hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Banning comments like this is bad considering how rare they are. If they were more common I'd agree with a ban, but there is a genuine discourse to be had when people have put their obvious intent of destroying the outgroup into the open. Preventing people from engaging with it by banning the person who opened up leaves this space poorer for it.
hanikrummihundursvin
26d ago
We also have photographic evidence of bigfoot along with eye witness testimony, for what that's worth. Point being, the conversation pertains to looking at the actual evidence.
A great example of this would be the alleged death camp in Dachau. It has every single element used to prove everything the article you cite uses to prove the holocaust. Except for the fact that an SS document detailed there was no 'gas chamber' ever built at the site. So hundreds of jews who testified to American detectives about the killings lied. All the images from the camp alleging it was a death camp were not from a death camp at all. History rewritten at the stroke of a pen. Reality altered forever. Or, well, for us at least. The people executed for their participation in guarding a death camp that never was could not benefit from the correction.
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
I feel like your sentence needs a little of defining before it holds any relevance.
If I say I care about X, but I wont lift a finger to help X, do I actually care?
If I say I care about X, but refuse to acknowledge that X can ever be at risk or in need of help, and constantly browbeat anyone who acts like there might be risk or need of help, do I care?
Most people are not "white nationalist" because the term is actively marginalized. Most people, in fact, don't like to label themselves as anything at all. They just have their beliefs and opinions and look for the best representation for those beliefs and opinions they can find. Sure, you can care about white people and not associate with some label, but to actually care about white people you have to act like a 'white nationalist', for a lack of a better term, in some form. Ingroup bias expresses itself very uniformly.
As a side note, it's very easy to make up bad faith arguments for what constitutes to 'care'. On that front I think we have a good example from a recent Tucker Carlson interview where he bites into Ben Shapiro a bit.
(A more relevant clip from the interview.)
Does Ben Shapiro care about Israel? Obviously he does. Does he care about America? Well... To an extent he has to, right? He lives there, after all. And he gets animated over various political things over there. Saying he does not care is kind of stupid. But that's also not really the point. Ben Shapiro obviously cares more about Israel than America. Same can be said for many voices in American politics who were happy to tell the world that the Oct. 7 event was equivalent to 10 9/11's. The numbers here, given we know the rough deathtoll of both, can only represent the emotional weight placed on the events by those who make such claims. Why else make a low brow comparison like that.
The point being made here is that you can care about a lot of things. Giving yourself an excuse to say you care is easy. But its how you prioritize things that allows us to see what you 'really' care about out of all the things you say and act like you care about.
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
Claiming that certain Jews did things that you dislike is of course not necessarily pathological.
Then why do I consistently get the response that it is? Regardless of anything else, my point stands. There is a very distinct and clear form of ingroup bias whenever the 'jews' are criticized. There's never a concession made or a 'rational' framework of cause and effect. In this very thread the act of killing a Nazi collaborator is framed as justified, not causal.
However, blaming Jews as a group for things is certainly and in all cases a form of irrational, shoddy thinking.
Is there anyone in the world who believes that every single jew in the world was doing the things the "specific" jews in Weimar Germany were doing?
What you are saying would have salience and some form of coherency if it wasn't for the fact that the entire modern world is based on the idea that there are nations of people. Like Germans. Who were paying, and are in some form still paying, for the actions of specific Germans during the war. Do we need to be able to trace the causal chain of how a specific German housewife helped the Nazi regime during the war, which justifies her and her offspring pay money to jews until the day they die and beyond? No. This nihilistic autism is only presented when someone makes even a vague generalization about jews having done something.
I mean, can we come up with some term that describes the specific jews that do anti-European, anti-civilizational, anti-society, anti-Christian stuff? You know, not the good ones but the "specific" ones and those that support them. Because I'm tired of people acting like they are explaining something to me when all they are doing is playing PR for their ingroup. As if I just can not fathom that the jew I played video games with isn't Magnus Hirschfeld.
hanikrummihundursvin
9mo ago
Hannania had some affirmative action takes lately.
It's a nice angle to constantly dab on the blacks and just call it 'being against affirmative action'. Do blacks emotionally read 'affirmative action' in the same way I read 'whiteness'?
