BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 49d 12h 54m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
There is a double edge to the nihilistic view on race that whites are allowed to have. That being as soon as someone flips the narrative on its head, you are greeted with all the same nihilistic arguments facing any other ethnic group. Best exemplified in the 90's era rhetoric of 'everyone is racist'. It deflates the whole victimary discourse and drives it towards whatever pit of nihilism awaits it. Further than that, if you set up teams, it's only a matter of time before someone starts to genuinely root for theirs, even if it's the designated bad team.
People against European-white ethnocentrism, like Jordan Peterson, saw this coming a mile away and have spoken about the dangers of invoking any sort of ethnic identity for European-whites. Instead preaching the universalist individualism stuff.
There are multiple reasons for doing this if you are against positive white identity in general. The most obvious being that if you ever lose the reigns on that particular horse you might not get it back. Even if it's all supposed to be negative, you might end up with an institutional structure where the power ladder you have to climb drives you towards ethnocentric action in favor of whites. It might seem impossible today, but give it a generation or two and you have no idea what priors the youngest generation has.
On top of that, having white people not think about themselves in collective terms is simply better. You can just tell whites to not commit to any rational group action and they wont. They will seemingly buy into any individualist ethos regardless of how obviously stupid and suicidal it is. Just wrap it up in some novelty and have it appeal to their vanity and off they go. There is no risk there. Comparatively, even with a negative identity, there is always risk that some pathological nerve gets struck one too many times which, as mentioned prior, can easily spread. I'm worthless? We are all worthless. You are worthless.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
That's the first anime profile picture I've seen attached to a research paper.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I mean, it doesn't really. Rich people playing golf is a meme. He has all that time to get good at golf because he's not doing real work. He just passed a wealth threshold where his money works for him now.
It's not hard for a lefty to spin this as just another manifestation of Trump being a bad guy.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I feel like Donald Trump being good at golf is like Hitler being an animal lover. "See! He wasn't all bad..."
As for that, I don't think it matters a whole lot. The general blue-ish public is likely not going to stumble upon political content about Trump that's not negative. Media polarization and algorithmic bubbles do a powerful job. If you like Trump you can like him more. If you dislike Trump you can dislike him more.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
There is a lot of untapped frustration after the Floyd riots. Just like there was with endless sob stories about immigration and refugees. People just need someone mainstream to channel their emotions.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
You and I are talking (typing) at cross-purposes. And for my part I'm not "accusing" you of anything, except possible pointless hostility.
You wrote: "I disagree. Egregious violations of public trust should not be glossed over or hidden for political reasons." Insinuating I believe or said something to the tune that glossing over violations of public trust is preferable or in some way good. I did not say anything of the sort. I would in fact argue that it's near impossible for the public to determine whether something was a violation or not in a media landscape as toxic as the one we have.
How do you want me to reply to such behavior on your part? You do this again here:
I agree that releasing this footage was shittily political.
I never said anything about releasing the footage or not. Like, what are you doing?
But enough of that. You replied to a comment of mine that was very expressly about the political angle of this. You take a personal stance. My point would be that your personal stance is counterproductive to your stated support of the police. Your personal feelings towards a specific incident are irrelevant. The broader context is shaped by a political media machine that is propping up specific cases at specific times for their own gain.
If you don't realize that political reality I don't know what to tell you. Why bother stating your political stance of generally favoring the police if you don't care enough to stand against a force that very recently dealt some very serious blows to policing in the US off the back of exactly this type of situation?
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
You are defending the foundations and principles when you stand against politically motivated mass media attempts at smearing and weakening the institution. You do the opposite when you don't. Officers will make mistakes. You don't crucify those who make them in media.
If the institution itself is deteriorated and bad, you need to cast a light on that, but the fake news narrative of racist police and black victims is a lie, so this event is very clearly not it.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Most people would prefer the police shooting someone than being scalded, yes. I don't know how or if that fits your 'constitutional' priors.
