hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Whatever else you want to say about my worldview, I very obviously do not believe that only the Jews should be allowed to return to the tried-and-tested methods of the past.
Then we can chalk it up to poor timing.
I don't know why you bother yourself with these questions. You don't need lofty universalist principles or imaginary rights to live. National Socialism works just fine. Direct the compassionate towards their own and you will never speak poorly of a 'liberal' again.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
There's not really a resolution, just more media savviness, conflict aversion and less crazy people.
Everything is more behind the scenes. On the medical end everything is private. It's simply not made into a matter that the state is paying for breast augmentations for trans people. Most anti-trans activists can't even tell you how young the youngest person receiving HRT is.
Schools have genderless bathrooms and many public areas like pools are adding a third changing room.
At the same time there is a central LGBT organization that has a long history of 'fighting' for gay rights. So when there is a storm brewing they are very quick to get into action and quiet everything down if things don't look good for their side.
Basically, there is no big public battle. Everything that needs to happen happens behind the scenes. Everything that makes the rural townsfolk reach for their pitchforks is smothered down. That involves taking some L's, but in the long run it leaves the anti-trans side with nothing to fight against or rally around.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Who in those countries thinks this? Shitlibs! Progs! Why are you echoing and reifying their moral framework?
The ruling class thinks this way. I am not reifying their moral framework, I'm describing it. If you want to play as a man against time do go ahead. Though I'd appreciate it if you did so relating to any other topic than this one. As it only serves to carve out an exception for a people who do not deserve it.
They were able to say that because they’d already gotten everything they needed out of those things.
The same impulse that guides the west today guided the colonial powers away from properly settling the lands and pushing the locals away. There is still plenty of resource to be had in every one of these places. And gathering it is still being hindered by the people who occupy the areas. To imagine that the decision to abandon fertile lands was taken because no one needed these resources anymore is silly. There was plenty of need and plenty of poverty to go around in the homelands. But that was also the case for the colonies. Which is why the people there weren't robbed and slaughtered but aided.
You're still playing with the same piece of yarn regardless of how far you drag its thread.
Certainly the Israelis seem to believe that the current spasm of barbarity is ultimately necessary to secure the prosperity of future Israeli generations, who will certainly look back on their grandparents’ generation with the same level of sanctimonious disgust you’re demonstrating now. Such is the inexorable cycle of progress.
I don't look back at the past with rose tinted glasses, imagining that the complete and utter failure of the past is somehow venerated by the same failure in the present, just because I happen to be alive. As if the two aren't holding hands. The moments in time you see as highs are the moments in time everything was fated to this point. If you don't like how things are today I'd ask you to take a more critical look at the past.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Whether the US responded that way because The Jews made us or not
I'd appreciate if you didn't restate what I wrote in a way that's infantile and inaccurate.
Perhaps Philosemitic neoconservative zionists (whether in Israel or the US) are the real Westerners and Europe is just a shadow of itself, poisoned by postmodern European liberalism.
I refer to the west as the sum total of actions and expression made by the relevant groups that compose it, not what I can define it as being in wordplay land. When Europe got hit with terror attacks it didn't go out bombing, it didn't condemn muslims. In fact, no amount of rape and murder even put a dent in their immigration rhetoric. That's what the west is today. It may have been different in a different time, but I was pretty clear in referring to the west of today. It may change tomorrow, but that doesn't change what it is today and recently has been.
Maybe the Europeans. I'm pretty sure US voters are still pretty happy about taking out Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's buddies, even if both wars dragged on far too long.
And they're pretty unhappy about the loss of life of their own. From what I can gather its 50/50 on whether or not using force in Iraq was the right choice. With how negatively the war is seen in Europe I'll stand by my words and say that the war in Iraq and war on terror in general is seen as an overwhelming negative as far as the 'west' goes.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The US response to a muslim terror attack was to follow a plan laid out by philosemitic neoconservative zionists in the American government. I see that more as a self reinforcing circle of zionist influence than anything else.