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
It's not unfalsifiable, as Kevin MacDonald has given multiple examples of these movements, including neoconservatism. But even then there is no absence of detail for those who bother doing a cursory glance over even just the Wikipedia article on neoconservatism.
Many adherents of neoconservatism became politically influential during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, peaking in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
Rov_Scam names a bunch of senior officials who make decisions based on information given to them by advisors. When those advisors are neocons then I find the case rather cut and dry.
It's also rather annoying that the default of things is that they are just happening for no reason at all and US foreign policy revolving around the middle East and Israel goes unquestioned and any attempt at demonstrating why things happen at all is met with accusations of conspiracy, as if any government body wasn't a group of people scheming together to have things happen in the way they wanted. It makes me wonder what the affirmative positions contradicting my alleged 'conspiracies' are.
No really, where do these people get their ideas from? Was it not neoconservatism winning out over pragmatism in the Bush Jr White House?
It would be more comforting if people actually applied a theory of mind to others instead of uncritically imagining that the outgroup is just a gang of monsters that exist on an emotional spectrum completely different from you and I. Worse yet is making the realization that your enemy is not like in the cartoons, and drawing the conclusion that this makes them even more evil. So evil, in fact, that it's hard to comprehend. The cartoons simply don't do it justice. It's very reminiscent of the 2007-12 internet atheism days where guys like Steve Harris and others would create scientific tests and moral theories about the inherent differences between the 'religious' and those who were not.
It's genuinely disheartening to see just how moronic peoples baseline sense of being is and how ineptly it is applied to other people. If evil is so banal and atrocity can be made so mundane, where does that potentially place your banal and mundane existence? The 'vegans' have the answer, we are all monsters because of factory farming. And so to does any group that cares a lot about X.
A more functional and useful view of this moral framework is that any group that has the power to dictate the moral framing of any issue can make these arguments. jew lives don't actually matter more than the Ukrainian lives jews exterminated during the Holodomor. All the Russians that died during the siege of Leningrad, all the Germans that suffered and died post-war. Comparatively they get no movies, no museums, no monuments.
The only factual realization that can be drawn from the everpresent bombardment of jewish victimary narratives is that jews care a lot about themselves in a way few others do. Simply put, other nations don't do this weirdo shit of constantly reminding everyone of how big a victim they were. It's weird. And in the few cases where it is being done it's for obvious reasons. Like Poland perpetually trying to bleed more money from Germany due to WW2. Or Russia grandstanding and accusing everyone else being fascist nazis. It's transparent and fake and people don't hesitate to point to the obvious motive behind it.
This jewish cause, and by extension the character of the jewish people insofar as it is perpetuated by them suffers greatly for this incessant propaganda. Not just for its weirdness, but also the history of lying about it to an extent that defies most peoples knowledge of history, despite how much the Hollywood made Holocaust makes us emotionally invested in the suffering of an insignificant number of semitic nomads.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
This is a willful misreading.
Your power fantasies are just that, the revenge fantasies of every bullied nerd ever, the copes of someone telling himself he's smarter and better and "biologically superior" to the jocks picking on him.
I can't read this statement to mean anything else. Maybe I'm retarded. Or maybe I'm just not a bullied nerd so I can identify with a lot of fantasizing, coping and seething due to perceived injustice without framing those fantasies through stereotypical jew Hollywood movie tropes about insecurities and the 'revenge of the nerds against the jocks'.
I agree with pretty much everyone that a schizophrenic homeless career criminal getting his ticket punched after harassing one too many people is no tragedy.
I didn't say you found it a tragedy or in any other way sympathetic. My point was that you are not answering the question pertaining to 'might makes right'. Either the schizos rule the subway or someone else. The police won't do anything about it, so what's the less wrong angle here? Sit in silence as yet another Asian granny goes on the rails? Your observation on being careful of the pointy sticks has long become irrelevant. There are pointy sticks. Now what do we do about them? Not in the abstract, not in theory. We know where schizo supremacy leads. Are we so certain that if otherwise law abiding citizens stand up for themselves against this tyranny without getting crushed by the system that we will have worse outcomes? I sincerely doubt it.
hanikrummihundursvin
26d ago
You assume a certain amount of jews and then assert they have to be accounted for.
