BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 48d 00h 53m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The Internet was full of a bunch of socially awkward, socially shunned nerds, and the Internet offered them a venue not only to express themselves, but also vent their frustrations. Once Facebook arrived upon the scene, the Net was colonized by a bunch of privileged progressive whites who began imposing their cultural norms on geek culture - a form of colonization.
I disagree with this narrative a lot.
tl;dr: it's not the normies that fought the old internet and won. It's the lolcows.
Old internet places were normie-proof. The first and most simple reason for this was that normies have lives to live, no-life internet losers do not. So in any given area the internet culture was always dictated by the no-lifers since they are always there.
A secondary reason is emergent culture. When similar people engage with one another, you get a form of culture. These people were, back in the day, no life white dudes. The cultural expression was indirectly just young white men. Not being that sticks out like a sore thumb.
The third reason is that caring is weak. If you care about something you can be made fun of. If you value something it can be desecrated. So in order to be bulletproof you can't care about anything.
The thing that killed these places and led to the 'New Internet' we have today were a few things. Primarily it was different kinds of no-lifers mixed with grifters mixed with weak men with power. /v/ after GamerGate is a great example. Grifters create drama, no-lifers join in to point and laugh, weak men with power, i.e. mods and moot, side with grifters and /v/ is turned into a 'no fun allowed' zone since weak mods are enticed by grifters.
That wouldn't be enough to kill everything off though. The second nail in the coffin can be seen with reddit. Starting with places like SRS. It turns out super motivated no-lifers who obsessively care are much better than unmotivated no-lifers who have made it their entire thing to not care at all. Especially when the weak men with power are completely ready to abandon fun in favor of attention from women, since that happens to be a thing men care about a lot regardless of what they say on the internet.
The third nail in the coffin was the 'New Internet' realizing that having no-lifers on the internet laugh at you doesn't matter all that much. Sure it hurts, and the old no lifers can get under your skin and create better internet memes and whatever. But in real life they have no power. So what does it matter? Just ban, laugh, and lie. The old truth can never reach anyone that way.
The final nail is simply that you can out-no-life the old no-lifers. No one is 16-25 forever. Sooner or later real life rears its head and you stop being permanently online. And for a lot of white men that happens. But what if you are a professional no-lifer? What if you are way past thirty and your entire life revolves around modding the biggest social media sites? The ultimate NEET lifestyle so coveted by the old no-lifer. Living rent free in real life. But instead of the old idealism of just playing video games, going to the gym and buying the occasional hooker, you intend to enforce your will unto the internet with ideological fanaticism and fervor that defies reality and reaches depths of depravity so great that no shock documentaries of hoarders or maniacal weirdos even come close.
The new internet is the lolcow. And they make sure anyone who laughs gets the stick.
If you want a glimpse of the future, look at Call of Duty. A bunch of transparent grifters running around a multi billion dollar game franchise desperate to please the lolcow community managers so they can get more power, status and money to continue grifting off of the sub-100 IQ brown normie playerbase. The entire thing is so degenerate and disgusting I have no words to describe it. But it's the norm.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
In theory the president matters a lot. In practice it has managed to not matter all that much in recent years. You can blame Trump or you can blame the deep state or whatever, it's still irrelevant to the point that in practice it hasn't mattered. The big issues stay the same no matter who gets in there.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I feel the situation is more, as others have alluded to, a bit of a camera issue.
The Hunter Biden stuff and the J6 Trump stuff are wild from a lot of angles. But it seems like the cameras get turned off every time something wild breaks. Similar to European football games where the cameras are turned downward every time someone runs into the field naked or there is a fight in the stands.
Alternatively it's a bit like watching Eurovision the year after Russia invaded Ukraine. There was only going to be one winner and everyone knew it was Ukraine. American politics feel a bit like who is going to get 2nd kind of thing, since everyone knows the big issues aren't affected by the election. As Trump, the ultimate outsider underdog extraordinaire showed.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The 'definitely' here means: If you meet 'that girl whose date-me-doc or coffee-meets-bagel profile talks about how she is looking for a serious relationship' you should assume she is fucking randos on the side. Not: 'I counted and it's exactly 100% guys'.