But aside from that, yeah, most Americans supported the war effort at the time. Many European nations joined in, a lot of muslims got annihilated in the name of women in the workplace, NATO, burgers and freedom. But how does the 'west' look at that effort today? Positive or negative? I'd say overwhelmingly negative.
To that end Israel might be western by an older standard that was defined a fair bit by zionism in American politics, but I would not say that this standard would cut it today.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
And the general western sentiment of bombing civilians today is that it is bad.
I'm not taking this comparison seriously. If you think Israel is acting western by repeating what every other western countries now count as dark periods of their respective histories I can only throw my hands in the air.
Western powers said: No more endless conquest, no more slavery, no more colonialism, no more bombing. We live in the present day and Israel needs to get with the program if they want to call themselves western. As I said before, the western response to a terror attack is not bombing but veneration for the outgroup that did it. Yes, in the past there would have been bombs, but we are not talking about acting western as the west was 100 years ago. These are moderns western standards being applied to Israel and Israel fails to meet them. By that token Israel is not acting western at all since you are not allowed to terrorize the defenseless little brownfolk anymore.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
It very much has where I live in Scandinavia. It's barely even registers as a culture war issue. There's just 100% acceptance at every level. We even have smoother and more competent political navigators that have learned from the fires in the US with youth hormones, bathrooms, sports and such, solving those issues, to a degree, before they ever become a media thing.
It's almost embarrassing for the 'against' side, as they simply have no avenue to attack or resist. The imported 'against' narratives from America simply do not apply.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I feel those reasons are motivated more by philosemitism than an objective political eye.
Supporting Palestine after it committed a terror attack would be a bad move. So why is the topic and support for Palestine popping up? Maybe because the Israel response was particularly bad and poorly thought out? There has been no lack of support on the world stage for Palestine. The reasons you list make Palestine out to be a hot potato no one wants to hold but the reality is that it's not. No one is afraid of being branded a "Hamas-loving anti-semitic terrorist-sympathiser". The self victimizing cries of Israeli officials at the UN fall on deaf ears. People vote in favor of ending Israel's war effort. No one likes the bombing of women and children.
I think you could much more easily just take the Australians politicians on their word and say that they are withholding state recognition of Palestine as a bargaining chip for the future. Which would mean they are no closer to recognizing Palestine now than at any time prior regardless of whatever scuffles happen between Israel and Palestine.
Israel's lack of cultural proximity is also the prime reason people don't like Israel. Zionists and philosemites make claims of Israel being very culturally 'western' whilst at the same time Israel is getting itself into all sorts of trouble relating to the conflict precisely because they are not acting 'western'.
The response to a muslim terror attack, as demonstrated by the many European nations that have suffered them, is not to bomb civilians into oblivion. In fact, the preferred response is to venerate the outgroup that hurt you and seek reconciliation even harder. Israel does not do this. Israel should be taking in hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. Possibly millions. Israel does not do this. Instead they bomb women and children. You could not be any less western.
By the same token, many people do not know how some jews view the outside world and have no concept of how ethnocentric semites are.
I think many zionists and philosemites need to understand that the 'rooting for the underdog' mentality that drives some support for Palestine is the same one that drives tolerance for semites around the world. You can not have it both ways. Either the culturally foreign, which includes both muslims and jews, is not tolerated or they both are. Trying to have it both ways because you love yourself so much more than anyone else is not going to cut it for fair minded westerners. In fact, trying to employ classic dehumanizing rhetoric like you do in your post is not going to work precisely because of jewish anti-prejudice propaganda driven into every westerners head.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Very hard to call it random when it's so consistent.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Moreover, I'd suggest that no specific proposal is given, and "recognise Palestine as an independent state" covers quite a lot of ground, so it's unlikely that all of that 35% want the same thing. Recognising Palestine as an independent state could mean a number of different types of two-state solution, it could mean totally destroying Israel, or something else.
I think it would be a safer assumption to just say that the supporting public wants to recognize Palestine as an independent state in the same way many other nations have. To invoke the total destruction of Israel as a potential reason why someone would want to do that seems rather silly.
