@hanikrummihundursvin's banner p

hanikrummihundursvin


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 18:32:52 UTC

				

User ID: 673

hanikrummihundursvin


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 18:32:52 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 673

I feel like music and movies share the same feature in that as soon as you give anyone involved an ounce of reverence or respect a part of your soul dies.

The list should all be Taylor Swift. She writes the best songs in her niche of 'all white women' and it's not even close. Except #3 which should be Fred Durst, for managing to take the essence of angsty rock rap and properly commercialize it without pretending to be a gay communist. #1 and 2 should be shared between Henry Wayne Casey and Eminem for showing the world that white people do black people better.

One could presume that Iran knows that as well. So the assumption they would sacrifice themselves to nuke Israel is, again, a very unfounded prior.

It's a big deal for a US foreign policy that's predicated on certain ideological priors that maintain that Iran is an existential threat. I don't find those priors very convincing.

So the revised best case scenario is that with very minimal 'cost of war' for Iran, the regime crumbles. I don't find that scenario very likely and I don't believe the hawks proposing boots on the ground believe so either. But one can always hope.

So the best case scenario for the US hawks is a mass casualty and refugee event caused by crippling strikes on infrastructure.

The war goals achieved by this event are the dissolution of the current Iran regime which will potentially prevent Iran from making Nukes. Beyond that there are no guarantees without actual boots on the ground nor are there any relevant beneficial effects for anyone that is not deeply invested in the interest of the state of Israel and its hegemony in the middle East. All anyone gets is cost.

PhilosophyTube is the best example of a modern Patrick Bateman and it's not even close. It would be the perfect act in a modern rendition of American Psycho to weave in the alleged reason for his transition.

In the context of a western society I don't think genital mutilation has any place. On top of that the proliferation of drugs and the effort from trans advocates to have minors take them makes me question the safety of allowing them easy access to them. But it goes further than that.

Trans advocacy is in a corner right now. They've tethered themselves to the idea that the best way for a trans person to escape their male body is to go on hormone treatment very young. It makes sense biologically from a 'looksmaxxing' perspective, to borrow a term, but this flies in the face of any civilized conception of children and their ability to make decisions for themselves. If they had been more responsible and sane then I'd feel differently about their easy access to hormones. But as things stand? On one side trans people are a coalition of consenting adults with agency who decided to direct energy towards legalizing permanent body modification regimen for children, on the other a medically destitute group of mentally suffering victims on the verge of suicide. In neither case do I feel comfortable giving them easy access to permanent body modification or drugs.

To complicate things further, a lot of trans people will never pass. Giving such people 'trans affirming care' is a waste of time and effort. I could only support hormone treatment for a specific subset of trans individuals who have a chance at passing. And even then I find the entire endeavor morally questionable considering the implications of what happens to a human body after the age of ~35.

In real terms, with the most charitable interpretation possible for the trans side where we are talking about sexually a-typical but otherwise rational and well adjusted people who are not binding themselves to any hostile political message and are just looking to aesthetically please themselves in a safe and controlled way, we are essentially talking about looksmaxxing a select few men into looking like young women so they can sell themselves on social media or engage in sex work for a decade or so before we meet a line of hard reality modern medicine has not yet figured out how to address. That doesn't seem like a worthwhile effort to me.

To contrast that with something that I would find worthwhile: Giving young men testosterone that would lead to them not be depressed and alone and instead push them towards being productive members of society that make families. What is the case that makes transing people worthwhile? Because I genuinely don't believe that the ratio of potentially passable non transed people who would otherwise commit suicide is in any relevant way aided by the procedures we have today if we look at things long term. Outside of a few social media stars and sex workers who can leverage their unique status to make enough money. Nor do I believe that transing unpassable people is going to alleviate their woes. Since they will have to face the day and go to work knowing full well that they look off.

I am all in favor of QoL or beautifying surgeries for mothers relating to their pregnancy.

I think doctors should look at broadening the scope for administering steroids to men insofar as it can be of benefit to them. That being said I believe the amount of men that would benefit from using steroids is small. Most of them just need to exercise.

I don't understand the implication of a medical right in this context. For instance, you don't need a medical right to buy a plane ticket and pay out of pocket for whatever cosmetic surgery you want.

If you are digging at a point with these questions I've missed it and you must spell it out for me.

To borrow some lefty terminology, a lot of people carry around a lot of emotional trauma. The idea that you should leverage that via threats of suicide to get other people to rearrange their lives around you or otherwise directly pay for cosmetic surgeries for you to get you over your trauma isn't the positive argument trans advocates think it is.