Policing is whatever it has become. Its sanctity lies in its foundations and principles, not individual events.
Policing in the US has degenerated a lot to face third world challenges. Sometimes old ladies get shot. The police are still sacred, though, for all the old ladies that don't get shot. Or so goes the tale of why we need police in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
When the alternatives are race riots and 'prison reform' I have a hard time sympathizing with the "high road". Whatever that even is, aside from tut tut's.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I disagree. Egregious violations of public trust should not be glossed over or hidden for political reasons.
No one said this should be done. No one said this should be 'condoned', no one said anything about what you advocate.
By the same token I can accuse you of a similar thing. Hyperbolizing an event like this in an effort to throw a bunch of gasoline on an ACAB fire and then say you back the boys in blue. Which seems counter intuitive to me, but you do you.
You can stand by officers in cases like these by letting due process run its course, or by recognizing these cases as statistical outliers, or by recognizing that policing a third world population with a first world police force simply doesn't work. Not by swirling around in a media fueled frenzy. If your takeaway from any of the previous media fueled ACAB frenzies was that policing got improved or things got better in some way I'm not sure what planet you are coming from.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
With supporters like these, who needs enemies. The point is that you don't cave in, instead you show you actually stand behind the thing in its moment of weakness. Precisely because it's being attacked by your enemy.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
If the GOP was smart they would do the opposite. Full scorched earth Womp Womp's.
I can't believe that GOP and friends don't have guys crafty enough to weave a narrative of law and order, back the blue and whatever else out of this.
Don't make the shooting an issue, make the media and Democrats the issue. They are attacking a sacred institution, these hallowed halls of law and order and blah blah blah. Show teeth. Don't be weak and limp wristed. Blame the Democrats and media for the shooting. Whatever you do, don't let the foot off the gas. Organize pro police protests, do whatever. Everyone is sick and tired of this play. No one respects it. People just go through the motions because it's the only game in town and they're forced to participate.
I am comparing relevant metrics. 'Immigration' is a meaningless category since it only tells us what is recently going on, not what has been ongoing. A short look at US demographics tells a very clear story: Used to be majority white. Soon to be minority white.
There is a far greater difference in firearm availability.
If you are Canadian you can reliably attain an 'assault rifle' so long as you don't live in specific cities and jump through a few hoops. Not as smooth but very similar to the US. Yes, you can't get a million and one different variation of an AR 15 or an AK platform rifle, as many of those are banned, but you can get relevant stand ins. At the end of the day you have reliable platforms that fire rifle caliber rounds.
It is popular to be excessively critical of the US. I think pretending the US is as bad as Canada is an example of that.
It's popular to point at others and say: See! We're not that bad!
There are plenty of measures where the US is an embarrassment. Violent crime and prison rape to name two very relevant ones.
What do Trudeau conservatives like this want? We can't kill our enemies, because then they win. So when we get power we ??? and profit?
It seems like the overarching theory is that we can induce some sort of stasis where, if everyone behaves and doesn't do anything self serving with power then we can live happily. OK, that's obviously not reality, as this entire rigamarole is fueled by people abusing the power they have. On top of that they have no reason to stop so why would they?
I'm more inclined to chalk this line of thinking to conflict aversion. It's not principle but cowardice.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
The US is no better off than Canada on the immigration front, where 25% of the US population is now hispanic or Asian. Demographic projections are only going one way.
I don't care if you think Canada's gun control laws are 'extreme'. The fact is you can buy an 'assault rifle' in Canada. It might have a 10 round mag and your selection is more limited, but it's a rifle all the same. The rest is semantics.
I really don't sympathize with pretending
No one does. Which is why the feeling is so mutual. Americans are great at isolating themselves from the world around them since their country is so large. You can live a lifetime in the US without feeling any of the things being talked about in media.
I used to think of America as a silly place that, from my end, didn't really exist. All the news and media coverage felt similar to a reality TV show. It was striking for me to learn that most Americans feel the same way and that their own reality, like mine, is far away from 'America'.
