details of some of the girls coming home pregnant were a sign of the sordid nature of the Nazi regime and the people that organized these programs. The idea that there was a system in place that wasn't all that concerned with youth pregnancy and could be seen as functionally encouraging it was presented as lurid and practically evil from the perspective of the historians.
But from a naturalist perspective, what else is nature trying to have you do when your hormones are raging? When every emotional impulse is felt fivefold? Why should the bedrooms of teenagers in a coed training camp be monitored like prison cells or there is otherwise some great moral crime being committed? It's an odd juxtaposition with modern society where we have the same impulses but they are all intentionally neutered or directed towards childlessness.
To that extent, how bad is it that two young people with relatively high IQ's and neurotypical temperament create a family together early? Even if they are circumstantially encouraged by an adult matchmaker. Should they grow apart, they still have a chance at a second life before they turn 40. When many modern couples are having their first kid!
I keep thinking back to the idea of a genetic matchmaker of sorts. Even one as rudimentary as the infamous 'immune system smell test'. The notions that looks and personality compatibilities are impossible to study or roughly figure out seems stupid to me. You don't need a matchmaker with 100% or even 70% success rate. You just need to do better than the sexually liberated wild west we have today where apparently fewer people than ever are having sex and even fewer having children.
Like, is it completely impossible to just teach teenagers how to get along? There's an entire industry outside of schooling dedicated to just that, but it's reserved for adults who have already made all the mistakes. Feels like the entire thing is upside down.
tl;dr: the left is in an existential crisis because of Israel.
I wanted to write a post on the recent shifts in lefty rhetoric. The big one is 'This isn't Woke 1.0 anymore'
To define a few terms for convenience sake. The 'base' is the politically active far left portion. The 'establishment' is the more 'moderate' one. Popular examples of viewpoint representatives of the 'base' online are Vaush and BadEmpanada. Popular examples of the establishment are Contrapoints, PhilosophyTube and Destiny.
The big shift from the base can be described thusly: Performative woke stuff is out. You can no longer signal that you are in favor of soft social causes that are otherwise irrelevant to broader critiques of capitalism and colonialism or similar lefty theology. This might hold interesting connotations for transgenders as an untouchable priestly class in leftism. But in practice this just means that there have been some genuine changes at the grass roots level. And they are putting Palestine first as a purity test. The base is making this adjustment due to a series of genuinely devastating political losses.
You can say it begins with the Biden admin not standing up to Israel after Oct.7. The base got to feel what it's like when their representatives and institutions don't go along with them. This was a thing the base really cared about. But the establishment ignored for, at the time, seemingly no good reason. Come election season, Harris doubled down on this 'don't ask don't tell' position on Israeli overreach. This made the base even madder. If folks remember a few weeks back, the infamous 'Election Autopsy Report' that the DNC didn't want to release, the base was projecting whole heartedly that they lost because Harris was soft on Israel-Palestine. So not only was the base getting ignored, they also believed they were losing because of it.
To make matters worse, Trump started doing things this term. DOGE, along with the USAID thing happened. It was the first sign that the left as a whole was starting to lose grasp on just what was going on. The first symbolic defeat they've felt in a long time. The right was genuinely running a victory lap waving around all the ridiculous lefty causes that had been receiving millions of dollars. Hating Musk and lighting Teslas on fire was, as far as political activism goes, ineffective at actually achieving anything, even if just rhetorically or cathartically. Alongside this ran legislative defeats like the passing of the OBBBA and the ICE apocalypse alongside Trump admin actions against colleges and campuses. Those were principally establishment defeats, but the base got to pay the price.
Lets put ourselves in the shoes of the base. After having been gassed up through propaganda that Trump was going to make the sky fall down, there are now people from their ranks that are dead. Some jailed for a long time, and others permanently damaged, either physically, mentally or professionally from participating in lefty activism, with nothing to show for it. At the same time the base has not just been losing internally to the establishment, but they've also been watching the establishment lose externally to the right.
What's worse, they're now competing for space online against the likes of Theo Von, Tucker Carlson and similar, who have been filling the moderate 'I like healthcare and dislike Israel' void on the right/center. At the same time they have no leverage over the more extreme right wingers that occupy X and alternative streaming sites. This is a far cry from the 2017-2020 years where the left could exert pressure on the media landscape at will. A clear example of their loss of power.
Now, why can't the establishment just mend things with the base? Why are they huffing and puffing about the extremists in their own backyard? Why can't they give them institutional cover like they once did? Outside of the right genuinely becoming stronger due to a lack of censorship, there is a one word answer: Israel. The establishment can't compromise any more on Israel. They have to vote yes when Israel asks for arms. They have to stand up and clap for Netanyahu. And the base is redefining itself around the singular cause of Israel bombing children in Gaza being a bad thing.
