hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
In an alternate universe the US just settles on a peace deal with Japan rather than surrender. Instead of relying on a racist caricature of the Japanese being completely insane and willing to fight to the last man, woman and child if the white man ever sets foots on their sacred shores, I think it's more prudent to assume that the Japanese high command recognized that the war was over and was looking for ways to end it on equal terms. Which, according to the mainstream US story, was exactly what was happening and was indeed the purpose behind the alleged Japanese plan of 'Ketsu Go'.
The notion that the only way to end the war was with American boots in Tokyo is a mythical one. The US did not need to drop the bombs since it did not need the complete subjugation of Japan. On that note, the US had no grand strategic forethought that could reach past the nose of the allegedly jewish propaganda described above. Leaving them with the USSR in Europe and China in Asia.
As is the case with most of the foreign policy ventures of the past, we are living through the failures of 'great' historical figures who amounted to little other than drinking the cool-aid of their time. With history serving as a sugarcoat that we can use to help convince ourselves that we are the end product of 'great' men making the best out of a bad situation. Things just happen, the moral arch of history bent in such a way that we had to do what was done. So no matter how inhumane and horrible we acted, just know it was ultimately justified. God bless and Amen.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I agree to an extent. Conflating demographic replacement with blacks was always an implicit lefty meme born out of their inability to distinguish ingroup/outgroup bias from narratives surrounding immigration and birthrates. The concern over blacks in the US is not demographic but 'cultural' for a lack of a better term.
When 6% of the population is committing 50-60% of all violent crime you should be allowed to ask why they are all black men and what can be done about them as black men before you start restructuring your potentially high trust white society to account for such a disruptive minority. In that sense blacks act as a disruption generator that fuels the aspects reactionaries hate the most about modern lib/left/progressive expression. Primarily the aspect that they are traitors who refuse to face the hard truths and instead let others carry the cost of the fantasies their unexamined privilege affords them.
To that end black emancipation was never achieved off the back of a popular majority. It was always the elites pushing the envelope and imposing their delusions on the lower classes. The old generation with their old propaganda gets cycled out and the new generation with new propaganda gets cycled in to continue where the old left off.
On the other hand, modern US society is in part based on worshipping black people. I mean, can anyone deny to ridiculous effort both sides of the mainstream enact in just to get a black person to mouth off their talking points? And the fact people genuinely feel that their side is more valid if they have a black person on their side.
I wish I could find the study that, in broad terms, showed how depicting blacks as fighting for a just cause made people more likely to assume blacks in general were more virtuous. It, at the very least, confirmed all of my biases regarding the effects I felt after being exposed to a nigh endless propaganda stream of blacks protesting during the civil rights era against the evil white supremacist empire. I mean, why were the evil white police hitting the innocent blacks who just wanted to be treated the same? My 12 year old brain could make no sense of it, and came to the obvious logical conclusion that one side was good and the other evil.
I find it hard to talk about since the propaganda is so heavy. It's gotten to the point where my inclination towards most posts that seem to indicate a preference for one side over another is that they are simply bots. Maybe I'm just going insane. Same thing happened when talking politics on reddit in 2015-16 on certain subs.
On the flipside I've seen both 'sides' be so consistently wrong I don't feel like tossing my unqualified predictions and biases into the fray. Aside from platitudes about 'war bad, peace good' I don't think there's anything to be said other than trying to piece together what has actually happened so far. A discussion that is, again, marred by both sides posting inflated and deflated casualty stats at one another.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
No, it's still not.
It is and the Wikipedia link in your linked comment says exactly the same thing I did.
While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of invading and occupying the Home Islands too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat.
Like I said in my comment, the only reason for nuking Japan was to induce unconditional surrender. And my overarching point was the US did not need Japan to surrender in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
That's not the entire truth though. The backdrop to the peaceful protests was violent riots and full scale political terrorism, as is examined in detail in Days of Rage In full context, the civil rights movement is not just a bunch of innocent blacks getting beaten up by sadist white men. But that would only exist as a sideshow to the baseline that black people, in general, are not more virtuous than others, despite many people intrinsically believing so.