Following that is the simple fact that you don't need to exist as a sexual entity. Plenty of obese people turn asexual because they understand on some level that their obese body will never be what they want. Even if they lost weight, it would be a disaster of loose skin and morphed body parts requiring surgeries they can't afford. They don't want to have sex with their body anymore so they just don't. It's sad, it's traumatic, they still wake up and face the day.

The line between being a sad but relatable human being and being a narcissistic sociopath gets crossed by most trannies when they huddle together and start demanding privileges for their group and not others. They don't campaign on changing the classification of a lot of cosmetic surgeries from cosmetic to necessary. No, they just want those things for the trans. No consideration for anyone else but them.

On top of that, white men have held the high score on the suicide charts for a long time now. Did any tranny advocate ever allow that fact to sway them one way or another when it comes to the anti-white political projects they seemingly all participate in? No. Not once ever. So why should any white man be swayed by the argument when we change suicide victims? Trans people invoking suicides are not invoking an objective standard but their own ingroup preference for themselves.

Trans-advocacy exists as a group entity hostile to practically everything that allows trans people to exist in the first place. It's woven itself together with nigh every nihilistic anti-white political ideology that exists. If they had any semblance of kindness for the other they would not advertise their transness as anything other than a disease to be avoided. But as has been the case with the many chat groups that form around their identity, they are more interested in spreading their ailment than preventing it. Like a 'health at every size' advocate that presents obesity as healthy right up until the day they die from their obesity.

Maybe some people are obese because they genuinely have medical issues that cause them to gain an absurd amount of weight. And maybe some trans people are a #10. But the idea that this is what the trans identity advocates are representing, just like the idea that HAES is presenting healthy big boned folks, is an obvious falsehood.

I don't know how many red coded men there are in Maine, but I've observed the backlash against #MeToo from those circles morph into support for anyone who gets accused of sexual harassment. Platner might have had a chance with that sort of crowd if he fronts a bit more tough and masculine, which should not have been outside of his wheelhouse. And considering his opposite number Susan Collins is a woman, he might have been able to steal some votes. But now that he's out... eh.

All in all I'd code this as the Democrats in Maine coming out on bottom. Any hardline Platner fan will walk away from this scorned. But considering that Susan Collins is a staunch supporter of Israel, it might not even count as a loss in the eyes of Liberal Zionists on the establishment left.

Say, how do you like the Belgians now?

It's generally seen as ill mannered and out of touch to go digging into the past for grievance with anything relating to politics. So I don't think Leopold has much to do with it. Football is its own history.

It's hard to say. I can only speak for myself in that they are a bitch to lose against. They usually have very strong teams on paper, but they also never go the distance to actually win. For smaller countries to have their miracle runs ended by Belgium instead of the 'big teams' is very anti-climactic. For bigger teams to lose against Belgium is similarly disappointing. It feels like you've been robbed of all the romance and drama of seeing two big teams duking it out. Instead you get... Belgium.

Americans and their ability to front as the best and strongest country in the world whilst also being the worlds biggest victim is unmatched.

Trump is not a popular figure. Neither is FIFA. Seeing them shake hands over the US team is like getting a letter of recommendation from Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein on your ability to manage a summer camp for girls.

No one likes the Belgians. Seeing them lose to the Americans would be great. But that would be quite enough for most people. And you should be courteous enough to pack your bags and leave when you're done.

I'm not going to pretend I know or understand every link in the chain. But there is an undeniable pull from that direction and it's coming at a genuine cost to the establishment dems. So what gives?

The left is in the middle of a small civil war right now because of Israel. If the zionists weren't doing some yanking, why doesn't the establishment on the left dump the Israelis? Why do democrats keep voting in favor arms deals with Israel or clap for Netanyahu when their base hates him? It doesn't make much sense when you look at the electoral state of things. With 30 year incumbents like Diane DeGette suddenly losing to folks like Melat Kiros who was campaigning on being pro-Palestine you need an explanation.

Avila Chevalier is another example.

MS NOW is pandering to the Democrat base. CNN panders to the Democrat establishment. The veil of credibility was always a sham. People used to care a lot about the aesthetic of 'journalistic integrity' and being rational, responsible and credible. But that's less of a concern for people nowadays. It has often been said that the entire 'don't be a crazy person' thing died the same day Christopher Hitchens did. Not to speak too highly of his flawed character.