There's no more intersectionalism. There no more 'sit down a black woman is speaking'. The base has slowly realized that organizing around words and ideas is stupid. You need something concrete as a barometer. And they are slowly enforcing that the actual program is not gay sex, protesting for black criminals or men in womens sports, but dead children in Gaza. And if you don't get with the program, regardless of who you are or identify as, you can be dismissed on those terms.
Will this last? I don't know. The establishment has usually managed to reign everything in come election year. But it might be that with changing demographics on the ground, and the reckless actions of Israel, that the American left is genuinely swirling down the drain of a third world communist toilet because they can't say no to infinity immigration and Israel.
hanikrummihundursvin
15d ago
It's hard to imagine any coherent conception of a nation with borders that can be infinitely exploited by any person who manages to give birth within them.
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo 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
10mo ago
I don't see the connection between 'being a person' and therefor automatically being inclined to give foreign rapists light sentences.
To me it doesn't seem reasonable or humane, just cowardly and sick. Being so wrapped up in and simultaneously so blind to ones own twisted moral intuition that it becomes practically impossible to differentiate between the person raping a 15 year old and the person calling them a pig is not 'normal'.
I think it would be a lot more pertinent for people like this to examine their state of mind and how it has managed to drive them towards results such as this. But it seems like we've managed to build an impervious wall that keeps people away from exploring the true extent of the problem and just what feeds these 'outgroup sycophants' to do what they do.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Not sure if I can get behind this message hypothesized here. Whilst I can understand that the Anti-Red pill crowd is desperate for something to chew on, this is a stretch.
Sure, the data is there, but it says nothing about what men want, as there is no causal direction implied anywhere outside of editorialized headlines. It does, however, fit the Red Pill box of women 'rejecting' men they see as lesser than them and instead looking for men who make at the very least equal. To that extent it isn't rich men choosing rich women, it's rich women hunting down every single rich man they can. And when they get him they predictably, according to TRP philosophy and this data, stop working and start making a family. 'Because that's what women actually want.' (Italics read in the voice of Nick Fuentes)
To that extent the data fits that red pill 'truth' and the general red pill assertion that dating is a different market for men as they get older.
Depends on what you mean by scientific racism. From my understanding of the term, White people didn't 'invent' 'modern science' because of racism, I would argue. It's because of other factors we generally associate with intelligence, industriousness, agreeableness and so forth. Scientific 'racism' is just a byproduct of that. So whilst there is some racist expression to be found in old 18th century anthropology, I'd argue most of that was also refuted by the better scientists at the time, who could make fact based observations about human population differences.
To clarify the point: Noticing that groups can differ on objective metrics free of 'group bias' is a very not racist thing to do. Even if those differences are 'racist'. Whilst ignoring or arguing against objective reality, based on 'in or outgroup bias' is a racist thing. So ironically, most people who are against 'scientific racism' are acting out a very base racist impulse, since they are not capable of parsing reality past it looking like a slight against their ingroup.
To that extent I'd argue most whites are less racist than other groups. As they are more capable of parsing reality and more capable of entertaining abstract concepts. A good example of this are mock jury trials.
On top of that, a lot of research into the topic drives at a similar conclusion:
On the other hand, there is evidence from the social psychological literature that the self-concept of ethnic minorities may be more dependent upon perceptions of race than the self-concept of the ethnic majority. For example, Clark (1985) reported that Black participants’ self-concept was related to their ratings of Blacks, whereas the same relationship was not found with White participants. Grier and Deshpande (2001) further reported that Black participants placed a higher importance on race than did White participants, and that this racial importance predicted consumer decisions. It is possible that group identity may be stronger among minorities than among majority race individuals, making minority jurors more likely to exhibit an own-race bias.
The study linked above also highlighted that in mock jury trials, the whites are a minority in their racial fairness. At least when compared with American blacks. Who are a lot more prone to racial bias in their decision making.
Considering all of that, I'd say it's clear whites are not being protected from their own racist tendencies, a concept explored in the movie 28 Days Later but are being marginalized, otherized and attacked precisely because they are not racist. This is easily proven by simple logic. If whites were racist, they wouldn't be in this position in the first place.
tl;dr: Trump was told to jump higher than he could. His knees buckled on the landing and now he's crawling around telling the zionists that he's sorry he can't stand up to Iran. The zionist response when he asks for a hand is to spit on him for being weak. Genuinely, even the antisemites are shocked.