As for black men and crime, as long as the societal norm is to apply blame and dish out punishment based on historical crimes made by your ancestors, like is done to white people, on top of blaming them as a group for any activity a white person undertakes as an individual, which is done on top of actively marginalizing against white men based on the comparatively poor performance of blacks, as well as actively fostering an environment that excuses black crime and vilifies white crime, and all of those activities existing under an umbrella of anti-racism, I see no reason why we can't have an active anti-racist marginalization campaign enacted against black men.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
It's in a way helpful for you to so completely make my prior point.
As is the case with most of the foreign policy ventures of the past, we are living through the failures of 'great' historical figures who amounted to little other than drinking the cool-aid of their time. With history serving as a sugarcoat that we can use to help convince ourselves that we are the end product of 'great' men making the best out of a bad situation. Things just happen, the moral arch of history bent in such a way that we had to do what was done. So no matter how inhumane and horrible we acted, just know it was ultimately justified. God bless and Amen.
Maybe don't write up a peace treaty that is unfair and conducive to another war breaking out. To pretend the Treaty of Versailles was ever about peace is vulgar.
Judging by the peace that's followed afterward, I see no reason to condemn this. It worked, I'm glad it did, I appreciate that it was made so.
Considering you have no knowledge of what peace was possible without incinerating a bunch of civilians for spectacle I consider your appreciation of it a strike against your moral character.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I have little tolerance for people who one sidedly glorify the massacre of civilians for the 'greater good'. Even less so for those who cry out in pain as they strike you.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
Ideological zealots ready to sign up for the modgrinder. Hold fast sisters!
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
Reading the Sagas was, for me, more an exploration of emotions and will to action much more so than it was about the importance of some legal process or old Iceland. Your brother was killed, now what do you do? Do people not have contemporary emotions towards that kind of scenario?
Even the overarching 'Christianization' narrative can be sidelined when reading. Kári sparing Flosi might be read as a Christian moment, but it can just as well be read as a human moment, or an Icelandic moment, or a Kári moment. The same can be said for Njál, which acts less than Jesus like on multiple occasions.
The story itself is very character driven, even if it doesn't follow a modern formula for characters. You get very clear introductions and descriptions of who the people are and what they look like, if they have done anything of note or if they are related to anyone of note. These characters then fall into disputes with one another. They are not defendant A and defendant B. These are real people who make good decisions and bad decisions and they are treated as such.
To that end I'm not all the fond of the broader narratives of Christianization or American notions of freedom. You can contextualize the story in such a way, sure. But you can also contextualize it in the Hávamál:
Deyr fé,
deyja frændur,
deyr sjálfur ið sama.
En orðstír
deyr aldregi
hveim er sér góðan getur.
Cattle die,
kinsmen die,
and you yourself shall die.
But fair fame never dies
for the one who wins it.
In that sense we are not living in civilization, just the echoes of cowardice and submission of those who came before us and failed to maintain honor and dignity. And our tradition is to carry on with their cowardice and indignity in return for the same poultry amount of silver shillings some loser, whose name was never recorded, had accepted in return for swallowing his humanity.
In any case, formatting the story to the limited emotional bandwidth of libertarianism or religion is doing it a disservice. Forgiveness did not come about because of Jesus, and liberty was nowhere to be found in the day to day life of Icelandic farmers. There is, however, a whole lot of humanity on display and the story, in my opinion, is much better read as such.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
I know that's their point, and that's a very common point being made, but it loses all significance. The humanity exists inbetween killing and making amends. Swinging from one to the other. I think 'everyone', on some level, understands that just the same as people obviously understand you can't avenge every killing with more killing. Which equally goes for the people in the story.
As an example from real life, it seems very self serving and onesided to pin civilization on the meek at the same time we have hundreds of thousands of people dying from corporations selling extremely addictive drugs, where they use part of the profit to pay themselves away from any serious consequence. When 'everyone' knows many of the instigators of that system should just be tortured to death for all the harm they've caused, and that no amount of money can right their wrongs.