You have no grounds to assert anything if the amount of estimated jews is lower than you need it to be. So we are basing our entire belief for the holocaust on the assumption that population estimates. We then grandstand on this premise whenever any specific issue is taken with the holocaust narrative.
The problem here is obvious. You can dismiss every single item of critique without engaging with it. Any attempt to bring a hammer and chisel on the ugly rock of lies that is modern belief in the holocaust gets thwarted away.
What's worse, we're pretending that we hold to a different position than the alleged revisionists. As no claims to a specific amount of jews are made. Instead we afford ourselves the luxury of believing that the number of 'missing' jews just so happens to coincide with the reigning holocaust narrative. If the narrative says numbers go down, our belief in a fixed amount of jews in need of accounting for also goes down. It's a completely onesided standard that leaves one in no place to cast any aspersions on the alleged 'seeds of doubt' being sown by 'revisionists'. Since our belief in the holocaust is completely circular. That is, we start of by believing the holocaust narrative, and then use that belief as proof that it happened.
Besides that, uncertainty is a very common thing in history, especially with regards to numbers and populations, and especially around WW2.
hanikrummihundursvin
9mo ago
The counter argument here is rather simple. Edge cases don't need to be the basis for how we construct our society.
Yeah, it's hard to even imagine a more fitting example for the case against 'respecting someones identity' than what you just gave. But if we contrast that with the case of a harmless shut in depressed teenager who has tied their ego to their identity... What's the argument? Are walking contradictions like Madden's more or less common than the teenager? Obviously the teenager is more common and drastically so.
It's not a bridge too far to say that we can respect people on the basis they wish to be respected. We do that all the time. Baked into your example is a whole bunch of protected identities. Jew. Woman. Gay. How far should we go to respect those? And what is the view people generally have towards those identities, and why? Well, the punishment for not respecting these identities is jail time. On the flipside there are special events to celebrate them and belonging to them can offer a variety of special privileges. I mean, women who torture and kill children get a comfy womens prison to go to. Men who can't pay child support get locked in a cell with an AIDS riddled rapist.
If you don't like trannies just say that. Because respecting someones identity goes all the way and no one disagrees with the notion that their ingroup should be respected and protected. If you want to engineer a social norm that says trannies are not kosher, then talk about that. But currently the powers that be are working overtime making trannies into a protected identity just like jews, women and gays are. One schizophrenic jew is not going to stop them. We've paved over far worse to get to where we are today.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
It's more a steelman than a troll, I would argue. But for clarification, I'm rather confused watching people get dragged from one IP to another bemoaning 'just what the woke are doing' when these very same people buy into every single prior that the woke base their arguments on. Slavery, Jim Crow, Civil Rights. The virtuous nature of blacks implied by the mainstream historical narrative on those events. The proposition that race in America is a social problem with social causes and social solutions. (Not saying everyone I replied to fits that bill, but it's certainly very rare to find people who reject those things outside of 'extremist' circles.)
So how does one draw the line at race swapping Aragorn when one also wants to change society? It seems like an advanced form of having ones cake and eating it to. Or to be less charitable, a sort of NIMBY-ism. Where we look at the airbrushed history of black racial struggle, say it was good and just, and say it's consequences were more good than bad but then can't bring ourselves to let go of our fantasy books and popcorn flicks. Considering the sacrifices and conditions imposed on the white people of the past in the name of racial equality, the position seems absurd.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
If that were the position she takes I'd be fine with it. She could just call herself a transphobe and move on. But she tries to wriggle her way out of the derogatory labels through the same kind of nuance David Duke would afford himself if asked if he is a racist who hates black people. Rowling wouldn't accept that gambit on behalf of David. So I don't see why anyone should accept hers.
