hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
23d ago
I am not understanding the relevance of your comment. Why wouldn't he, allegedly, feel 'envious' over "the power of Jews to puppet the US around the world stage like a marionette"? Is there supposed to be a contradiction here?
The cavalcade of replies along the lines of 'don't worry champ, you'll beat the odds!' look, sound and feel... silly.
Sure, if you abstract yourself to the point of just being an idea you'll be fine, but human beings are obviously not ideas. They exist as biological entities. Genes expressed in an environment. We are a 'social animal'. We exist in groups. We interact with groups. You don't exist as an idea. You exist as a part of a greater whole.
Someone saying bad things about your 'whole' looks, sounds and feels bad!
I wish that the individual, reason driven, enlightened and fair minded people could understand and empathize with the emotion being displayed in the OP. Being part of a 'whole' that is in some ways lesser than another is a constant feeling of badness. The aforementioned minded, who want to rise above such silly emotions, or simply lack them, need to understand that they are a minority of a minority. Telling someone who feels to simply not feel is silly. You can't understand what the person is talking about and give such an answer. It's not smart, reasoned or enlightened.
I'm reminded of Joseph Sobran, who hit on a similar type of a fundamental misunderstanding of just why some of the emotional expression that exists continues to persist, to the endless bafflement of the 'enlightened' few.
Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy.”
hanikrummihundursvin
28d ago
The article carries a relevant message to a commonly held sentiment centered around the proliferation of 'race realism'.
Jarred Taylor should serve as a case in point demonstration that no matter how sane, reasonable and respectful you carry the torch of 'race realism', you will be hounded by people driven by powers that are in no way worried about the truth in any other sense than to suppress it. No matter how credentialled or learned you are, everything you say and do will be pulled into whatever context is needed to make you look bad. As demonstrated by the likes of Rushton and Jensen, or any openly HBD academic.
It's easy to agree with the author, that Cofnas is missing an obvious point: That knowing is only half the battle. But at the same time the author is, beyond recognizing the error of Cofnas, seemingly no better suited to deal with the actual problem. As is illustrated by one of the comments, which the author agrees with:
People reject genetics because they can't control it. Give them control, and the incentives change. Hereditarians should give up on culture, and instead focus on gaming out the economics and logistics of genetic engineering.
Regardless of how futile the fight for truth may have been, to speak from the perspective of the likes of Jarred Taylor or Cofnas, who bound hope to the proliferation of truth: It beats giving up.
What is the actual proposal here? Hope the third world designs their babies white? All this wisdom on obvious social dynamics doled out by the author brings us to... what? Crossed fingers and open legs for white sperm in India, China and Brazil?
As an aside:
I would have preferred something tangible. As I find myself constantly waiting for these bloglords, who talk about the burden of a heavy brain, to produce something actionable for us stupids to cling on to. So far they can't even manage to throw their weight around the conservative rhetorical sphere. As anyone who remembers the old 'cultural marxism' knows. I mean, that was an old meme resurrected. Hey, here's a new one: 'bio leninism'! Is there anything more corny in discourse than dropping a phrase you need to explain to your own side? Yes. See 'Moldbug' on Fox News.
Give us something new and cool. 'Woke' has gone stale a long time ago. I want a word that describes people who automatically ingroup browns and outgroup whites. Preferably as an ism or phobia, like it's a disease or something.
Beyond that, if there's anything I've learned from the modern right it's that every single serious right winger is a failed imitation of the NSDAP. The amount of words used just to not call the enemy Bolshevik jews is ridiculous. Is that too coarse? Too low brow? What is your alternative? Just don't participate? Then why have a blog at all? Why bother with anything when you're just going to hunker down and pretend you don't care about politics. I don't get this at all.
hanikrummihundursvin
28d ago
Give every native man a house when they demonstrate they have finished some form of work related education, i.e. not arts or theater, and that they have worked for 2 years. Otherwise they would need to demonstrate they have been working for 5 years. The problem solves itself from that point.
hanikrummihundursvin
30d ago
We're always just one Benjamin Spock away from revolutionizing childcare and killing a bunch of children in the process.