My conspiracy brain believes that it's a controlled setup. There is a conception of the left media ecosystem as an emergent reality. All the actors play their role to keep it alive by providing as broad a tent as possible to keep as many people captive inside as they can. You need to make everyone comfortable. You can't do that by broadcasting division within the tent or having too small a tent. So everyone gets their corner of affirmations. But why?

When push comes to shove, you have everyone politically active there. You can make broad appeals to a shared crisis or enemy. Which is what happened with Trump, as an example. There is no 'news' there per se. That's just not what these media outlets are supposed to do. They're there to keep you captive until you are needed. The conspiracy part of my belief is that these media outlets have their chain yanked by the same hand.

This is a necessary context to understand media. It also helps explain why Musk buying X was so important. It gave the base on the right a place to organize. A place to make calls to action. A tent. Without that there was just 4chan, Talk Radio and Fox News. And out of the three 4chan was the only platform that wasn't explicitly in the pocket of zionists and the Heritage Foundation, though I repeat myself. The larger and more unanswered question on the right is who is yanking the chain over there. Which would help us understand the shifting media landscape on the right in recent years and why it's suddenly not banned everywhere like it used to be.

It’s also worth remembering that smugly smirking pricks are actually great when they agree with you. So the goal here is not to pretend to be some logic lord that can not be captured by any smile or contained within any tent. Just to remember that when you are hunkered down under the canvas, the constant pitter-patter above can make it incredibly easy for people to believe that it’s raining, especially when everyone inside agrees that it must be. When, in reality, it’s just the overlords of the media ecosystem sprinkling our tent with water.

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.

This kind of hair splitting could apply to any instance of alleged 'hatred' in history. It's only being applied to whites by whites since the alternative makes them more uncomfortable.

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.

Yeah. When I heard that the jury in Karmelo Anthony's case was 'all white' I could only imagine 12 obese Mexicans in buttoned up shirts with white cowboy hats sitting in the courtroom sweating profusely under the Texas sun.

I feel like the American identity isn't a comparable thing to say, Austrian, Dutch, Polish or similar. It's more like a gameshow competition where the last one to stop touching it wins. Though to be fair many European countries are moving in that direction.

The devils duo, Catholics and Jews. The KKK tried to warn us but we didn't listen. Now look at it.

The tradcaths on X do so much PR work by being miles to the right of their Church. And one has to believe they are sincere and genuine. Which leads one to ask why they present themselves as Catholic. My muslim coworker expressed a similar sentiment when he saw a normal family of four flying the rainbow flag. 'That is not for you. Why do you have it?'

I don't think you are disagreeing. The kids purpose is just to alleviate the emotional anguish of the parents in the most immediate sense possible, sure. But the actual problem is that there's no forethought, context or purpose that backs any of the emotional impulse the parents have.

To that extent parents having emotional impulses that drive them forwards isn't a bad thing. They would always be there in some context. But they should serve a higher purpose than keeping up with the Joneses.

The simple solution to multi language social spaces is that in any shared space where there is the potential for a person who doesn't know language X, you speak the universal language regardless of if they are there or not.

The idea that one wants to teach the kids a different language is fine. Teach them. But as soon as it starts creeping into situations where not everyone can understand you have a discipline problem. No swearing at the TV in Russian and no Chinese in the kitchen!

The problem of doing things this way is that the parents actually have to take responsibility. It's much easier to not have to put in effort, and just talk to your kids in this language whilst the other parent does it in another, rather than actively sitting your kids down every evening and doing some genuine teaching. But it's a recipe for negative social structures within the home, like you overview.

All in all it's a problem of low agency parenting in a low stakes environment. To veer slightly off topic:

Parents want 'good things' like their kids knowing multiple languages, being pitch perfect and doing well in school or sports, but they don't know why. You hit on this in portion III. It becomes harder and harder to justify teaching your kids a language or otherwise doing hard things when in practicality it is only used to impress grandma and grandpa, who might quickly turn to the universal language when they hear how poorly their studies have been going. There are no real stakes, no weight. This is because fundamentally there's no vision for the future. The kids don't actually have a purpose. The family doesn't exist in a serious context.

People like to blame the 'economy' for the downwardly mobile, but it's practically always the parents that failed. They were disinterested in securing a prosperous future for their children because they themselves are not serious. There's no identity, no ego, no belief, no nation and no border. It's all up in the air, to be discarded at whatever convenience.

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.