hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
By your logic it seems Trump is picking 'Islamize all your allies through mass refugee crises'. Which is the result of pretending that after the war ends, everyone just goes back home. America is doing a lot worse than pretend.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
Sounds like more bad news for oil prices.
At worst we are seeing a slow but emerging strategy of just running Iran into the ground like with Syria and all the rest. Where sub par targets get selected due to a lack of better options. The decision makers have to make decisions, after all.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
Oswald Mosley had a rousing speech about standing at the precipice of history. Which for the most optimistic of us might be where we imagine JD Vance is standing. I took the liberty of slightly editing it to fit America. Though it sounds a lot better after being edited by what appears to be some Polish nationalist living in the UK.
You're living in a historical hour. Do remember that always, live in that sense, I beg of you, of history and of destiny.
When that period comes to be written and men look back at it, if we did right, if we stood firm, if we stood greatly, it will be a matter of honour and veneration for generations to come. I could not ask to live at any other moment of history than this, because never has mankind, never has the human species been confronted with such possibilities, with such choices of disaster, or of greater heights and greater glories.
My friends, do live in that sense that you are American, that you come from people who have faced tremendous odds again and again. That much is against you, but you've got within you that will, that spirit above all, that faith and that belief which will lead the generations to come to look back at you in the pages of history with the proud words to America, to Europe, to the world, they were true!
Sadly, if one thinks back to Mosley's day, none then could even imagine just how much worse things could and would get. In that sense JD Vance has not demonstrated any characteristic that would lead one to think he is anything other than a less charismatic Trump. And things might get a lot worse than we think.
I would withhold any positivity until he proclaims he will personally start executing the worst violent criminals in the US right on the White House front lawn with a gold plated 1911. Or maybe I've been seeing to many rage baits here and on X about criminals with mile long records getting released again and again for some mystical reason. In any case, he has to do something. Being as he is, I can't see it as being enough.
hanikrummihundursvin
12d ago
I appreciate the sentiment of this comment. We can direct all Iran war discourse directly at phailyoor.
hanikrummihundursvin
13d ago
Can you not minimize the thread instead? Splitting the small userbase is bad for discourse.
hanikrummihundursvin
13d ago
When your alleged strategy is that of regime change with the popular support of the people it seems like a rather big strategic mistake to bomb an elementary school filled with kids.
To that extent the people doggedly doling out wisdom on the cold hard realities of war seem to just be coping. To what end I do not know.
hanikrummihundursvin
13d ago
It's all performative though. Hating them is like hating a piñata. Much the same as cheering for them is. Their personas don't represent anything real.
For instance, Stephen Miller has been doing his aggressive anti-immigration schtick for over a decade. Through 2 administrations. Where is immigration in the US today? The same place it has been for the last decade.
Hegseth has been representing the tough guy nothing but business soldier in charge. Yet the US starts a war in the middle east at the behest of Israel that is of no discernable benefit to the US.
Trump, the guy who promised to cut down on immigration and not do any wars in the middle east has resided over all of this. And people still boo or cheer this on as if it where a WWE wrestling match.
It's just so overbearing. As if Trump bending the knee to the Heritage Foundation in his first term wasn't enough, he's been talking about how illegals can stay if they are working. ILLEGALS. Has this rhetoric changed the tune of the left at all regarding orange hitler? Not one bit.
And on the flipside, Obama killed plenty of innocent families. I don't think a department of million men could get anyone to care about dead middle easterners past a single news cycle regardless of who the president is. America really does not care.
What is anyone even cheering for or against? On the ground numbers show no relevant change in any relevant aspect. The American machine is chugging along as usual on its slow downward spiral. And getting anyone to care about that reality is like pulling teeth out of a donkey.
hanikrummihundursvin
14d ago
Yeah. I guess I'm just not geopolitically tuned in enough to intuitively understand what 'improvement' looks like or for who. So far the track record of US 'improvement' in the middle east has been lackluster to say the least, so I'd argue some pessimism is warranted.
hanikrummihundursvin
14d ago
I'm not sure anyone is arguing the war is good for Iran. More that it's not good for anyone else either. So if the US wants to settle for being the undisputed king of the decimated third world they can do that. But if that's all they can do one has to admit that the shine of the US empire has dampened a little bit.
hanikrummihundursvin
14d ago
The caveats, disclaimers, inb4's and all the rest are impressive in their meticulousness. Same goes the '300' ways. I think that, whilst kind of autistic, it manages to speak in rhythm and terms that could easily reach a masculine minded woman. Which a lot of feminists are.
