hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
And I think you just agree with him so you want to venerate him.
A serious person would contend with the obvious and hard objections to the proposed policy. Caplan has never done that. In fact, his advocacy is a perfect example of non-serious thinking. Divorced from reality and extrapolated from fiction. A fiction partially maintained by institutions that you allege lend Caplan credibility.
I mean, you're not going to debate anyone in a public setting that points out that, outside of East-Asia and Europe, almost every single immigrant population group that moves into EU countries is a net negative. That seems like kind of a big deal. But no, Caplan is a serious thinker who writes books, blogs, does podcasts, has lectured at a university for 20 years and never interacts with any of it. Just create a magic category called 'Immigrant' and compare it to a magic category called 'American Native' and voila.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Asserting he has heard and answered every critique on immigration is not accurate so long as he is not distinguishing between population groups within the US. Further than that, there's a good reason why he and those like him focus on immigration into the US and not immigration into the EU.
Contrary to the lies of convenience told by Caplan, there is plenty of high quality data in the EU on immigration that could certainly have made it into his many articles and book. It's only that the alleged immigration benefits do not live up to the hype and can only be maintained through statistical sleight of hand, like counting the children of immigrants as native and playing fast and loose with population groups. And even then there are OECD countries that post flat out negative numbers.
Caplan is not a serious person.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
But that's not the narrative Douglas Murray was elevating and defending on JRE. He was not leveraging historical significance, but a moral delineation of good and evil.
To that extent you are not talking about a narrative held by anyone in particular, but a narrative that a person could possibly hold. That might very well be true for some, but my point was that Douglas Murray is obviously not one of those with regards to his rhetoric when the rubber meets the road. Where, as you have alluded to yourself, Murray's ambitions do not relate to a glorious British empire beyond his own personal want need for sodomy and the freedom to listen to the sound of his own voice and those in agreement.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
The veneration of Churchill does not sprout from just winning 'a war' but what war, against who and for what cause. As I stated before, it makes little sense for a fan of British imperialism to idolize the man who functionally ended the empire with his decision making.
We can also see by Murrays own words and actions that he is haggling against progressive morality as he presents his own interests in terms of his sexuality.
To that end nothing I say is a mischaracterization, only a realistic clarification of where Murray is coming from and why.
Still not seeing the mischaracterization. Why would Churchill, the man whose decision making process ultimately nailed the final nail in the coffin of the British empire, be venerated by the likes of Murray? It's because Churchill opposed Hitler.
Ideology, for the likes of Murray, is central. That is why he spent 30 minutes waffling about good and evil on Joe Rogan when the topic of Darryl Cooper came up.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
I'm not seeing the mischaracterization. He can call himself a classical liberal neoconservative and suck as many dicks as he wants, he is still haggling against progressive morality.
Why else would a gay cosmopolitan man care so much about the legacy of Winston Churchill? It's because it's a part of his foundation for why the west deserves to survive. A moral narrative of redemption. He doesn't leverage how many amazing gay bars there used to be in London.
The problem for Douglas with the DR is that he spent years doing talks and debates against mass immigration and anti-western thought where he based his whole rhetoric around the fact that, ultimately, 'we killed Hitler'.
When the foundation for that is questioned and the roles of good and bad are muddled or ignored, Doug has to respond.
It's a hallmark of what I would call, in the spirit of our new term; the faux Right. Every pontification towards what is good for Europeans has to be grounded in some form of bargain of what is 'fair'. And what determines fairness is generally just progressive morality from 10-20 years ago.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
Except if that definition were operative it would make no sense for guys like Lindsey, Murray, Kisin or Peterson to talk about the woke right. All four take up the mantle of 'concern for where the discourse is headed' if people they don't like are allowed to speak freely on topics they disagree with.
These ideas are destructive to communism, which is a collectivist ideology. Christians are saying that you should love each other, and that people are all, each, valuable individuals—communism says you should love each other insofar as it serves the emergent gestalt that sits on top of it.