In that respect the US is much worse than Canada. Most Americans have no idea what their country even is. How could they?
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
You're not resisting the government with handguns.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Counting illegal immigrants I'm not sure the US is that much better off. Maybe 'time', before their European population is dwarfed?
Canadians can own all the relevant firearms needed to resist the gubment. The only relevant strike is 10 round magazines, as far as I can tell.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
We didn't go full Australia on Covid lockdowns.
Neither did Canada.
We are still allowed to own guns.
So are Canadians.
The state only takes 35% of our income instead of 50%
Again, look at Canada.
All involved are neck deep in mass immigration. I'm not seeing the boomer utility here.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
There are a lot of right wing boomers in the world. Be that by birth or spirituality. I don't remember the last time any of them at any time in the past 80 years could make any relevant change to the course of history. It seems like it doesn't matter how many 'SJW Owned Compilation's there are, or how many boomers watch them and cackle.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I think this is a typical case of boomer right wingers not recognizing how far behind the curve they are. They don't get to decide what is socially acceptable in the bio-leninist coalition. Those things are already long decided on before they are performed publicly.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I am starting to think there's the opposite of that kind of bias at play. 'Instinct distrust bias'?
I don't know what to call it, but it certainly feels like a lot of people turn very 'skeptical' when an aspect of their supported or preferred worldview is poked at in some way. The most obvious example of this would be mass immigration and the rise of housing prices. Implying a causal connection simply isn't a part of the program. Yet instinct would tell us it's the most obvious and important part of the entire problem in most if not all western countries.
The discourse around conspiracy seems like a gift from the heavens for any 'pro-institution' person. What an embarrassing gaff for the Secret Service.
Seeing a bunch of old men and fat assed women who look like school teachers running around the stage was embarrassing enough. But as the details emerge, it seems like it would have been hard to do their jobs worse. I was under the impression that a rooftop was a complete no-go zone when a VIP like this is around. Let alone that a guy with a range finder is allowed to prance around without anyone asking him what he's doing.
If there is no conspiracy I would like the discourse to move away from that and towards a recognition of how bad the Secret Service has to be to let this sort of thing happen.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Sometimes saying less is better as it steers the conversation away from irrelevant tangents and arguments. But here we are.
I don't view the holocaust as a strike against National Socialism any more than I view Asian American concentration camps during WW2 as a roadblock in the way of hapa ubermench supremacy. I find the association and repeat regurgitation of those kind of arguments incredibly stupid. It almost pushes me to a point where I no longer believe dialog on a policy level is possible since most people seem completely incapable of not talking about the holocaust. To top it all of, people feel very emboldened to make stuff up about the Third Reich. It's a bad guy that no one except a bad guy will defend. So you can make simple untrue statements that feel true due to emotional association with pop media whilst being completely devoid of any historical context.
On that end I am almost pushed to abandon any political thought and just start talking about the holocaust and how it's a ridiculous fairytale. The numbers really don't matter. 600 or 6 million, it's an animating myth for a victimary narrative. It's a black person speaking out against white supremacy since slavery used to be a thing. It really doesn't matter how many slaves there were, what color, who dunnit first or whatever else. Anyone can see how idiotic all of that is until its their own victimary narrative. Then people act out the exact same pathology without blinking an eye.
As for the EuroAsian synthesis, I don't see how there will be a synthesis, only a temporary transition period. Even assuming no outsider immigration, which is happening in all countries mentioned, Europe is taking in East Asians whilst China is not. The trickle of DNA goes one way. So it's just a matter of time before the European stops being hapa and just becomes Han.
I mean, I can imagine a world where every Asian and every European is married to one another with hapa children. But taking your vision without reservation and as valid in full, you will have to go much further than National Socialism to find any mechanism to turn that vision into reality. On that end, I take very little solace in the thought considering where things are today in the real world.