I feel like there was an old white nationalist 2.0 cope around the time where ISIS was at its peak about AIPAC and Israel that ran somewhere along the lines of: AIPAC has a better grip on America than America has a grip on the middle east.
I think the truth of that observation is unfolding in front of us to a certain extent. The weakest link in the Israel/AIPAC dynamic is Israel. AIPAC can still unseat elected representatives at will. Most recently demonstrated with Massie. American politicians still dance to their tune. It's Israel, whose actions became incoherent after Oct.7, culminating with this Iran ordeal, that's the problem in this dynamic.
I think the only interesting answer to the question can come from zionists and adjacent folk. Nigh every other group that's not zionist, from progressives to regressives, wants to dump the Israelis tomorrow. The entire world is getting sick of Israel and its behavior. So from a zionist perspective: What ever was the plan here?
Like, zionists have this iron grip on US foreign policy. What did they want the US to do? Unless the plan is to literally genocide every single Arab via US military might so that Israel can do whatever it wants in the region, then US involvement stops making sense very quickly. The US can bomb things. They can do economic coercions, they can occupy big buildings in cities, build FOBs in valleys and patrol roads in Humvees. But they can't do much else. As Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated.
Americans have thousands of their soldiers dead, tens of thousands if you count the suicides, trillions spent, and nothing to show for it. And now we are reading that Israel, not just the 'Netanyahu government' but a sizeable portion of the Israeli public and America based zionists, wanted America to commit to another middle East war effort with no explicit end goal, no theory for victory, and no discernable US gain outside of rank delusions that Iran intends to nuke Huston and Vienna if ever given the chance. We don't even have the pretense of regime change anymore.
The cost of this war, however, would be enormous. Not just in direct military spending, but with every economist (spit) sounding the alarm bells that this would prove catastrophic for global markets. Countries most affected, including some US allies, have already started rationing programs. Meanwhile Russia, US's geopolitical enemy, has been making bank month over month due to this war and the oil/gas market disruptions.
This comes across as incoherent lunacy. Destabilizing the middle east? Eh, on some level that makes sense, even if I oppose and abhor it and the negative consequences it has had for not just the middle east but Europe. But if this is the continuation... What's the plan, where's the big picture everyone's missing? I can't even put together how zionists are pretending to be allies with the US at this point. That they even attribute a theory of mind to Americans.
In defense of the zionists, AIPAC is still so strong they can be forgiven for thinking less of Americans. So if there is any weight behind these events, it will come down on Netanyahu first, Israel second, AIPAC a distant third. So long as the Israeli lobby holds the keys to a plurality of public offices in the US, they will remain strong. But Israel needs to find some stability fast. Maybe Netanyahu is playing the role of a future sacrificial chicken perfectly. Sin as much as you can before the head goes off.
To that extent the answer to the question is clear. Let Netanyahu take as much as he can before we give the Western cattle a new shepherd.
hanikrummihundursvin
9mo ago
It certainly feels that way. The 'build more housing' crowd is in full swing where I live in Scandinavia. Usually coupled close with the 'walkable cities' phenomenon.
It's an odd feeling to be stuck in traffic for hours on end in a city of about 300k, on road going through what used to be an industrial area but is now filled with multiple 5+ story high apartment complexes in various states of construction. Where are all these extra cars going to go? It was bad enough already, one wonders.
Well, the city council, on the bleeding edge of progress, decides to deal with traffic by making one lane of an already very busy road a 'bus' lane. So now they feel emboldened to lot these new apartments with 0.4 parking spaces each. Meaning there are cars parked everywhere around the area, as they obviously can not all fit around the apartments. This increases foot traffic around and across the busy road. So every time someone presses the button on a crosswalk, the lights go red, congestion increases even more.
Dense housing - one lane + extra foot traffic = ???
Well, lets hear it, what were they thinking? A member of the city council, speaking in defense of new public transport centric city plan, said that a part of the problem was to do with values. There was a need for a radical confrontation with how people look at and organize their lives. It can not all be centered around cars. Well, are they completely wrong? Maybe not.
Similar to how one can argue that how we view addiction and drugs is wrong. That it's a disease, not a crime and so forth, one can say our relationship with cars and transport is wrong. It's a broader more novel philosophical argument that might not be incorrect, and certainly sounds fair minded and appealing. But to assume therefor that all the relevant factors have been accounted for has shown itself to be lunacy that costs lives.
I'm no fan of the USA, but considering the rest of the world, that statement is not serious.
More options
Context Copy link