BANNED USER: Unhinged diatribe
>Unban in 47d 07h 41m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @Amadan
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Yes, it's part of the reason I sympathize with the whole of Europe with regards to WW2. And why I believe everyone would have been better off if things had gone differently.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
No major participant in the war limited their killings to soldiers.
There were few exceptions, which does not change things much.
West-Poland was roughly half of the population. Considering how flexible the Germans were with their racial policies towards allies, like making the Japanese honorary Aryans, there's no reason to look at anti-slav rhetoric, most of which existing as war propaganda against the Soviets, as anything other than a placeholder for whatever would suit German necessity. Considering the idealism Hitler displayed towards Europe as a collection of nations, especially with regards to Britain, and to a further extent his respect towards Polish anti-communists like Pilsudski, there's no reason to assume any hardline ideological animus towards Poles from the Germans if Poland had aligned themselves with Germany rather than Britain, France and the US.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Fringe political movements are often marred by general incompetence. Such as not knowing all the correct procedures and not having enough money to hire lawyers and accountants to keep everything nice and clean. This doesn't read like that however and seems more like deliberate trolling.
How does Junnila come across as a person? His mannerisms and such. Judging by the picture in the link he doesn't look like the type of 'oaf' you would typically hear these comments from in a breakroom.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I was having a conversation with another person before you showed up with a bunch of nonsense, the relevance of which you can't substantiate when asked. You have been antagonistic and rude and I have no reason to put any value of your subjective moral/ethical opinions, which never held any relevance to the conversation in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
They killed British and American soldiers too. You know, because there was a war.
Only some of them, and that was only subgroup anyway.
West-Poles, according to Nazi racial law, were aryans.
And you were eligible if you cooperated with mass-murdering nazis.
Seems like we have gone very far away from Germans considering all Poles subhumans very fast.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You've replied to multiple comments of mine saying the same thing. I don't care for your hysterics, but it would be much more manageable to steer the conversation somewhere productive if you could keep them to a single comment, thanks.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
And I know that German claims of being superior to Slavs and Jews and being entitled to murder and enslave them were wrong and not justified. In the end even Hitler renounced claim of German superiority.
What are you even saying? How does this relate to any of what I wrote? 'I know this and that!'
Germans deliberately murdered and enslaved millions of innocent people, planned to do more on that on gigantic scale with large scale genocide.
Then why did the person I was replying to use the concept 'banality of evil'? There's no need for you in this conversation, given your differing views to the person I was replying to, especially since you are making no sense in relation to what was being discussed by us.
Feel free to call it differently, for me "were evil" is a fitting description for people doing it, but I would be happy with more descriptive version.
I am doing so and I don't care one bit for what you prefer given your comically simplistic view on history.
No, it would not go better for Poland given that Germans genuinely consider Poles as subhumans.
Please stop telling lies. The Germans considered West-Poles to be aryans. Hitler said of slavs that they were docile so long they had food and drink.
that particular stupidity solved nothing, was mistaken and resulted in several millions of innocent people being murdered
Please engage with statements in context. This is a waste of time.
You pro-slavery, pro-mass-murder and pro-Hitler (ok, that is redundant a bit) apologia is spectacularly stupid and evil.
This isn't an argument and makes no sense since I have made no pro-slavery or pro-mass-murder statements.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The point being made is that a group or a movement does not need to consist of only one category of people to still be considered primarily of one category.
To that end neoconservatives like William Kristol did not consider Bush a neoconservative on foreign policy:
“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" referring to the internal tug of war within the White House between neoconservatives and "pragmatists".
Or in the words of Stephen J. Sniegoski:
George W. Bush was essentially a convert to the neoconservative policy. Prior to 9/11, he had never exhibited any strong understanding or interest in Middle East policy and was therefore in need of guidance, which the neocons could easily provide in a simple paradigm that Bush could find attractive.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Do Jewish intellectuals just originate all (American) political movements?
I don't think so. But even if that were the case, our incredulity toward that fact, if true, would not make it any less true.
Also, you still need to make the very important causal link from this academic movement to the actual war in Iraq.
Neoconservatives pushing for war predates the Gulf War. And as I stated in a prior comment, according to prominent neocon White House insider William Kristol, neoconservatism was the driving force behind the war:
“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.”
He had similar remarks towards Cheney
“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.”
Both camps referring to the tug of war between neocons and 'pragmatists' within the White House at the time. A tug of war that the neocons ultimately won. It's not a claim of mine and mine alone that there is a causal link. But beyond neoconservatives taking credit for it at the peak of their influence and confidence, it is an accepted belief on both sides of the 'fringe' political spectrum:
https://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/neoconservative-responsibility-for-the-iraq-war/
Beyond that I don't know how to further argue the point. Neoconservatism had been gunning for war in the middle East for a long time. They move to positions of influence and power and at a flashpoint the US goes to war with Iraq. Arguing the more specific agitating factors surrounding that is the subject of multiple books like The Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War. And though I'm not imploring you to read a book as an argument, I would present the existence of the book, along with the existence of a host of other similar material as evidence for the plausibility of the causal link.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The only jews I mentioned were neocons and zionists.