All of this to say, you might want to attempt a bit more empathy regarding the specific reasons why intelligent people who share your basic goals and values might still think that the fascists were and are a terrible and counterproductive model for the achievements of those goals and the furtherance of those values. One can believe that eugenics is a fundamentally good and important project while being reasonably squeamish about the specific actions historically taken in the interest of that project, as well as reasonably suspicious of some of the ulterior motives held by the most visible and historically-impactful proponents of the project.
I don't know what a fascist is and I don't know what 1940's Germany at war has to do with any of National Socialist policies I like. I really wish the intelligent people could engage with the topic of group bias and western policy flaws without defaulting to the holocaust but so far, they just don't. It's hard for me to empathize with them when they all display the same lack of reason and skepticism. Going through the same pathological motions every single time.
I'm not a smart guy. But I have a decent memory and cognitive dissonance hits me like a truck. So how can I still be here after a decade of making the same argument to all the smartest people I know? Did a swastika fall on my head when I was a toddler? Am I just retarded? Where is the light?
I mean, I certainly did not see it after the Oct 7 attack, where intelligent posters started nonchalantly floating ideas of genociding their enemy and such like it was just another day in the office. It certainly felt like a change from much of the dispassionate commentary on other conflicts. Almost like every single thing I say about group bias and pathology is correct and that being governed by people who don't ingroup me is very bad and leads to sub par outcomes for me? Nay, perhaps I should just listen to my elders and recognize why a slow death is the smart thing because the holocaust. Maybe I can entertain myself with ideas of EuroAsian paradise whilst housing prices inexplicably rise for the 240th month in a row. Almost as if immigrant paradise, promised by similar people, did not come to pass either. No really, all snark aside, can the smart people give me anything tangible as an alternative to a dysgenic society funneling into a massive genetic bottleneck?
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
No, I would not want to trade places with the people who had to suffer for millennia to get to the place the west is today. Which is why I really don't like it when we squander those hard fought gains via man made genetic bottlenecks.
You seem to be, as centrists are want to do, ignoring the contention being made and the problems being pointed out and instead framing yourself as a defender of western civilization. The problem I have with that framing, outside of it being a dishonest rhetorical cope, should be obvious. I am not against the flourishing of European people. I like the modern comforts I have. I like the low risk high reward society afforded to me via technological advancement and high trust.
The reason I have a problem with centrism is because I don't want to lose all this good and I very much implied this in my previous post.
The worst things you can say about the modern West is that
It causes a genetic bottleneck that kills itself off. You need something self aware that offsets the problems caused by all the technological advancement. There are historical figures and movements that understood this, and centrists love to sneer at them. Going so far as to cast the doom of the western people in a salvageable light rather than admit they're wrong.
About half the word is either white or East Asian. There is plenty of "high quality" genetic stock of that's what you care about.
Most places on earth have people with many great qualities. East Asia, maybe, in particular. However, I don't want to live in China, Korea or Japan. I want to live where I live now and I want my future descendants to be afforded the same luxury. I am very much not in favor of introducing the sort of status and award obsessed 'Asian' into my immediate environment. It leads to the same toxic study and work culture on display in those countries and I very much prefer mine over theirs.
This genetic stock wasn't present at the start of the universe. It was created out of nothing by selection effects. Equivalently high quality genetic pools can be created if they are adaptive
I very much don't want a repeat of the horrible history of the European man. To suggest this makes you more radical and unhinged than anything I heard of outside of maybe Mao's alleged boasting of Chinas suitability to survive in the chance of a total nuclear war. "What if they killed 300 million of us? We would still have many people left.".
Fair chance that was her husbands doing. I remember a similar anecdote from the 2016 campaign where Bill, allegedly, admonished Hillary's lack of attention to the rust belt. The anecdote was given to exemplify the reigning political strategy for the Dems at the time. That being the 'Coalition of the Ascendant'.
To be fair to Hillary, her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which allowed states to decide whether or not to allow same sex marriage. Whilst Hillary used gay men getting married in her commercials. So it might not have been that crazy of an assumption to make to say that 'times have changed'.
More options
Context Copy link