I think a communist would say that the opposite is true. To that extent the dichotomy of individualism and collectivism is just wordplay.
Every communist values the individual. That's why they want communism. More freedom. More liberty. More happiness. They see the individuals freedom impeded by capitalism and, outside of catholic communists, religion. If love for our fellow men were elevated above love for money or our preferred rendition of Abrahamic religion, then we could much sooner get together and work towards a global change for the betterment of humanity.
Instead we get Christians with proclamations of moral supremacy, because they believe in abstract logical concepts. Or capitalists with proclamations of factual supremacy, since they can allege to best predict the outcomes of society. Neglecting to mention that these outcomes are derived from material conditions born from the very system they support.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
I think, respectfully, that the time to take a principled stance against online crowdfunding was what, 10 years ago? The cat seems very much out of the bag on that one...
On top of that, this event as a whole, as @corman puts it, is part of an ongoing conflict. With a whole host of new technologies. For instance, having a camera shoved into your face by a brown person isn't as much of a neutral event as your child getting sick and dying. It's a deliberate act of hostility fueled and maintained by other people. Fighting against that is not the same as fighting against, say, cancer.
I don't think there is a conflict averse highroad for people to take here. The causal chain that drives white people towards group solidarity is initiated by hostile actors. White people organizing and rebelling against these emergent aggressors and using whatever tools they have at their disposal is noble, just and good. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to justify why and through what mechanism white people should fight against this unjust circumstance as an alternative.
Ambivalence is not a morally neutral act.
Glad you posted this one. I wanted to discuss it as well in conjunction with a different post written by Foster, but the OP was lengthy enough as is.
This reply is very PUA or maybe more classically 'RedPill' adjacent. Which I found surprising considering the crowd one might expect to find following a pastor. But reading more of Pastor Fosters work, it looks to fit right in.
There seems to be an odd synergy of old /r/TheRedPill type dating advice woven into the otherwise traditionalist presenting pastor. As seen here.
The post goes over things like abundance mentality, 'sarging' to get over rejection, not being needy, friendzoning women and getting them talking, he even goes into text game... And every piece of advice there is underlined with verses from the Bible.
Whilst modern problems sometimes require modern solutions, this endeavor is certainly not coming from Biblical or 'traditional' channels, as far as I know. Foster seems to stumble into this fact when replying to a negative comment:
With your PS statement in mind, I'll say this:
Improving yourself has shown that 1) women bring very little, if anything, good to the table, 2) women do not improve, as they are raised to believe they're perfect from a very young age, and 3) the risk is not worth the reward
Foster replies:
This is really a loser mindset that rejects basic statements in Scripture.
What follows is a deluge of comments from negative posters dancing around the fact that the modern American Christian woman and the dating market as a whole are not exactly in line with Biblical norms.
On one hand I am sympathetic to Fosters position. There seem to be a lot of negative posters who, I suspect, might not be very representative of the people Foster is trying to reach. Anonymous X accounts can be anyone. On the other hand, this is an indirect participation in a long debate regarding the gender wars. As such, one would hope that people like Foster would have a more holistic approach to the issue at hand. That issue being that we are not just dealing with people who want to engage with the opposite sex but don't know how. But people who seemingly do not want to engage with the opposite sex or view it adversarially. Throwing the Bible at them might not be a solution with a very wide audience.
To underline that point I'd remind those who missed it that RedPill and PUA dating advice was looked upon with great scorn back in the day. The assertions against it being that it was explicitly and implicitly misogynistic. And to an extent I would have to agree. Though maybe for the wrong reasons:
The pastor is warning the young male sheep of his flock that the potential love of their life might simply reject them and their potential lifelong union because he, in his infatuation, posts cringe texts...
There is some disconnect here between the Bible and RedPill/PUA philosophy, at some level. Even if I'm not quite smart enough to articulate it.