You used to be able to look towards a healthy society and base your judgement on that. Mixing and matching the old and new, good and bad, like a good conservative. But it seems 'good conservatism' doesn't necessarily lead to healthy children or 'healthy societies'. As we've managed to revolutionize those as well under their watchful eye and careful guidance.
I would like to blame people like Freud, Spock and other culture critique warriors who judged what a healthy society was based on other metrics than the societies ability to rear 'healthy' children. But at the same time much of the blame falls on the societies themselves for failing to defend themselves against bad memes.
Instead of firm guidelines, education and a social fabric built around babies, we get a cyclical revolution driven by anecdotes, hobbyists and professional weirdos constantly trying to keep up with an ever-degenerating society.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
All the more reason to remove it.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
You have no idea whether people wanted to click the link or not. When people click 'Top 10 Reasons Why the Holocaust Didn't Happen' I'd wager they know where they are going. It's a funny headline if nothing else.
People don't want false pages.
Then you have no problem with Google removing wingnuttery.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Then there's no problem with Google banning wingnut stuff.
Because a substantial number of people want to find the things said by their outgroup, but no substantial number of people wants to find Holocaust denial (outside Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
Is it classified as 'substantial' when the amount of people clicking the holocaust denial link drive it to the top of Google search results? Are entire nations not 'substantial'? I mean, I agree in a sense. If we exclude everyone who might want to click the link, no one wants to click it.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
And progressives have no qualms about saying wingnuts should be ignored. You're back at square one. Why should they care how many people believe in false things? Let the record stand corrected.
Google is not banning Holocaust denial. Not showing it unless people ask for it isn't banning.
And google is not banning wingnuttery. I mean, there are massive problems with denying people fair access to an algorithm. But hey, you can ignore those for deniers, why shouldn't progressives do the same for their outgroup? Just quash whatever it is you don't like before it gets the chance of gaining popularity.
What's the alternative to using reasons, even if you think your own are good and someone else's are bad--just don't use reasons?
I'm not looking for an alternative to reason. I'm looking for some self awareness and a broader contextualization of things so you can recognize the point of contention.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
You provide no evidence or information that demonstrates how or why it should be considered 'unintentional'. You could say the same thing about any result you don't like. So it's just you saying it. I mean, 'conservative' results are 'unintentionally' there. So they get removed. No problem.
"Not shown to people who want something else" doesn't apply. Many people do want conservative viewpoints.
'Conservatives' want to see those viewpoints. They are a minority. Most people are not wingnuts.
Google is not aimed at Saudi Arabia or Iran.
Google is not aimed at 'conservatives' either, obviously.
Again, what is your problem here, exactly? You are OK with banning things you don't like. That's the line you draw. Even if it's just words that don't convey any immediate or credible threat to anyone. Other people do the exact same thing. Are you just mad they are doing it to you? Doesn't that invoke any sort of introspection into just what you were doing to others? Can you not recognize some sort of need for a mechanism that deals with this issue that serves a broader scope than just your feelings and whim?
That, at least, was my original impression of 'centrists' or classical liberals. I imagined they were looking for a principled system that could 'make it all work'. But as you've shown, and like many other ones I've engaged with have shown, they have no principles that reach beyond their own nose. They have no conception of a principled system that might leave them in the vulnerable position of having to tolerate things they don't like. They just believe themselves to be so rational and correct about everything that they can't even imagine that their own emotions could lead them astray. In fact, they predefine themselves as morally correct and then use their own emotions as a compass. Operating under the impression that they've ascended beyond personal bias and whatever else. The extent of the worldview is 'my reasons are good, other peoples reasons are bad'. And then we play this ridiculous game of words we've been playing in this comment chain.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Ss the unintentional effect of stupid algorithms.
The algorithm was fine. You saying it's 'unintentional' is just you saying it because you don't feel good about it. By the same token every 'conservative' wingnut nonsense is 'unintentionally' there as well and can by removed by the same reasoning. All you need to do that is someone who feels like you do about the holocaust, except about wingnut stuff.
Again, by your reasoning since a lot of people click on spam, they want to read spam.