That being said, in a grander scheme of the old feminist/manosphere culture war, it's also just a very clever guideline for feminists to use as verbal cover to further chastise men for creating the patriarchy that harms women AND men. To that extent I'm not sure to where this work moves the needle.
I still see modern non-radical feminists trudge out long lists of half truths and outright lies about the plights of women and how unfair society is to them, punctuated by a much shorter list of how men die in wars and are homeless. This is a distinct change from the early internet feminist rhetoric that did not have the aforementioned punctuation, but any honest observer can tell that the feminist heart really isn't in it by the time they get to the mens issues. It's just an obvious inb4 to ward off the ghost of Warren Farrell and the likes. This fact invokes the broader question of why feminists have a hard time empathizing with men.
You are approaching the issue from a factual angle. They simply don't know enough about men and their experiences, so they can't see their pain. And how could they? They are not men, and most men aren't exactly advertising their emotional turmoil. From that perspective this book is theoretically perfect. Here is the list! But on the flipside, this blindside has been there for a while. So one could half jokingly wonder: Could the feminists not have asked?
This leads to the more pessimistic view of feminism. What's at the heart of feminism is ingroup bias. Ingroup bias felt by women for other women. Men are the outgroup. You don't empathize with the outgroup. Simple as.
From that perspective the book can at worst simply invoke cognitive dissonance. Like writing a book aimed at Christians to garner sympathy for the devil. But at best it can act as a sort of battering ram to knock down the fake reality of a radical feminist who has maybe spent too many college years engaging in performative man hating lesbianism.
At any rate, my personal critique of the position of the book and the modern state of 'masculinity' in the gender war is that it conforms to women, women's emotions, women's understanding of emotions and seeks to better men in a direction that conforms to womens conception of progress. In a crass 4chan post that I'll try to succinctly paraphrase in two sentences:
Never lift for women, and having sex with women is gay because pleasing women is gay.
That's an obvious hyperbole, but behind it is a kernel of truth. All men lift weights to look better to have better chances with women because they want to have sex with them. Working hard, flashy cars, big house, everything. In a word it's all peacocking. Men fighting other men to win the attention of floozy HOPS who are playing the same game against each other.
In such a world both sides of the gender war reach a similar conclusion, the only form of true love is gay. Because men/women aren't there to ruin it. But most men are rather repulsed by masculine homosexual activity, and the sexual boredom of lesbianism and repressed heterosexuality eventually kills the rebellious radfem lesbian that lives inside an otherwise surprisingly conservative young woman.
The only active players trying to work society out of this predicament are traditionalist religious types. They hold no real power or answers to any of the problems faced by the modern man and women other than hopes and prayers, and the insurmountable fact that if you wont overstep your own emotions and hangups regarding the opposite sex you will never have children and will grow old, bitter and finally extinct.
I'm not sure if there exist any gender reconciliation movements on the left outside of 'Not my Nigel', but the world could certainly use one. As I would prefer a government that could both reconcile the sex wars and not invade Iran.
You could stop bombing them where they live, for starters. That would stop them.
I was recently working with a Palestinian who had walked from Turkey to Austria, applied to refugee status, got rejected by all except one country and voila, now there is a family of 8 living in my town. Why did he spend 2 years away from his family, walking across Europe? He showed me pictures of his old house, and then again when it was just a pile of rubble on the ground. Then how the conditions in the camp in Turkey were shit. It was no place for raising a family. So he sought a better life.
What is the option for Europe here? Kill them all? Let them starve on the border? Create a humanitarian crisis in Jordan and Turkey? The situation is completely ridiculous. If Iran doesn't withstand this, we will be seeing a refugee crisis that will dwarf everything else.
Hell, no matter what, in less than 100 years we can expect a sizeable enough muslim majority in Britain to take relevant political control.
Honestly, I can't take your rhetoric seriously. If Europe wants to destroy themselves? The cold hard American realist can apparently just scoff. As if a Muslim majority country with fully functional nuclear submarines that can launch strikes anywhere in the world is a neutral development.
More options
Context Copy link