If @do_something had looked at their posting history they would easily have seen that and the length to which @SecureSignals goes to follow the rules of the forum and to engage in constructive discourse.
But that's not what their comment is driven by. It's pure outgroup + cognitive dissonance. They see someone they don't like posting something they don't agree with and they lash out.
People who act like this and the want to get away from them and the degenerative effect they have on discourse are the reason for the motte to exist.
The lack of the usual antagonistic and sneering remarks in Amadans mod post is disappointing for the first time ever. And his validation of the otherization of @SecureSignals and the implication that there might be something 'suspicious' going on is beyond poor form.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I agree, but to that end I see no use for considering you or anyone else Libertarian. If everyone has to be on the same page ideologically you are not offering any more freedom than anyone else. Of course you feel free to do what you wish when you already believe in the just nature of established boundaries.
As a religion I don't like pie in the sky stuff. I much rather prefer something that's concrete like ethnicity and fixed real life borders to ground our religion in. As it's much more resistant to subversion.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Both 1 and 2 are a yes.
But on top of that, always supporting the ingroup is what everyone is doing. The argument that Africans will improve the Estonian economy is not there to say that your outgroup will benefit your ingroup. It's there to make you believe Africans are now a part of your ingroup.
If I believe Africans are of my ingroup the question of the factual economic realities of mass immigration from Africa are irrelevant. Insofar as one believes more people of ones ingroup will 'enrich' ones societies, which is definitionally what one would believe if they were a part of your ingroup, the rest follows naturally.
The act of 'telling a lie' in this context is just a protection of the truth from the outgroup. As an example: I might understand someone to be against mass immigration from Africa. But that's genuinely only because they are bigoted. Which is true. They might say that Africans are bad for the economy. I object to this on a basis that it's untrue in some sense. Because my greater truth, derived from the fact Africans are a part of my ingroup, trumps everything else.
I think this becomes apparent when lib/left/progressives go from supporting mass immigration because its good to implying that it's a punishment when challenged too much on the factual premise of the alleged benefits of mass immigration. They do believe mass immigration is good for them and their ingroup. And if it's bad for their outgroup then that's also good for them.
I find it hard to call this sort of thing a lie. More that, when it comes to the ingroup, we tell the truth, and when it comes to the outgroup, we protect ourselves.
(this turned into a bit of a ramble as I'm having trouble expressing this, hope its readable)
I think most of the modern western world is how it is today precisely because of the extreme amounts of information and truth suppression.
I can't argue against the fact that most people in the west genuinely believe every single ounce of propaganda that is poured into their heads. A lot of which isn't just some pie in the sky stuff about morals and ideas but things that are in direct conflict with everyday realities and basic common sense. Yet people either believe the propaganda or contextualize what their lying eyes are seeing to not go against the broad narrative of the propaganda.
Propaganda works. Lying works. If I want mass immigration from the third world, what truth can aid me? Why rely on any truth? Why hope that the masses share my grand and noble vision for the EuroAfrican future when they are so short sighted and stupid? I can just lie to them and they will eat it up like children watching a toy commercial.
I don't believe this is an issue you overcome with ideals and values about truth. If you want society to function, you lubricate it with lies. This works. I want my society to function. I don't want mass immigration. Why contort myself to fit the truth into the heads of those who don't want to bear it? Just replace the lie already in their heads with another one.
I guess what I am trying to get at there is that I don't believe in human ontological moral innocence. I have no reason to believe that, if left alone, people will gravitate towards good. That if I remove one layer of lies there is a truth waiting under it. That under the skin of these ethno-masochist bobble heads there is a National Socialist waiting to be free.
I want European ethnicities to continue to express themselves, evolve, survive and thrive. I genuinely don't have a 'true' argument for why Estonia shouldn't be flooded with brown people.. Sure, I might believe it will be bad and that non-stop mass immigration will lead to the end of the native ethnic expression of themselves, both culturally and genetically, but... What even is that? My belief? Why do I care? Why should it be more important than the belief of EU bureaucrats on the goodness of EuroAfrica? I've never even met an Estonian. What if someone doesn't share my belief? What if they already believe the propaganda that diversity is our strength and that Estonia will be better after a few million third worlders?