To that end there are tons of stories with deep historical/political/legal analysis, and they all fail to extrapolate any meaningful reality based observations since they exist as vessels to carry a theory and not as an extension of reality. I think that minimizing the humanity and reality of the story so it can exist as a self congratulatory vessel for the endlessly meek is doing it a great disservice that also distorts it quite heavily.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
The general dialectic surrounding immigration into the US is almost always a sleight of hand argument that goes: 'At least they're not as bad as the blacks.' Usually accomplished by creating a category called 'Americans' and comparing it to a category called 'Immigrants'.
In a pound for pound comparison, there is nothing viscerally worse about arabs compared to Mexicans. The most notable thing with regards to foreigners is not the dress or religion. It's the color of their skin and the shape of their face. People notice their neighborhoods becoming less white. To that end most muslims in Europe that are out and about dress western. It's really only the women who make a statement with a headscarf and more modest dress. The more orthodox muslims don't exist to most people since they generally live in very muslim areas to begin with and are mostly out and about when the Europeans are at work.
The real reason America isn't throwing a bigger fit is that America has had the worst 'immigrant' group of any western country nagging and gnawing their way through a functioning society. I mean, just compare the alleged 'No Go Zones' of Sweden with any sufficiently black inner city in the US. There's simply no shock to the system possible.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
America gets defined by whatever America is at the current time. So it's no wonder we can claim people "assimilated". Since we don't reference any past definition of America. It's always the current thing.
When it was Indian country that's what America was. When it became WASP country it became what it was, and there was no 'assimilation'. When the WASPs accepted general European immigration those immigrants did not 'assimilate' at all. They simply voted the country that suited them more into being and mangled the America that was out of shape. The WASP elite got kicked out and the country took a turn towards what America would then become. After that round of immigration and social turmoil America was that.
Now America is getting more immigration and the new immigrants are not going to 'assimilate' any more than any other immigrant did. They are just going to live as close as they can to their want and vote the same way, and whatever power with opportunity will make use of that to mangle the country closer what they need just like happened before.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
Either this is evidence of the upcoming gay holocaust(not likely). Or it's a sort of boomer/X'er deathrattle where a few too many of them at once are realizing the propaganda they've been parroting all their lives was actually just appeasing lipservice designed entirely around getting them shut up until we get to the next era of progress. Where we can play the same game again, but with more progress, obviously.
On the other hand I'd be interested to know just what the effect of drastically lower marriage rates in general does to these sort of polls. If you no longer view 'marriage' as an important thing it might be much easier to be against it. To that end I'd be surprised if there is any genuine uptick in anti-gay stuff.
I am actually quite confident most of the 'anti-gay' sentiment expressed by anyone goes no further than pining for the 90's. I.e. 'Can we please go back to the world your old propaganda promised us where we all just pretend to be open and tolerant about 'sexuality'. Seeing people actually doing it grosses me out.'
Most people today seem to be too conflict averse to verbalize any visceral anti-gay sentiment. Though you can see some of it every now and then when STD stuff comes around, like with 'monkeypox'.
An angry Bob in middle America has no power to formulate plans for middle East invasions and then put them into action.
Many Americans wanted revenge for 9/11. The direction those emotions were guided in and the actions those emotions were used to justify were completely the work of neocons and zionists. To pretend those two movements are not extremely jewish goes beyond any reason.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
Wow, Germany was provoked into invading Poland; because, they were not just handed Polish land on a silver platter. What an argument.
That's pretty far away from the argument, and quite irrelevant to the passage you are quoting.
Poland, by refusing to hand over Danzig and working through Germany to get what they wanted, were aligning themselves with Britain and the US to get what they wanted. What's being highlighted is that Poland made the decision to stand against Germany on the basis that they had the backing of the US and Britain. A basis that, according to Flynn, was being heavily pushed on the Poles by the US.
Considering the US and Britain didn't have any ability to stand by their word, going against Germany was maybe the worst decision ever made by Polish statesmen. Getting some of the worst of the war and post-war occupation.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
What exists in the consciousness of the American right holds no relevance to who is responsible for the actions taken post 9/11. The existence of jews who were or are against those actions changes nothing about who is responsible for those actions. Those actions were taken by neo-cons and zionists. Two of the most jewish movements in American politics.