Terrible post. Terrible sentiment. Users get modded all the time for having fun the wrong way. Mods should do the bare minimum of being respectful in accordance with the rules. Though Amadan and friends long gave up on that when the topics of discussion happened to hit their personal sacred cows, it's worth pointing out when they are acting like a cringe reddit mods.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
This is a great article, well worth the full read. Especially in context with the comments written about it here. It seems the author hits the nail on the head when he talks about the elusive nature of the point of contention and the issue he has with getting 'liberals' to engage with it. He is also conveniently vindicated as being correct as this issue is exemplified in the comments here post after post. Where every manner of framing the issue away from reality is tried. It would be a miss for me to not highlight those comments if not for the convenience of the columns author already doing it for me:
At this stage, short of some grand conspiracy of white people “to keep the black man down” (the Woke explanation) the cause of group disparities must come down to some combination of the following sources:
Genetic group differences stemming from human bio-diversity, as attested to by a growing mountain of evidence,
Deep historically situated cultural differences that are almost impossible to change,
Recently developed behavioral differences that cannot be modified with tools we consider "liberal" and acceptable in the modern world.
On paper, and when I talk to them personally, many of the liberal-centrist types tell me they understand this problem. They have read Steven Pinker, they have read the Bell Curve, and they know the issues with Affirmative Action and disparate impact in the context of persistent group differences. Their eyes are open. They've got this one.
So what is their solution? More individualism and objective standards for achievement. We need to go back to color blindness, the legal fiction of equality, and judging everyone like a blank slate even though they are not. We can just call that a "meritocracy" as we did in the 1990s. Let the chips fall where they may, and be done with the matter once and for all.
Perhaps this is a great “debate club idea”, but who is going to own the consequences if indeed we were to tear down all disparate impact regulations, equal opportunity programs, and affirmative action? I don’t think an appeal to "meritocracy" would cut it.
Many commenters here seem to have missed this part of the article and what follows. It would be much better for everyone if they didn't. Though I would suspect the problem they have with it is hard for them to verbalize. Since any movement in this direction on their part is an explicit admission that they are willing to break baseline social taboos. To stand up in person and say you don't care about starving children in Africa because you don't recognize borders, would be an obvious low status signal. You would have to be stupid or of low moral character to say such a thing. The same would also be true for saying you don't see a problem with extremely poor black educational attainment or medical conditions like obesity and heart disease, because you don't see race. You would have to be a fool or the most brilliant of racist comedians to earnestly say such a thing in public under your own name.
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
White nationalism doesn't just mean "pro-white", it is generally defined by its advocates as including a desire for the existence of white ethnostates.
If you have some way of maintaining white populations without borders or segregation laws I'd be interested to hear about it. Would be a new theory in a now rather dead school of thought called White Nationalism 2.0
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
It's not a good effort to insinuate that the language used by someone is not in good faith when you are not arguing against the language actually used by that person.
Here's what you say:
Are you saying that illegal immigration through the mexican-american border is a similarly shaped problem as military/terrorist invasions?
Compared to what you are replying to:
Strangely, when it comes to defending borders, there is this opinion that the Southern US border is not worth defending, but borders of such important countries as Ukraine and Israel are worth billions of dollars (and the blood of millions).
'Defending' a border can mean many things. For instance, it can mean a country protecting itself against the importation of drugs that are killing thousands annually.
What I want to say: Are you aware of just how sophistic your post is? Yes, X and Y are not the same. But when X and Y both result in deaths of civilians, they are similar and can be compared on those grounds.
A lot of the comparisons between Trump and DeSantis seem to rely on there being a consequential difference between them in power. I don't think that assumption is valid.
You can run a very explicit culture war campaign and 'actually do things' like DeSantis has done in Florida without doing anything of consequence in other areas. For instance, you can run a very traditional Zionist Heritage Foundation approved government that does nothing of value with regards to immigration and foreign policy and merely acts out on random anti-trans rhetoric. Can you imagine trans people not being allowed in womens sports and bathrooms? You can waste a year at least on just that and the only practical real world impact is an enraged left. Otherwise the decline can proceed as normal.
Trump did much less than that in 4 years and his supporters still adore him. Why do anything different? Pardon my cynicism but, is it for real now? Do we really believe? Are we fighting for real change this time?
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I don't see anything sad about this story.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
That's not clear at all. The caricature of the racist who blindly hates everyone that's not like themselves is just fiction. Most e-celeb racists I know of make a very clear point of displaying themselves as not being that since it's recognized as a dehumanizing trope perpetuated by their enemies. They'd say they like black people just as much as the liberals who keep moving into areas with 'better schools' which coincidentally leaves them living in ever less black neighborhoods. Even the founder of Volksfront, in an interview, said that they don't hate anyone. That it's all about justice and being able to live in peace.