I came across an interesting X post by a right wing Christian religious man on the topic of young people and dating and would like to share:
Jack Reacher Won't Ask Girls to Dance
I’ve had a front-row seat to the social breakdown hitting our young people. You can see it in a lot of places, but one of the clearest examples came from a mom in our church who’s helped run a homeschool prom for several years. She told me something recently that I’ve been stewing on.
When she first got involved, it was normal for boys to ask girls to dance—especially during the “snowball” dances, where the DJ tells you to rotate partners every thirty seconds. That’s the whole point: go find someone new, talk, move, risk a little awkwardness.
But this year? The boys wouldn’t do it. They stood around, clumped up with friends, goofed off, and refused to initiate. Some danced with each other, ironically of course. Meanwhile, the girls were standing around the edge of the dance floor—waiting. Eventually, they gave up and started dragging each other onto the floor. Some even went over and tried to coax the guys to come out. It didn’t work. There were 2 girls for every guy.
The DJ repeatedly re-explained the rules and purpose. Didn’t matter. Nothing changed. He was baffled by it. It didn't use to be like this.
The next day, one of this mom’s younger daughters said something that sums it all up: “I’m graduating, and I’ve never danced with a guy.” Contrast that with her older sister, who just seven or eight years ago came home from prom having danced with seven or eight different young men in one evening.
Something’s shifted. It’s not just social anxiety or awkwardness. It’s paralysis. It’s absence. And yeah—it’s unsettling.
The same trend was the focus of a recent video from Charisma on Command, titled “This Shift in Masculinity Is Scary.” It uses the Reacher series on Amazon Prime as a cultural case study. Reacher is a walking male power fantasy: big, competent, calm under pressure, lethal in a fight. And yet, in the modern adaptation, he is oddly passive with women. He never initiates anything romantic. In fact, the women have to all but throw themselves at him just to get a kiss.
This isn’t how Reacher was written in the books. And it’s not how male leads used to behave. Go back and watch The Girl Next Door or Casino Royale. Whatever flaws those movies had, the men at least wanted something—and they acted on it. Desire was visible. Rejection was a possibility. And risk was part of the reward.
That’s what’s missing now: initiative. Reacher has been reimagined into a man who wins without wanting. He gets the girl without having to pursue her. There’s no risk, no rejection, no emotional vulnerability. He’s strong in every arena except the one that requires personal agency.
And the problem is—it’s not just fiction. The video rightly points out that more and more young men are living like this in real life. They aren’t avoiding women because they’re ascetic or holy. They’re avoiding women because they’re afraid. Afraid of rejection. Afraid of misreading a situation. Afraid of being embarrassed, canceled, or misunderstood. So instead, they scroll. They lift. They build. They wait. They distract themselves endlessly, preparing for a moment they never plan to seize.
I thought this was overstated, but I digress.
It’s not that they don’t want anything. It’s that they’ve lost touch with how to act on what they want. They’ve been taught to suppress desire instead of disciplining it. They’ve learned that passivity feels safer than pursuit.
I used to think this was mainly a problem in my own circles. I’ve harped plenty on the socially stunted sons of Reformed households—the boys who can quote Theologians from memory but can’t make eye contact. But let’s be honest: this isn’t a Reformed problem. It’s a cultural one. We’re just producing our own brand of it.
A lot of young men today have rightly rejected the old “just be yourself” lie and embraced the call to “improve yourself.” That’s a good shift. You see more of them focusing on fitness, career goals, and personal discipline. But that growth often stalls out when it comes to relationships—especially with women. They’ve learned how to level up, but not how to move toward someone.
They’re told to develop themselves but warned off pursuit. So they become hesitant, uncertain, stuck. What’s needed now is the courage to carry that same sense of purpose into the social realm—to risk, initiate, and act with clarity and resolve, even when the outcome isn’t guaranteed.