Yes, it provides evidence that Jews are very influential in neoconservativism, states as much in the conclusion, and has a title "Neoconservativism as a Jewish Movement". That's not the same as establishing that neoconservativism is a Jewish movement.
Now we are just moving the goalpost of definitions to suit our needs. That might be fine except you give no definition to live up to even after you reject mine.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Neoconservatism as a movement is jewish. Just like the Italian Mafia is Italian despite the barman being Spanish or the guy driving the concrete truck being from Algeria.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
It would be very easy to say many false things, but they would remain false, hence why not even you claim that the German grivance narrative driving the demands was justified.
I don't pretend to know either way which geopolitical claims are more justified since I assume all actors are demanding what bests suits them at the time. And the world that would have been if things had gone differently is not known to anyone. Considering how easy you find it to say and believe false things I can only question your confidence.
Their reward would have been to be colonized, treated as subhuman, and progressively enslaved and exterminated, as per the policy statements and intentions of the German rieche.
As per war propaganda driven by those who were at war with Germany. The Germans said the same thing about the allies.
It is very selective about many things.
?
This is irrelevant to the reasonableness of other people, as Hitler did NOT do things differently, and people were making decisions based on what he DID do, which was unreasonable by standards both contemporary to now and contemporary to then.
"Reasonableness" in this context is nonsense. There was nothing 'reasonable' about Germany playing second fiddle to Britain and France whilst the Soviet Union amassed power. Though it's much easier to simply retroactively assign reason to the victors.
There are no great myths of Hitler or the holocaust. There is banality of incompetence and evil, and those who wish to dismiss it away in their mediocrity.
You rely on these myths to maintain your viewpoints. The Germans weren't evil and relying on verbal constructs to sneak such words into the conversation is all you have. Since your viewpoint relies on condemnation of the evil vs good rather than objectivity and analysis.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think that's the only alternative to a slough of deconstruction that proposes no alternative.
As for the examples you give, that's far from showing that they pushed the US into war,
If "they" are neocons and zionists then it shows exactly that.
That doesn't evince that neoconservativism was a Jewish-controlled movement or that the gentile neocons were "frontmen".
The link provided to Kevin MacDonalds analysis shows in detail how neoconservatism is a jewish movement. Did you even click it?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
That's not what was said, so I repeat my question.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
By the same token I would have thought that your personal subjective opinion did not warrant you being antagonistic and sneering towards others. Considering I did not make pejorative generalizations about my outgroup, but you did antagonize and sneer, I am not sure what you are doing here.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
It's not unfalsifiable, as Kevin MacDonald has given multiple examples of these movements, including neoconservatism. But even then there is no absence of detail for those who bother doing a cursory glance over even just the Wikipedia article on neoconservatism.
Many adherents of neoconservatism became politically influential during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, peaking in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. While not identifying as neoconservatives, senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of American influence in the Middle East.
Rov_Scam names a bunch of senior officials who make decisions based on information given to them by advisors. When those advisors are neocons then I find the case rather cut and dry.
It's also rather annoying that the default of things is that they are just happening for no reason at all and US foreign policy revolving around the middle East and Israel goes unquestioned and any attempt at demonstrating why things happen at all is met with accusations of conspiracy, as if any government body wasn't a group of people scheming together to have things happen in the way they wanted. It makes me wonder what the affirmative positions contradicting my alleged 'conspiracies' are.
No really, where do these people get their ideas from? Was it not neoconservatism winning out over pragmatism in the Bush Jr White House?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr 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.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
You've lost me.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
How is that a problem with 'my theory'? Why would it need a majority of jews in favor of the war?
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr 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
2yr 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
2yr 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.
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.
The allies deliberately bombed civilian areas. Often times using targeted munitions like incendiary bombs on civilian infrastructure with a lot of wooden houses. Most notably in Dresden and Tokyo, though the strategy was widely employed. There was nothing incidental about it, there were no military targets. It was deliberate murder of mostly the elderly, women and children. Incinerated alive in fires that burned so hot and spread so fast that every nerve in those peoples bodies would be torturously burnt until it was physically impossible to feel more pain long before they could receive the grace of suffocating to death.
By the same token 3 million German civilians died in the post war years due to forced relocations, systematic starvation and all other manner of mistreatment. Even after that destabilized period the Soviets would use the forced starvation of German civilians as a tool to coerce the western powers to do their bidding. That's on top of every other inhumane act, like the mass rapes.
You impugned my morals previously. I'll return the favor and say I don't care one bit for moralizing from the likes of you. For what are now demonstrably valid reasons. Maybe if I only cared about jews I could understand your perspective. But even then, the Germans were working towards relocating jews out of Europe prior to the war. Which further validates my point that your premonitions and assumed knowledge of what would have happened if things went differently are simply not applicable.
More options
Context Copy link