To put it another way, it literally doesn't matter to me how truly statistically bad my ingroup is. So long as they are my ingroup I care about them. Anyone trying to get me to dislike my ingroup through statistics and crime rates is evil. And me not bowing down to their tricks is noble and good. As an example: It's bad for your economy. Ok, to borrow your own line of thinking, would it be good to ethnically replace Estonians if it was good for the economy? What if I just believed that being open to mass immigration was what made me a good person. Is that true? Would that belief offset the truth of mass immigration being bad for the economy? I mean, what good is an economy for if it's not bettering the lives of people.
To reach some conclusion from this ramble, truth just isn't a part of the game here. Even if you care about it. It's just your personal preference. It's not more inherently valuable than the 'delusions' of your outgroup. And more importantly, the mechanism by which you get people to believe in the truth is not necessarily based on any truth.
I might not like Eric Turkheimer and I might personally despise his brazen lies. But on a bigger picture level, where we drop our own ego and just look at the world as it is, guys like him and Lind are much closer to having their truth out there than any boorish HBD truth seeker ever will be, and they are more honest and self aware of their intention. They represent something good. World peace, the working class, human dignity, being kind. Your justifications, on the other hand, are what? Truth uber alles, because... It will out someday, probably? And it's good anyway even if it might be bad after all the lies we told about it?
My question to you and someone like Sailer would be this: Who will enforce the view that we shouldn't kill all the untermensch after the truth gets out? Why should someone believe that when the truth is that they are parasites making the lives of everyone else worse? Surely we should ensure, with propaganda, that people believe the 'correct' thing, right?
It seems rather straight forward to me that you would do this by doing the exact thing Turkheimer and friends have been doing for decades.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
It's a shame Lind carries all these low quality anti-HBD viewpoints and sneers into his article. A guy like him genuinely has inroads with "eugenicons" like the ones he mentions due to his well fought anti-immigration effort.
Even as a soft Marxist materialist he has salient arguments backing up his anti-immigration position that could easily be leveraged into a critique of 'blind' HBD promotion.
The most obvious point he could hammer home would be the fact that a lot of the anti-immigration rhetoric from the right in general revolves around it being bad for the working class. Well, can't we, for the sake of argument, assume that dropping HBD on the working class might also, potentially, be bad? That seems to be a belief of Lind's and I wish he would spend more time on expanding on it rather than fumbling the ball on HBD.
Michael Lind, Eugenicons and the Motte.
Recently, Michael Lind, a notable political commentator and anti-immigration activist, took a stab at what he termed the "eugenicons". The most prominent of which being men like Charles Murray, Steve Sailer, Bo Winegard and guys like Richard Hanania, whose face is prominently plastered over the article.
Linds piece paints these "eugenicons" as being not just factually wrong and out of their element with regards to the science, but also politically ineffective. As Lind sees 'race realism' and the libertarian ethos it allegedly expresses itself through these men to be "utterly incompatible" with broadening the appeal of the modern Republican party to working class Americans of all races. Lind, being a bit of a ‘soft’ materialist in the old Marxist sense, has a preferred view of the public as being in a bit of an economic class struggle. Though his view is far more principled and sophisticated than what you generally find among big L Americans Leftists.
Lind’s article is worth a read, and so are the various responses. The two better ones being from Steve Sailer and Brian Chau
Charles Murray did not respond in length, but remarked after reading Linds article that
Given that Lind has proven in the past that he’s a well-read guy, it’s shockingly illiterate about genomics.
Sailer, like Murray, voiced his disappointment that the article by Lind was not composed of anti HBD arguments of higher quality. And took issue with the view Lind expresses with regards to the state of the scientific literature at this time. Maintaining that Lind is far behind the curve on just how heavily the evidence has been falling on the side of HBD in recent years and that he also mischaracterizes some of the HBD positions as strict determinism. Pointing out that social causes have a very clear effect, as he cites his new favorite chart of various fatalities rising in line with the 'happening' of George Floyd.