Hell, you might even say that they like white people like Rowling likes women. And that they dislike black people like Rowling dislikes trans people. It's not that they actually dislike anyone. Rowling just recognizes that men are dangerous to women and that trans women are men. I mean, that wouldn't fly past Rowling when David Duke says it about blacks, but here Rowling is going for that gambit anyway. It's just silly.
On a side note, if you offered racists like GLR or WLP a compromise of being allowed the legal and social privileges to treat black people like women treat men, they'd jump on it.
I don't think "homeless shelter for white people" works at all as an equivalent.
I think it obviously works as a demonstration of bias. You can't deny shelter based on group favoritism without having to answer for the obvious nature of the favoritism. Sure, in modern society you don't have to so long as you favor and discriminate the correct groups. But here in the abstract I think we can recognize the similarity. If you favor white over black or straight over gay or whatever, are you not then, by the vocabulary Rowling would use without hesitation, some sort of -ist or -phobe? I think that by Rowlings position in totality she is by definition a transphobe. A bigot. A hater. And I think it's fair to call her those things considering how she treats her outgroups. It's literally the same script just turned against her.
Even the most comical caricatures of evil racism can rationalize some sort of justifying mechanism or system for why they discriminate against the outgroup. I think people very obviously recognize that sort of thing for the poor cover that it is. Rowling is not an old school liberal just like modern day racists are not 19th century progressives. She is a transphobe like David Duke is a racist.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
'being liberal' didn't fall from the sky. The direction of American liberalism has been influenced and directed by jews for close to a century.
Which would not be analogous to 1488, which, stands for the 14 words and either Hail Hitler or the 88 Precepts. Which is why I specifically asked about those things. There is plenty of wiggle room within those referenced concepts to allow for more charitable interpretation. It's not like the person is named AuschwitzKikeGrinder. In which case I would magnanimously approve a request for a name change.
hanikrummihundursvin
26d ago
Alternative theory to what? The idea that there exists some supernatural synchronicity between a population estimate and the amount of jews killed in the holocaust? That's not a theory, that's just you employing circular reasoning to ignore revisionist arguments.
4 million people did not die at Auschwitz. No one needed to prove where they all went to correct that assessment. The fine folks at the holocaust museums did not need to consult a population estimate from the 1920's before they could say that, no, 1.9 million people did not die in Majdanek, contrary to what Soviet prosecutors maintained during the Nuremburg trials. It was more like 68k. No one knows where those guys went...
My mistake, when I said 'gas chamber' I meant 'homicidal gas chamber'. The camp had a 'gas chamber' but it was never used to kill anyone, as was later reported, it was for decontamination. Funny how that term 'gas chamber' just gets thrown around heh...
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
You've lost me.
I see this type of rhetoric a lot in my internet bubble. What I don't understand is how any 'true Brother in Christ' Christian can look at themselves and go 'yep, we're the true ones, unlike those fake progressive ones'.
Christians in the past would do things to protect their religion. Like, kill people. Heresy was an actual thing, not just a word. Comparing that with contemporary 'true Brothers in Christ' characters you are no more a true Christian than the progressive ones. At best you are a progressive inbetweener.
There is nothing special or amazing about the 'survival' of Christendom in that regard. It's been 'fake' for over a thousand years. What kind of a Chrsitianity lets Constantinople fall? Was that real Christianity? Compare that with the 'real' Christianity on display in France today where churches either go up in flames or get used as public urinals so much that they become a construction hazard from the damage. There are no drums of war, no public demands for retribution. 'True Brothers in Christ' Christians just gather up and cry together before going back home to functionally support the system that enables it all.
Progressives are not wearing Christianity as a costume any more than the traditionalists are. Both have their own wants and needs and they contort the image of Christ to suit themselves. Modernity is comfortable. Going to jail for life is hard. So 'true Brothers in Christ' won't actually do anything truly Christian in the face of satanic tyranny. We know this because the last time a Christian man of action tried to rally the troops our 'true Brothers in Christ' of the 1930's stopped bothering with him when the powers that be made it inconvenient to catch him on the radio.
More options
Context Copy link