The matter really isn't that complicated. From your post it seems like the main complication is politicians who are unwilling to do it unless it somehow serves Israels security interest. Which pretty much gels with what functor said.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
HBD doesn't even refer to differences in skin colour which are totally uncontroversial.
I can tell you right now that no one uses your definition of HBD. HBD absolutely refers to differences in skin color. In fact, it refers to any differences between populations. HBD doesn't refer to just the controversial parts of human bio diversity.
No one is calling him racist because he's interested in population genetics.
As I went over in my earlier comment, he is catching flak because he's flying too close to too many different subjects that can, in the wrong light, be highly suspect. Population genetics is one of those. To study these fields in safety you need to deny certain things about them, like Turkheimer and co. Hsu doesn't do that so that gets him into a bad light.
I get your point. I'm just criticizing other things you've said.
I'm still wondering why.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You're not getting the point, which is that there are certain things you are not allowed to be uncertain about. Claiming that you're a physicist and that you hold to some uncertainty principles isn't an excuse for the true sacred cows. To exemplify this I took a quote from Hsu and applied it to the holocaust.
Population genetics is not HBD. That is not what is getting him called racist.
"Population genetics is a subfield of genetics that deals with genetic differences within and among populations"
As I already said, and wish you would have read: "I mean, yeah the guy is not a culture warrior and I think he very adamantly doesn't want to become one. But depending on your definition of HBD the guy is very interested in differences between humans. Just not in a way that's incendiary to his career."
You're playing definition games here. Hsu himself says that there are people calling him racist. He does research into intelligence and has no problem with things like IQ. He has interest in population genetics and doesn't rule out a hereditarian perspective. Long story short, he's on a lot of thin ice. He's basically everything an HBD person would be if they were trying to hold down a job at a university. Now, is he? I don't know or care. It's irrelevant to the fact that he is doing too many suspect things. Which is why he is a good target for our fine folks in urbanite journalism.
As an aside: I'd appreciate if you stated your intentions here. I don't care to write every point twice. I also don't care to meet your personal definition for words after I explicitly state that there's an obvious issue with definitions of words going on.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't understand what your point is and want to clarify that the video part of your quote is made up
I had hoped that it was obvious to everyone that the part in bold was added by me. Though that may be an error as I just assumed people would read the link given to Hsu's blog. People are obviously more quick to comment than that, sadly.
and not the kinds of questions he is referring to.
It's exactly the kind of question he is referring to. A different example of his, given in an interview were he was asked about his views and the characterization as being racist he says, paraphrased:
so I've been attacked because... I'm not willing to categorically rule something out, I'm suddenly a racist. Which I think is absurd, I think for many question like... Is there a god? You might admit is even a more important question and I'd say the jury is out and I don't think I should be labeled as a bad person for that.
The point I'm making is that being open to everything obviously isn't allowed. You can't be agnostic on sacred matters and Hsu knows this. In my view he's just trying to weasel his way out since he's too proud to outright lie like Turkheimer or that he knows how ridiculous die hard environmentalism is.
Are you accusing Hsu of having an interest in HBD? If so, based on what?
Just casually scrolling through his blog. He did a fun interview with Razib Khan where they go over some of their shared interests together, population genetics included... I mean, yeah the guy is not a culture warrior and I think he very adamantly doesn't want to become one. But depending on your definition of HBD the guy is very interested in differences between humans. Just not in a way that's incendiary to his career.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't disagree, but I'd argue that your position is not scientific/knowledge seeking. You want to protect white people. According to the progressive oppression stack white people rest pretty low. That's where your problem with the progressives begins.
If you're a supremacist you want to protect white people no matter what. If you're not, why protect white people when there are so many others in need? Surely whitey can wait. And if you want to challenge that aspect of progressive ontology you will be so far outside the Overton Window that they can easily just call you a racist nazi and move on. And I don't think they would be all that wrong in doing so, technically speaking. I mean, we did storm the beaches of Normandy for a reason, right? We depict those guys as heroic for a reason, right?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I'd agree to an extent, but those are seen as being private conversations. You don't go out in public outside the friendgroup and talk like that. In fact I'd argue most people who engage in such talk believe that it is not allowed. Cue memes of the group chat getting leaked and such.