These are all familiar notes for HBD folks, but they focus on facts and details over the broad stroke narrative. Something Brian Chau points out and extrapolates on. And it’s a worthwhile endeavor, given that someone whose been in the game for as long as Lind is probably not going to have his broader political viewpoint or his fondness for the American working class dissuaded by, as he put it:
right-wing shock jocks poring over statistical tables and publishing their “research” in trade-press books and club newsletters written and edited by their fellow true believers.
It’s a fair position to hold, I suppose, so where does Lind get his ideas from?
As Chau sees it, Lind is working from a presupposition of political representation. That is, Lind sees himself representing the American working class. To that end it is no surprise he dislikes the HBD creed, given it is inherently divisive to the multiracial America. Something modern day classical Marxists have been pointing at for a long while, to little effect as they continue to support mass immigration, unlike Lind.
On that note Lind ties Libertarianism and HBD together, showing just how these two ideas are compatible. As Lind puts it:
The overlap between libertarianism and eugenic conservatism can be considerable. In public, libertarians usually defend their anti-statist creed in terms of individual rights or Benthamite utilitarianism, arguing that a minimal state would produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Yet eugenic conservatism and libertarianism have often complemented each other. For libertarians at a loss to explain why wealth and power are concentrated in market societies, eugenicons have an answer: Rich people and rich families are genetically superior. And for eugenicons in search of a political program short of radical “ethnostate” proposals, libertarianism provides a second-best solution. The danger that resources will be redistributed from the productive, eugenic rich to the parasitic, dysgenic masses can be minimized by shrinking the state and lowering taxation.
This is certainly an observation. I think it would be easy, like Chau does, to point out that of the 4 big “eugenicons” only Hanania is ostensibly libertarian and otherwise poke holes in it. But I think that draws us away from the truth value of the statement as it relates to Lind and his position as a representative of the working class American. In a broad class interest narrative, there is an obvious pathway where the notion of free market success correlates with ‘superiority’. At the very least, if we value success in modern society, and we place some stock in the notion of heritability of traits, we end up with an undeniable truth. The lower classes are inferior to the superior upper classes. But as it relates to the "eugenicons", again, it’s not necessarily a truth anyone of the 4 mentioned, Sailer, Murray, Winegard and Hanania, are guided by politically.
Lind goes too far then, or does he? You don’t have to to go full send Capitalist Darwinism or whatever. Most people have the self reflection to look at themselves as a less than perfect part of a greater whole. Or that would be my view. Except that is the minority view of a National Socialist. So I think, to the extent American politics exist as is represented in media, Lind might be more correct than not here. And if “eugenicons” are not viscerally racist in their soul, I’d argue they do have to contend with the old ghost of “Social Darwinism”. Merely pointing at The Bell Curve and HBD as a truth can’t qualify as just another feather of truth in the cap of HBD folks. In the words of Eric Turkheimer, this truth could rival the atom bomb.
Chau's criticism of Lind is that Lind is not seeking truth but instead seeking to represent a class of people. To that end, if there is a truth that can harm them it’s not his duty to have that truth guide him but to shield the people from it. They are stronger together, class solidarity and all that. And through that lens Chau contextualizes some of Lind’s more extravagant misrepresentations of HBD ‘truths’. It’s simply not Lind's job to represent this truth. Lind is representing a class of people. Protecting both its class interest as well as its dignity, at the very least.
Beyond this you will have to read Chau’s article as he takes broader issue with the worldview Lind expresses.
On the whole I find Lind’s position to be stronger than I had suspected after seeing the "eugenicons" pile on him for the various errors and factual misrepresentations made. So long as Lind is accurately representing the people he feels with, his position will remain strong. Particularly since it is dealing with immediate problems that are likely to result from the HBD 'atom bomb' being released on the public. I had always assumed that biological truths would lead people towards something like ethno-nationalist 'democratic' socialism. But I’m now more willing to believe that America could surprise me if the bomb was dropped on them.