That's obviously not the reasoning. Like I already said, everyone agrees that malicious things like malware or other things designed to scam money out of you are bad. People open spam thinking it's something it's not. No one opened 'Top 10 Reasons The Holocaust Didn't Happen' expecting anything else than what it says.
It's not banned. It's just not shown to people who want something else. People who actually want will still get it if they search for it. You're acting as if Google won't return Holocaust denial no matter what you do. They're not doing that. They're not even making it difficult to find.
Same is true for 'conservatives'? What is your problem here with anything exactly?
Besides, there is no "discussion" except among a tiny minority.
There are more people who don't believe in the holocaust than there are American 'conservatives'.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Because it was on top of Google.
And why was it on top of Google? Do the people clicking the link need your protection? They can't read something on their own? Why not? What might happen? They might believe something you don't personally approve of?
You are trying to justify putting it on top of Google by saying that people clicked on it, but people only clicked on it because it was on top of Google. That's circular reasoning.
I am not saying that anyone should put it on top of Google. I am saying it should not have been removed if we are trying to uphold any sort of liberal/centrist fairness across the board. It was a website doing exactly as advertised. 'Top 10 Reasons Why the Holocaust Didn't Happen'. That was the link, that was what people clicked. It wasn't predatory, it didn't have malware. It did exactly as advertised. It was only removed because a certain minority of people didn't like it there. There was no mass movement, no popular sentiment. Just a few journalists and philosemites leveraging power.
Oh come on now. Holocaust deniers really are a tiny, tiny, minority. Conservatives aren't.
You keep oscillating between 'true/false' and 'minority', it's annoying but still besides the point. It doesn't matter how many programmers use C++ vs C#, you can't ban one from the results because you feel like most people, in your particular context, which you arbitrarily decide to favor your argument, don't use one or the other. The people using Google click those links. They get bumped to the top. As soon as you have an arbiter above that process that can decide what is and isn't true you are bound by their will. That's the precedent you set. Stop complaining about it. The fact you surround yourself with the opinion of a bunch of idiots from the US doesn't change what's actually true for the global majority.
Are you seriously suggesting that we should pay no attention to truth because someone might think false things are true?
No, I'm seriously suggesting you start reading what I write instead of cutting it into bites you can twist out of context and lie about. What I am suggesting is that you can't even have a discussion on whether or not something is true or not if you ban it. If you do that you've already decided what is true and what is false. Not just for you but for everyone else who is deprived of information they might otherwise have used to find out. Case in point being Dachau.
Why does every folly of censorship have to be trotted out to people like you? You want to ban your outgroup. So do progressives. You don't have an argument. You're just mad your false beliefs get banned. Want to prove they're true? Try Google. Oh wait...
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Can you please do some kind of summary, commentary or other type of contextualization? Why should I even care about this? I'm not saying that to be antagonistic, I would latch on to the most flimsy reason available.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
By your reasoning, Google should be sending people to the SEO spam and should not try to get rid of it in search results.
Are you playing antagonistic defense for some particular reason?
Search is at least partly supposed to be a popularity contest.
This is what you said. How is Stormfront comparable to SEO spam? Yes, I think Google should remove predatory sites that, for instance, try to put malware on your system. Everyone does. That's kind of obvious, no?
Holocaust denial is neither something that many people want (since they want truthful things and it's false)
It won out the algorithm. The people looking up the holocaust and related stuff obviously clicked on it. You saying that people don't want that kind of stuff is just you saying it. Actual reality is different. Wanting to play veto by your feelings is not a good or fair. Don't think so? Don't lament progressives banning your 'conservative' conspiracy theory hogwash. They're just playing by your rules.
"It's a tiny percentage" is false for conservatives and true for Holocaust deniers. That's a big difference; being true or false actually matters.
It's not false. It's true. That's the difference you need to understand. You might think you can prove it but you wont receive the platform or information to do so. Those are the rules you follow when dealing with the holocaust and they are the exact same for wingnut nonsense. How can you complain? The situation could not be any more symmetrical. You decide truth for the holocaust and ban it. Progressives decide truth for 'conservatives' and ban it.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Yes, that's the centrist position. What I don't understand is how you can stand by it whilst refuting it in your own post.