So maybe we need to say this to our sons directly: If you like her, ask. If you want something, step up. If you get rejected, survive it. But don’t stand on the edge of the dance floor waiting for someone else to make the first move.
P.S. This is merely one angle of the dilemma. I know there are issues with the girls as well. Next time.
The replies to the post range from supportive and understanding to hostile. One that caught my eye said:
I genuinely mean no malice when I type this: this showed up on the time line, I got three paragraphs in, and thought "I bet this is a Based Pastor or something." A few seconds later I figured, girldad. I'm right on both counts.
You write effeminately. You don't seem to have any fellow feeling for young men as young men. Until you reckon with that, you and your dj are going to remain confused.
A 'girldad' has either all girls or a mix of boys and girls, and holds the girls to a standard that elevates them while holding the boys to a standard that denigrates them. It's why Con Inc. tells boys not to go to college and work in factories, and girls to work in STEM.
I like this reply since it has a little edge to it, but I am left wondering, to what extent does empathizing with young men just translate to validating their crippling anxiety and fear over interacting with the opposite sex? Does that do them any good? To me a lot of the replies about fear of getting 'cancelled' just seem like an overblown and hyperbolic expression of that anxiety and fear. The real question should be why that anxiety and fear exist in the first place. And to what extent the responsibility to overcome it rests on young men rather than someone else.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
I can't find the post. Making me think it might be on the old site. It was a play on the Norm MacDonald joke 'I love niggers'.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
You can easily get modded for the gamer word here.
Freeing oneself from old paradigms can be a very noble effort. Capitalism, Communism, Economics, Rights... These concepts, along with many others, have in many cases done discourse more harm than good. But it is easier said than done to get past them.
I appreciate the argumentative nature of your post. It certainly fuels discussion. I do however think it is marred by the fact that it tethers itself to a few poor concepts. To that end I'm not sure if it is conducive to your goal of brainstorming alternatives to ownership, as you've seemingly managed to push a lot of people into old 'capitalism vs communism' trenches. And, as we can see, many people here will jump at any opportunity to brandish old bayonets, if only to see if they are still sharp.
To chime in I'd ask you, as I've seen you post about your 'personal riches' in a comment: Can you, in some sense, hold 'ownership' over your family? I for one would look at myself as having a certain duty towards my family members. But I also see there being a certain kind of possessive nature to these relationships. Is there some way you would broach this topic?
As for inanimate objects in general, the old Venus Project line came to the conclusion that human society was on the cusp of post scarcity, and that the main problem was organization and distribution. Is that close to an alternative to ownership in your mind or are you looking further afield?
My personal caveat, and where I diverge from Jacque Fresco and friends, would be that I'm very partial to the notion that our 'possessive nature' is very much innate, along with a lot of other things. To that end I find imagining a society, even a post scarcity one, that doesn't have a problem with emergent hierarchies based on other peoples possessions to be very difficult.
I mean, figuratively, what are you to do when your boys go out into the woods and one finds a cool stick, and the other can't find one that looks as good and becomes jealous? Instigating a search for some sort of final solution to this sort of problem seems odd to me. Rather I'd say that encountering this problem is a part of being a child and a parent. Both have a duty to ameliorate the situation, but both are also saddled with their emotions and competence, or lack thereof. Parents usually demand one son suffer. Be that to be forced to share or be that to settle for whatever less cool stick they can find, as the forest is full of them.
To that end I'm not sure if the question can be answered in any meaningful sense. Take the low road and side with either boy. Keeping the stick, if you have it, seems emotionally straightforward for one boy. Demanding it, by the same token, being emotionally straightforward for the other. Or assume the role of a parent and find some kind of answer on the high road. Which is where I'd ask for your take.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
The march of progress is inevitable when it is not opposed outside the context that enables and drives it. I spent most of my last post going over this. As an example, eugenics didn't end as a permissible idea because of an argument based on a common understanding of human biology and genetics. There was instead a giant paradigm shift that supersedes any objective truth value about biology.