On that note it is not clear to me if Lind’s representing of the multiracial American working class is for its protection or ours.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Libertarianism is not averse to massive power disparities and the problems inherent to those don't vanish just because you allege yourself to be ideologically principled. Having an 'answer' like we are playing a political game of top trumps is just an exercise in self delusion. How do I know you are not going to pull a Stalin?
To make it simple, if your promise to your outgroup is that you wont harm or disadvantage them then you are a liar. And if you believe anyone to be above the track record of human nature, be that a faith in yourself or your ingroup, you are not a serious person.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The same way Libertarians "guarantee" anything. By making stuff up on internet forums.
I believe my principles and my vision for the future will lead to good just like Libertarians believe about theirs. The thinly veiled insinuations that I don't sufficiently share your values or hold the correct ones in high enough regard to be trusted is, to not labour a point, asinine.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Hoppe does want a monopoly on what a good society is in the society he lives in, even in a Libertarian utopia. He wants the ability to freely associate with those who agree with him and freely disassociate from those who don't. To the end of ostracizing those he does not like from his society and protecting his society from those that would harm it. He does not want to live with the 'undesirables' or subject himself to their whim and suffer through whatever affronts to his moral sensibilities that their twisted minds can come up with after they've been afforded the freedom to do so.
You trusting him more than me to not have that ball roll into some kind of totalitarian foreign policy is completely irrelevant to my stated views. If that's all you have I am very content with saying you don't have much. Because I am not asking for something radically different from Hoppe. I just want the thing formalized in plain English instead of squeezing it out through Libertarian priors.
I assume my preferred views wont lead to "tyranny" for the same reason Libertarians assume theirs wont lead to "tyranny".
To clarify I don't have a problem with vaping heterosexual white men with Asian wives. It's just a critique of what looks to me to be a blindspot. Similar to how early internet Atheism, looked at as a group of people, started expressing itself as an entity. Sure, they weren't advertised as a group of slightly autistic white teenage boys. But a lot of the expression of the group was dictated heavily by the fact that a lot of them were. Same for Libertarianism. It's mostly just white dudes.
As for Hoppe, his objection did not pertain to murderers and the like. It pertained to people who disrupted social normalcy as seen by those who connect together in a social covenant. If the covenant doesn't like homosexuals, drug users and jews, those could all be physically removed by the covenant and it would be completely Libertarian to do so.
Some of us are true believers. I want you to do whatever you want. Just don't violate me or mine.
I think the meat of the disagreement lies somewhere in the paragraph you wrote here, so let me try teasing something out.
If I set up a Discord server where I sell estrogen to consenting persons whose age I can't exactly verify, and I accept monetary and sexual favors as payment, and enforce a social hierarchy within the Discord server that functionally facilitates predation on people curios about this sort of thing, and I owe my entire existence to people under 15 consuming pornography at a great rate, that's just fine? Like, if your son comes in my discord server, pays me with sexual favors and starts consuming estrogen I sell him, rendering him sterile and depressed, but he also has permanent rectal damage after falling to peer pressure and posting videos of himself inserting large plastic items into his anus, then someone leaks the videos your son put up on the discord server, which was technically public, and your son later kills himself... Did I violate your son?
Because I didn't ask him to join the server. He got that idea from reading comments on a porn site.
As a parent, what was your course of action regarding your son? Given you don't control the internet, and you believe you should not exercise control over the internet to stifle what others can and can't see. Completely ban the internet in your house? That limits your freedom quite a bit. Try to block 'pr0n' and hope there aren't actors who want to guide your son towards watching it past the block?
My point would be that my discord server inherently infringes on your right to exist in a nice and healthy way. You should not have to live like the Amish just to avoid sexual deviants and freaks.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
It's just a way to twist the knife of liberty a bit. From a Libertarian perspective you could not even begin to ask me this question. I don't owe anyone an explanation of what I mean by it. I just say it.
This would be an extremely salient critique if I wasn't in a thread with Libertarian minded people talking about limiting the liberty of others because they happen to not like and not believe in the thing others are doing with their own liberty.