Holocaust denial got the most clicks. But centrists don't like that so they want it banned. So screw any principle or fairness, I should just have my way because 'reasons'.
Funnily enough, that's how the people banning 'conservative' stuff think. They see a tiny portion of the population. A minority in their own communities and a minority globally. They see these 'people' denying obvious truths about global warming, racism, transphobia, the J6 insurrection, Trump the racist fascist, the truth of the election result, trans children and hormones, Immigration... I mean, have these 'conservatives' just considered not being factually wrong on everything? 99% of people don't agree with them. No one wants to go on google and be bombarded with false information. There are few conservatives, and no truth in conservatism.
No really, it's so easy to justify against the outgroup, as you artfully show. How can't centrists figure out that other people can do that as well?
Like with most things of this nature, most of the politically centric who would lament this development would otherwise celebrate its birth. I.e. The end of holocaust denial being the top result relating to the holocaust.
There was a big media storm surrounding the topic in 2016. I'm pretty sure Google had already been working on something before this. (Though that might have just been a concentrated effort of extremist jews trying to skew the results through very radical 'manual click farms', wish I could find those forum posts again.) As this matter had the added controversy of the site in question being Stormfront, a well known media boogey monster. The matter was closed in the same year as Google expunged holocaust skepticism from its top results.
It's hard to say what exactly a gray/centrist would change about the past to make the present a better place. I'm sure most of them on this website are far outside the norm when it comes to tolerating 'unsanctioned' holocaust revision and would just not press the censorship button. Or at least that's what they would say when faced with a hypothetical. However, when they actually have the button... well, then things can get messy.
I'd expect the typical reasoning of 'Only do it to the smallest of outgroups', but given how demonstrable it is now that such reasoning does not hold when we are trying to uphold broad principles for big populations... Where to? Can we at least stop using that argument?
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
The new fable of the white Liberal is born from the same impulse that birthed the old ones. They just periodically update the flavor text to maintain social respectability. White liberals still believe that they are needed to save the world. The utopian ideal for a white liberal is a world ruled by POC that happens to conform to every single preference the white liberal has. They can't help it.
Anglo-Saxons have ruined the country that black slaves mostly created, are predisposed to racism, and they will be saved by people of every race and nation unless we happen to stop liking Asians.
How is this not a typical white liberal daydream? They believe they have the answer to save the world. A multi race coalition. They imagine how it will function, what race will be the captain of the ship so on.(hint: it's a black woman with vitiligo) They get deep emotional glee from imagining themselves as a slightly lower rank person within a multi racial hierarchy. An advisor who, in the coalitions time of need, is the only one the captain can trust... or something.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Ashkenazim being diverse has little bearing on whether or not Portman could be called 'jewish looking'. Since Portman's 'look' could be much rarer than other jewish 'looks' as well as not sharing many of the obvious tells that make the other 'looks' obviously jewish. Which is my impression.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Tate invites her to Europe. She accepts. He takes her sight seeing in his Bugatti. Then, according to her, nothing happened.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Yes, she talks about it in the video I linked.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Many Ashkenazim have the opposite of a straight nose with no hump. The collection of jewish facial features that make up what could be considered a jewish face are very much not on display on Portman. Especially in that sideshot. I'd assume she were Eastern-European. Slovenian or something.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Feminists view of a positive male role model is an attractive man that's mouthing off feminist talking points. An actor like Gosling that women love a lot for his role as maybe the most insidiously tragic example of a man in movie history is the perfect fit.
Andrew Tate isn't that. It's a bald weirdo with a lot of money that's telling young kids that if they want girls and cool cars now rather than in 10-20 years, they should sell drugs now instead of being a loser that wastes their youth studying to be an electrician.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
The front of the nose a bit but on the sides I don't see it.
In an interview he did with his daughter she said that, basically, nothing happened.
I don't think it helps her case that she looks like a pornstar in that interview, but that's just me being a hateful Machiavellian narcistic coward troll demon. Outside of that I'm not cued in on all the drama.
That's not a contradiction.
More options
Context Copy link