Progressives and true believers don't engage in discussions. There are plenty of examples of islamic preachers screaming at heretics, or SJW's screaming at dissent. Not a lot of much else. On a more macro level, Islam bans heresy when it can, so to do progressives. You can argue in theory that you could talk and dissent over ideas with true believers over their faith, but in practice that's not the case. That's because dissent to a true believer is empty in the sense of relevant intellectual content, but filled to the brim with hostile intent. Only an enemy would say something like that, and enemies must be destroyed.
You don't talk to people that draw pictures of Mohammed to understand where they are coming from. Language is just a tool to get them to do what you already know is true. The alternative is to kill them. This is also very evident in progressive forums were talk of debates or discussion is only understood in the form of propaganda. Make your side look good, make other side look bad. The truth has already been decided.
As for me trolling, no. I'm not. I've been reiterating the same point again and again. I've stated that my position is that adhering to progressive orthodoxy whilst being against the consequences is counterproductive.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
Companies are not infallible. Wanting to make money is not equivalent to always making rational and correct decisions that make you money. Nor does it grant companies omnipotence to shape institutions to best and most cost effectively deliver them what they want.
I felt your objections were, for most part, addressed by that paragraph. Maybe to change the wording a bit to make the meaning I got from it clearer: A lot of people shouldn't go to college even if they could afford it.
When everyone has a college degree no one does. I think we've already passed the threshold for too many degree holders being paid too much money to do menial wrist and finger labour. Too many people who are actually smart need to spend too much time to distinguish themselves from the average brained but highly industrious. And to that end, too few smart people engage in lower class labour where their big brains could be used for a lot more good than in many other cases.
The education inflation is hitting every part of our lives. How western societies are setting themselves up isn't sustainable. And even if it were, it's so wasteful it shouldn't be done anyway.
I think this is almost always false. Our educated and wealthy people are only human, and in my experience almost all of them can have their substantive thinking overwhelmed, at least on occasion and maybe more than that, by the need for social signalling. That is a different problem than being morons. Indeed, I think most normies are pretty smart, within a baseline context of human flourishing--they're just that much more susceptible to focusing on sending the right signals rather than identifying substantially veridical facts.
I think this entire paragraph is just a key example of how smart people can excuse anything they do with big words and fancy concepts. If your elite class torpedoes your society because it can't resist the temptation to conform and virtue signal to ides they personally find novel then they are ultimately no better than a high time preference, low IQ person that 'fails' the marshmallow test throughout their life.
At some point the elite of the world is no longer owed any leeway or respect on the grounds that they just aren't doing enough work that justifies it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
Prison rape does happen. However, for most people it doesn't exist as anything other than an argumentative 'distraction' that gets in the way of their inconsistent worldview. That has up till this point mostly, if not totally, ignored it.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
Like I said, the worry in mens prisons is not pregnancy but a high number of extreme cases of rape. Until you articulate a justification for the breakdown of biological boundaries that induce a massive increase in such cases in the name of civil rights, you have no leg to stand on when complaining about trans women.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
Why would men and women sharing a cell blow up definitions any more than black and white men sharing a cell? To that end, if we care about biological realities, aren't we way past that threshold?
I don't see the logic follow for any of your statements. The very argument for 'put this person in the white ward of the jail' is 'this is a white man not a black man'.
On top of that, why should one elevate pregnancy over the gravity of post-rape suicides in mens prisons?
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
I don't see the deflection. People arguing against pedo acceptance will be just as useless as people arguing against gay marriage if the progressive march ever wants to sexually liberate children.