The LP is not a stick I am hitting Libertarians with because it's a silly group filled with people on the spectrum. I mentioned it precisely because those people, the most looney left-Libertarians, are the only ones standing by the principles. The King of Gondor is dancing naked on stage to protest government corruption, foaming at the mouth at the mere insinuation that people need take a test to drive a car. And he is a legitimate noble king. Far more so now than ever before as the 'respectable' and 'sensible' or 'adult' Libertarians walk back on their oath to liberty above all to protest trannies and drag queens.
I would say Libertarianism is futile because eventually Libertarians realize they don't want to live in a society filled with things they don't like. They actually want nice things. A nice society, like described by Hoppe. Some might even recognize, on some level, though it is a stretch, that just because they like smoking weed doesn't mean it's good for a free market economy to actively promote it to children like it's soda. In fact soda might be just as bad or even worse, I mean, look at the obesity rates...
Libertarians, like others, see expressions and assertions of morals that are too alien to them as inherently hostile. And as they grow in a world where the consequences of freedom start encroaching on other sensibilities they hold alongside liberty, they start moving away from liberty towards something else. Sure, it takes them more time than others, as they value liberty more than others. But it's just a matter of degree. And when the existence and free expression of moral aliens manages to sufficiently push society to a place so foreign and abnormal to Libertarian sensibilities that they balk at the notion that these people be free then there is no difference between a Libertarian and a person who wanted to nip this in the bud long before it got this out of hand.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Libertarianism for adults. I.e. Your rights end where my feelings begin, but for vaping heterosexual white men with Asian wives.
In a moment of clarity, I would hope everyone who is libertarian minded can recognize that the guy stripping naked at the LNC or the guys ferociously arguing against drivers licenses are much better freedom fighters than you are insofar as you oppose 'protecting trans kids' and helping children learn about gender and sexuality beyond a stilted binary.
The most salient argument against libertarianism remains libertarians being faced with what people who are not vaping heterosexual white men with Asian wives do with their freedom.
But this is a song and dance that has been done before. Hans Herman Hoppe laid down the law on this stuff years ago. Insofar as libertarians want to live in nice societies (they do) the only functional tool against the kind of people who destroy nice societies is physical punishment. You quickly stop being a libertarian in a universalist sense and turn into a Civic Nationalist.
My question for libertarian or libertarian leaning people would be, why bother with this song and dance? Why ground your arguments in some abstract first principles relating to freedom and whatever else when you truly do not want freedom for everyone to do what they please? Why not just say the things you want society to be and stand on those grounds?
I mean, just imagine the genuinely impressive amount of energy and work libertarians managed to pool together in the past decades being spent on pushing an image of a society libertarians actually want to live in. Instead they work to lay the groundwork for the individual freedom enjoyed by convicted sex offenders dressing in drag and reading to 5 year olds.
This post reminds me a bit of Sartre and his defense of jews and some of the issues inherent to the identity of jews.
Sartre had all his life been ugly and short. He was keenly aware of this and it became a part of his identity and philosophy. He saw in himself a marginalized person because of this. And he saw in that marginalization a commonality with other marginalized people. A sort of proto-bioleninism. The most prominent of these were jews.
Sartre wrote an entire book on anti-semitism and jews. Only to later state that he did in fact not know a single thing about jews and judaism, but was instead just describing and defending himself. But the defense stuck. The book has been tirelessly praised by jewish scholars as capturing the essence of being jewish, and is often quoted by leftists as refutation of anti-semitism. Full of the typical scathing psychoanalytic remarks on the psychological and philosophical deficiencies that would drive one towards a dislike of jews.
How could a man who knew nothing about jews defend them so accurately and valiantly? In what turned out to just be a sort of reverse Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, there were one too many things that added up. Despite being fiction it hit a little too close to home.
A part of jewish identity is being marginalized. A part of jewish identity is being on the outside. And in the sense that Sartre elucidated, jewish identity is being weak, neurodivergent, depressed and ugly. As horrid as it might sound. You can say that these are not true and point to beautiful well adjusted jewish people and I would agree. But to that end I would argue that these people, in Sartre's definition of jews, are less jewish than the ugly ones.