If the anti-war, peace loving, only good, never bad, constantly doing what's best for the goyim jews I keep hearing about from jew-apologists were in charge I would have nothing to talk about. But they are obviously not. And even assuming they exist in any relevant number, their powerlessness and uselessness when it comes to fighting back against all the jew made crap in the modern world is not an argument in favor of jews in general or an excuse for those jews in particular who keep doing things that are bad for Europeans.
Your contention relies on the Germans requests being unreasonable when you could just as easily say that they weren't. Not the least considering Poland could have been much better for it, along with all of Europe, if they had aligned themselves with Germany against communism and what National Socialists recognized as capitalism in the hands of the international jew.
My argument isn't selective about anything. I think you should step back and recognize just what narrative is being revised. Hitler could have done things differently, but the obvious case here is that so could everyone else. In the context of general WW2 narratives that shovel all blame on Hitler in particular, and to a lesser extent the Treaty of Versailles, there exists an obvious angle of blame that is never talked about lest it draw attention away from the great myths we have created out of Hitler and the holocaust.
Democracy means that everyone is responsible for what happens.
If you want to say that, that's nice. I don't think it necessarily does mean that in some ideological abstract, but hey, maybe it does. But much less would I consider modern 'democracies' in general or America in particular in any way related to ideological abstracts of what 'democracy' "means".
Especially everyone which was in favor of the choice that was made.
The public can only be as informed as the institutions that inform it. To that end the Pentagon had launched a massive media campaign to propagandize people into wanting war with Iraq. As detailed by David Barstow. That's on top of every other media element, many of whom jewish, who pushed relentlessly for war.
The jews weren't a majority of the Bush electorate, and it's pretty clear that the Bush electorate supported the war.
The electorate were angry because of 9/11. They were then fed a mass media cycle that fueled that anger. This anger was then directed towards a war with Iraq. This was done intentionally. I just made this argument in the my prior post. Please don't ignore it and restate the argument it just responded to. It's tedious.
As for the rest of your post, you are trying to weave a narrative that the war was a consequence of the wants and will of Bob and I can't take it seriously. Bob is angry all the time and no one in power cares. Bob asks for things all the time and no one in power even listens. Everyone knows Bob has no power. In this case Bob was angry and the powers that be saw they could use that anger to their advantage to get what they wanted. Invading Iraq was insane. The pretense for the invasion a lie, and its supporters either useful idiots or neo-con zionists thinking only of Israel. The neocons didn't give anyone what they wanted except themselves. They crafted a media narrative based entirely on lies and deceit that was designed around taking advantage of Bob and his emotions so he would send his children to die for Israel.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
A hallmark of jewish controlled movements is non-jewish frontmen, as is noted in detail by Kevin MacDonald. But that's rather besides the point of what neo-conservatism and zionism are and where those things come from.
It's easy to make things sound far fetched and insane. As if a hooked nosed caricature from an A Wyatt Mann comic was whispering jewish lies into the ears of hapless Americans. But that's not how things necessarily work. And I don't know if I should insult your intelligence by explaining to you how belief in an ideology can influence peoples decision making, or if I can just ask you to stop pretending you don't understand that the Bush Jr administration was neo-conservative and zionist adjacent, that those movements are jewish, and that adherence to those ideologies exists as an expression of jewish influence insofar as they push it forward and adhere to it.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
I mean, I'm not really allowed to "rail about Da Joos". Nigh every single time I make a critical point about expressions of jews you are here wearing your mod hat being antagonistic and sneering at me. Going so far as to strawmanning my argument just after you accused me of doing so.
You are allowed to rail about Da Joos
This is antagonistic sneering. I am not "railing" against anyone. That's not a fair summation of what I wrote. And always referring to a critical statement with regards to jews as being about 'Da Joos' is disrespectful and childish. I mean, can I refer to any pro communist argument as 'gommunism'? Oh, I didn't know you were one of those who liked 'crapitalism'. Oh, is that a 'shitlib' argument? No really, what are you doing?