Besides, it's not about the arguments, as those did little to save marriage from homosexuals. Nor did popular support much to save segregation. It's about the context. Rosa Parks didn't matter until a bunch of media outlets made her a front page story. By that point the 'argument' presented is: Should nice old ladies who are no different from us except for the amount of melanin in their skin be allowed to sit where they want on a bus they paid to be on? And only inane morons would ever bother to engage with that argument in the negative. Same goes for respectable men walking down a New York street wearing suit and tie demanding equal rights under the law. Why should they be deprived of holding their loved ones hand during their final moments on a hospital bed?
The entire discourse is premade. All the relevant points of contention that predicate the 'arguments' accepted by all relevant parties. So long as you exist within that context without recognizing and rejecting it, all the arguments are irrelevant. We're just a few decades of well made movies and documentaries away from lowering the age of consent by a few years. The only hope against that outcome is that the progressive disgust response activates for enough of them at some point to be against that. Outside of that, the march of progress will continue.
What I'm saying here is if you personally don't believe things like "being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason" phrase it as "X believe that being against trans rights is the same as being against morality, rationality and reason" or else I will assume you are stating a personal opinion.
I personally don't believe that people who argue against trans rights but not the overarching context have a leg to stand on. They can make no claim to any of these things. To that end I agree more with the trans people. At least they are consistent to the program. It's also super easy. I can farm downvotes but no coherent arguments that don't boil down to an essential admission of transphobia. If the majority of trans people weren't mentally ill or completely unpassable 40 somethings, there would be no backlash. And all the people who pretend to stand on the principles of biology and whatever would practically vanish.
I mean, it's practically convenient that this place mods out the heat that keeps the progressive flame alive. Otherwise dissent from progressive orthodoxy would become a bannable offense in just a few months. It's why this place is here and not on reddit.
Well, you were just telling me how inevitable the march of progress is, and how, from the perspective of the structures of power, opposing them is "the same as being against morality, rationality and reason". But if the march of progress is not inevitable, than it is not irrational to oppose the structures of power that promote it.
But it is inevitable so long as people don't reject the overarching context. The progressives will just keep on with their lies. History will remember anti-LGBTQA+ people as hateful losers, just like we remember those who were against segregation.
My point, though, is that you're conflating a religious conversation with a rational one.
A local preacher, known for fiery sermons, once said: You don't invite sin over for coffee. You say: Away with you! You disgust me!
When you figure out how to have a rational conversation with a true believer, be that an Islamist or a transexual, let me know. I don't think it's possible. Nor should it be, if that persons faith is true and they value and protect it.
You started this conversation casting judgement on the unbelievers. The tone has already markedly changed, to the point where it's not clear if you're even talking about your own opinions or someone else's
Not unbelievers, people who want to cast away the parts of the religion that inconvenience them, but hold the parts that don't. I can't demonstrate that without bonking them on the head with a Bible. Progressive morality is the dominant morality. Not just as words on the internet, but what guides 80% of people as they listen to the radio, watch TV or do anything. People then want to carve out special caveats for their own predilections but still scoff at those who do the same for all the rest of progressive fake morality, rationality, reason and history.
but if I approached the conversation with the same religious zeal as you did, I'd be simply condemning you the same way you did me.
I don't think you could. I think it would come across as empty. To what grand moral narrative would you appeal? It's partially why I make an appeal to rape in mens prisons and the fallout of desegregation. How can trans people be a bigger issue than that?
The logic here being that, since Scott wrote a lot of nice things, he can claim a different ethnicity?
Or is this just some kind of kneejerk ethnocentric defense mechanism that was accidentally triggered?
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
Isn't Scott jewish?
When people curtail their viewpoint diversity to be within the Overton Window and then ignore obvious blindspots to legitimate contradiction then no, they are not serious. Regardless of how much they work and waffle within those parameters.
There is an entire cottage industry of academics and media that exists for little other than venerating immigration. There can exist no serious thought within that sphere when alternatives are functionally verboten. The people who exist within this sphere without acknowledging just how ridiculous the entire thing is are not serious.
More options
Context Copy link