It's not a matter of having an opinion of being allowed to say X or Y, there's just a recognition that this sort of thing is not allowed in the public eye.
It works up until you need to answer why their literacy rates are so low and why there are practically none of them in higher education.
You can't tell the black people the truth because that's ugly and no one has the stomach for it, so where do you go? The exact same way our modern western society has gone: Towards progressivism. Because progressive ontology actually has a beautiful answer: ordained equality and racism.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I'm not posting it to convince people of Turkheimers viewpoint, I'm posting it to demonstrate at what level the debate is being had. It doesn't matter what the science says. Race science is ugly and offensive. This is a fact and anyone who disagrees can be invited to explain the hereditarian viewpoint to a kind and caring black person without feeling gross.
Or to put it another way: We object to it on the same grounds we object to excavations of alleged mass graves from Nazi death camps: The holocaust happened, there's no reason to desecrate graves of its victims. The end!
If you want to argue in favor of science and knowledge... Why here, why now? What drives ones interest towards race or the holocaust? There is no answer here. You're just a racist nazi.
If there's a genuine position that can meet progressive ontology head on I'm willing to hear it. So far the only competitors I've seen are racists or people who either willfully or ignorantly ignore the glaring issues that lie between blacks and whites.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
We must hang around different types of people.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Whether most people are dumb enough to not understand something or not is irrelevant. The journalist is obviously smart enough to. Doing the maximally benign wrongthink is still wrongthink. The Stasi doesn't owe you any favors to interpret you flirtations with eugenics as anything other than an ultimately hostile act.
Whether they are actively looking for wrongthink or not is irrelevant. You can't do positive flirtations about verboten subjects. Even if you are an old fuddy duddy and think your tweets are benign.
I don't strictly disagree with you. I just don't understand why you are arguing this. Neither one of us makes the rules.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
To use Hsu's own words in a different context:
As a physicist I am used to a high level of scientific rigor. Statistical certainty of 99.9% is not sufficient, in our field, to claim a discovery (e.g., a new elementary particle). Thus, the correct answer to many questions (e.g., do electrons have substructure? Are black people innately stupid? Did the holocaust happen?) is: I do not know.
Sorry, Hsu, but claiming a neutral position on certain topics doesn't cut it.
Maybe as I grow older I also grow more stupid but I feel like a lot of people really needed that article by Eric Turkheimer on why race science is objectionable. Claiming that your interest is purely scientific or whatever isn't good enough. Because the wrong discoveries can do a lot of damage. You need to meet the moral/ideological/philosophical underpinnings of the progressive worldview head on. Otherwise you have no relevant objection to them crushing you when you go too far astray.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
If you talk in a way that implies blacks are innately dumber than some other group you are not getting anywhere. Race and IQ stuff are beyond the pale if you are a hereditarian.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Yeah, journalists aren't normies. No one said they were. That doesn't change the fact they set the standard for normies. Racism bad. Misogyny bad. Everyone except your racist uncle agrees.
You can't go and talk about race and IQ in public and come to any sort of hereditarian conclusion and not be eligible as a racist. Those are the rules.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Even the most ardent of public racists don't even pretend to entertain the notion that people should be treated badly because they are of this or that race.
"Believes there are measurable differences between races" is a fairly new definition.
It's not.
The only game being played here is pretending that there is some relevant distinction to be made between the views of 'rationalist HBDers' and George Lincoln Rockwell on racial differences other than confidence and honesty.
This comes off the back of a decade of mass immigration, terror attacks that have left hundreds dead, thousands of children raped etc, etc.
I think it's fair to say Israel has a fair amount of catching up to do before they can justify putting forth a moderate right winger to lead their country, as is happening in Europe. Forget about the actual ethnonationalist zionism that underlines the Likud party. I mean, would such a thing even be allowed in Germany? You know, Zionism... but for Germans...
More options
Context Copy link