Even if you really believe "Jews" are a single unit
This is a strawman. I don't. How you could gleam that from me arguing about distinctions between jews is beyond me.
the fact is that there are Jews here (probably on both sides of any given argument) and you need to address them (yes, you are addressing posters here on the Motte when you talk about Jews) as individuals.
I am at a loss at what you are referring to. No jew came forward with their own beliefs, nor is the belief of any individual in question, nor did I insinuate that any jew had to have a specific belief if they were not neoconservative or zionist. Like, can you quote where I went wrong?
If you want to speak about what The Jews are doing, either make sure you can defend the claim that it applies to any given Jew, or stop using such broad generalizations.
I made specific claims regarding specific institutions and movements. I am sure I can defend the claim that neo-conservatism and zionism are jewish. And so far no one has bothered pretending they are not since everyone knows they are. Perhaps it's my error in assuming people would know the difference between recognizing that just because the Italian Mafia is Italian doesn't mean that referring to it as such means every Italian is a mafioso. Maybe it's a jewish thing.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
Which is all completely irrelevant to the fact that the neoconservative and zionist movements were jewish. Most Italians had no hand in the Italian mafia. Was the Italian mafia not Italian?
So again, most Jews were opposed, many elite Jews were opposed (we can't say 'most' only because polling doesn't exist, but I think it likely), and the major decisionmakers were gentiles, including the President who had a familial vendetta against Saddam Hussein dating back 15 years.
Which would not explain why, according to William Kristol, Bush Jr was not on board with the idea until after 9/11.
“I think you could make a case that on September 10th, 2001, that it’s not clear that George W. Bush was in any fundamental way going in our direction on foreign policy.”
"OUR" of course, referencing the neocon side, as opposed to the pragmatist side within the White House at the time. He had similar things to say about Cheyney
“Cheney is a complicated figure and, obviously, a very cautious and reticent figure, so hard to know what he thinks in his heart of hearts. I think he had feet in both camps, so to speak.”
The neocon faction, led by Paul Wolfowitz had been agitating for war for a long time and they finally found the right conditions to push it forward. That's on the back of all the events that inspired the 9/11 attacks in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
How is that a problem with 'my theory'? Why would it need a majority of jews in favor of the war?
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
You've lost me.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
This is low effort and banal. Believe it or not jewish people can have influence. And the levers and mechanisms by which factions in politics can have influence over elected officials is not some incredible feat that warrants disbelief.
The effort required is so superhumanly and extremely impressive that I'd love to find these guys and go along with them; they are clearly more competent and fit to rule than any group I've ever heard of, at all.
If that's your takeaway from the effects of neocon foreign policy it says more about your argument than anything I could. Being silly for the sake of argument is not a good look for your argument.
Did the Japanese who fought for the US change it in any way? Or did they get to watch their ethnic kinfolk firebombed and incinerated via incendiary and nuclear weapons? Is Japan, under the fading soft power occupation of the US, thriving or is the nation slowly withering away?
The high road was taken by former Group Captain Elizabeth Nicholl. She left in protest to what she was ordered to do. Her replacement receives an award for doing what she was unwilling. She didn't run to China, she didn't flee, she did the maximum amount she could to draw attention to the situation without incriminating herself as an insubordinate member of the RAF. But with the world being how it is, there is no incentive for anyone with power to step away from their racist ideology that ultimately demands white displacement.
As an exact contradiction to the situation MLK found himself in, there is very little fertile ground for white victimary discourse in mainstream politics. It doesn't matter if it's white men or boys getting snubbed from education and employment, or little girls getting raped by the thousands by newly imported browns. MLK wasn't special and he didn't talk to the people. He talked to media and he talked to elites who rode him as a prize horse for a victory lap over the dead south. White people in the UK have no such backing. When they do organize they get ridiculed and ostracized with the full force of the media or they get outright banned and imprisoned.
So I'd ask again, what does a British male pilot owe the state that discriminates against him? Becoming MLK? Overthrowing the government and media hegemon? Or do a Mike Buchanan and speak into an empty jar for over a decade? Surely someone will listen...
More options
Context Copy link