BAP seems to want to step outside this bear trap of jewish identity. He wants to be beautiful, strong, happy and healthy. A celebration of idealistic normalcy where there is no revenge of the nerds because there are no nerds. In that sense it's not just a rejection of Sartre's jewish identity but the typical American secular jewish identity.
To that end I think he, along with any aspirational dreams regarding the state of Israel, run into the problem of just becoming Nazis. Not in some abstract sense but a literal one. All of this stuff has been written out before. Be eugenic, be happy, healthy and strong, be a people to be proud of. Strive for something greater. And in an inverse of Sartre, they need to turn away from jewishness for the same reason Sartre was drawn towards it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I always saw him owing his existence to a white right wing masculinity crisis in the US. Similar to a political Dan Bilzerian or other types of Instagram celebs. Where the typical figures of the right wing sphere are more dweebs and nerds than manly leaders. But they all recognize that being swole would be a much better look. So they adopted him as a sort of proof of concept.
But outside of that the guy seems to exist only in blogs, on twitter and allegedly in the heads of aspiring young Republicans. Similar to a Curtis Yarvin if he took steroids and tried to find meaning in flexing. But on that end I've never read a word the man has said.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You are just arguing against your own point. If whites aren't getting anything even if they complain about it, why would they get anything if they don't? A whipped dog that doesn't whine is no less whipped than a whipped dog that does.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You have suffered yet don't even have the gumption to demand recompense. You are already grounding yourself in slave moralistic 'I just want to be treated normal!' which is even weaker and more slavish than what you maintain I am proposing.
If you don't act like you are owed something no one will think of paying you.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
They got the snot kicked out of them. If you want to project strength when you are weak for the sake of your pride you need to be ready to sacrifice yourself for it. But that's not what modern Southern men are willing to do. As they exemplify every day of their lives where they waste away eating corn syrup and drinking liquid estrogen whilst reveling in a culture that worships black people.
Treating victimary discourse as if it's beneath you is missing the point of it. It's not for you to feel sorry for yourself. It's for the next generation to have something to ground themselves in. If you feel you have suffered you feel free to believe you are owed something. Which is an attitude that could have served Southern men very well. Rather than the endless mentality of individually bootstrapping yourself through life like you owed it something.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Seems like splitting hairs and drawing arbitrary distinctions to me. People like Bari Weiss and Shapiro aren't going off of just views on policy. They are looking at who is a threat to their ingroup and who is subservient to it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Being in favor of Israel is what drove them to remove those who were not in favor of Israel. I don't understand what your concept of the 'problem' is.
Also, I don't agree with the idea that human nature is infinitely malleable
Neither do I. But the fact you can very effectively modulate peoples ingroup and outgroup distinctions through propaganda, as well as normalize a wide range of living conditions, is a demonstrable fact. Take any self described 'conservative' as an example. 20 years ago, 40 years ago, 60 years ago, 80 years ago. Modern day conservatives worship black people, whilst a 100 years ago most of them would not have considered them as people.
Inducing self hatred in whites is a small step on the road that's already been walked.
It's hard to give concrete examples. It's a feel you get from being in the feed or the bubble so to speak. Compared to games I used to spend a lot of time with CoD just feels dumber. The way people talk, how they type, how they reason.
But the easiest example would be the classic of developers inviting streamers to go play the game early, the streamers then rave about how amazing it is, then the game is released and it's crap. An apology is made by the streamers. Then you repeat the process for the next annual release after having complained along with your following that the previous game was actually bad even though you recommended everyone part with their money before it was even out. Despite the exact same thing happening last year.
This isn't an issue isolated to CoD, but the way it plays out in CoD is so extremely brazen and ridiculous it's just beyond any reason. The timescale is just so short. If you are not stupid you recognize the process and stop buying the game. The cycle of buying, complaining and then just a year later doing it all again is pathetic. But as far as I know it's the biggest gaming franchise in the world and it's been doing this for years.
More options
Context Copy link