hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
You are defining "care" to mean "form an ethnostate excluding non-whites". That's a pretty extreme form of "care". That's so extreme I will reject it as a good definition. There are valid ways to "care" without being a white nationalist.
Which one of these 'ways' does not, in some form, effectively exclude immigration and enforce some sort of segregation to maintain a white population? I am curious considering the state of Texas, which has recently gone majority hispanic.
We'll thrive just fine next to Mexicans and Asian immigrants.
At risk of sounding to snarky, that's like, your opinion, man.
This appears to be the very falsest of dichotomies.
You fit the description of someone who says they care whilst they don't, rather well.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I feel like your sentence needs a little of defining before it holds any relevance.
If I say I care about X, but I wont lift a finger to help X, do I actually care?
If I say I care about X, but refuse to acknowledge that X can ever be at risk or in need of help, and constantly browbeat anyone who acts like there might be risk or need of help, do I care?
Most people are not "white nationalist" because the term is actively marginalized. Most people, in fact, don't like to label themselves as anything at all. They just have their beliefs and opinions and look for the best representation for those beliefs and opinions they can find. Sure, you can care about white people and not associate with some label, but to actually care about white people you have to act like a 'white nationalist', for a lack of a better term, in some form. Ingroup bias expresses itself very uniformly.
As a side note, it's very easy to make up bad faith arguments for what constitutes to 'care'. On that front I think we have a good example from a recent Tucker Carlson interview where he bites into Ben Shapiro a bit.
(A more relevant clip from the interview.)
Does Ben Shapiro care about Israel? Obviously he does. Does he care about America? Well... To an extent he has to, right? He lives there, after all. And he gets animated over various political things over there. Saying he does not care is kind of stupid. But that's also not really the point. Ben Shapiro obviously cares more about Israel than America. Same can be said for many voices in American politics who were happy to tell the world that the Oct. 7 event was equivalent to 10 9/11's. The numbers here, given we know the rough deathtoll of both, can only represent the emotional weight placed on the events by those who make such claims. Why else make a low brow comparison like that.
The point being made here is that you can care about a lot of things. Giving yourself an excuse to say you care is easy. But its how you prioritize things that allows us to see what you 'really' care about out of all the things you say and act like you care about.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
At risk of repeating what's been said downthread, your entire disposition towards the topic betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on. Veganism isn't based on some argument. Either you care enough about animal suffering to do something about it or you don't. Factory farming is, in a lot of places, a torture farm. If you care a lot about animal suffering there is no "argument". There's just a fundamental factual truth about the nature of harvesting animals for food and from there on all else follows. Same is true for 'white nationalism'. Either you care about white people, their bio-diversity, history and continued existence or you don't.
You are not asking for an argument, you are asking for a bonk on the head that makes you see the world in a different light. For some that's videos on Facebook and documentaries, real world experiences or socialization. Whatever it is, you're not dealing with arguments and I think it would behoove you and people who talk like you to stop pretending you are a machine that digests paragraphs and sorts out the fact and logic. You're not.
There has been a distinct and focus driven propaganda effort to marginalize certain peoples concept of an ingroup in the western world. More specifically, any concrete group like a nation or any concrete narrative of a shared suffering and hardship that has eventually been overcome together is, for certain groups, not allowed. The success of this propaganda leads to the conditions you describe.
You can't be angry at immigrants because there is no such thing. There can't be any immigrants since you don't exist. They are people, you are people. They live here now, you live here now. Without any sense of being you can't own anything. In clear terms: There is no you that can demand recompense without asserting, in some form, that you are owed more than the others. The quick and predictable reply to any of your supremacist assertions is the established fact that the Chinese real estate mogul that's lending out apartments for Indian workers is no less a human being than you are. Let alone the poor that are paying rent. You would have to be completely heartless as an individual to stand on your own two feet and maintain that your personal life is worth more than theirs on no greater grounds than because you feel that it is. (This is the base framing of every right winger in mainstream media since that's what they actually are when they buy into the propaganda)
If people had a sense of self and a coherent group identity they could demand, on the grounds of their common ownership of the land, that things change in their favor. Not as individuals but as a people. But if you reject that, you have nothing.
Most people in the west accept and regurgitate propaganda that is premised on the notion that they don't exist as an ingroup but rather an outgroup. At best they can defend themselves by appealing to the nihilistic universalism of money and 'common sense'. (As if it should make any sense to a Chinese person to privilege a bunch of Canadians from Europe. No, you pay rent. No rent, no house. That's common sense.)
I hope this makes enough sense to illustrate why I don't care about Canadians and their plight. I pity them, sure. I share a lot of their problems. But I can at least humble myself and recognize that the liberal humanist ideology I held as a young adult is deeply flawed. I was never a good person just because I felt I was selflessly tossing away notions of being a part of a coherent and exclusive group. I, in fact, wasn't being selfless at all. I simply otherized my ingroup and sense of self.
Canadians will be 'good people' with healthcare that tells them to kill themselves when the constant pressure of the cost of living finally breaks their back. And they will kill themselves, alone, isolated and suffering, because that's what a good Canadian would do in a world where we there is no such thing as a good Canadian. If you want to live, stop being a good Canadian.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
'Democracies' can carry out a variety of policies that go directly against the voting public if they properly dance to the tune of mass media. To put it another way, whilst the election cycle is fast, the news cycle is even faster.
To that end, for any big project like ethnic cleansing of millions of people, you need very low time preference on a group level. A strong belief in something concrete and anti-fragile like a population group is very conducive to finishing big projects whilst riding the lows and highs of mass media and the election cycle.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
AFAICT 'yes' outspent 'no' by orders of magnitude. Another nail in the coffin for those who think that you can just buy any election.
I'd be very tentative with this. 'Yes' might not have bought this election in particular but the fact there's money being thrown at it means they can continue bargaining. Who knows, maybe one day, unbeknownst to most, this particular issue might go on sale and if one side happens to have money in the pocket it's an easy buy.
I think this is a problem with the right in general where they don't have a positive affirmational stance to rally behind. Instead they lean on the implicit racism of the public. With how hands off the right is with cultural institutions it's just a waiting game until the Overton Window shifts far enough along that the publics implicit racism doesn't cut it. Or, of course, the demographics shift in such a way that the Abbo rallying cry gets carried along in a coalition of ascendent minority groups.
No one would say that anime is an American artistic medium just because many of the earliest anime artists were inspired by Disney.
Thank god no one said that.
If you want to claim there's literally zero musical difference between Dizzee Rascal and Snoop Dogg, well, I don't know what to tell you.
No one is saying that and you are being a little shit throwing these irrelevant arguments at me. There are 'differences' between American rappers in the US that dwarf whatever differences there are between most UK and US rappers. That doesn't change the fact that 'British rap' is completely derivative of US rap. From being a thug to singing a sob song about being black and oppressed.
Maybe instead of bringing up a bunch of irrelevant things that would make your point if they were similar to what is actually being talked about you should look at the thing actually being talked about and recognize just how derivative black 'British rap' is from US rap.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Isn't that the most salient critique against someone like Bibi? Putting short term political goals and victories over the long term goals for Israel?
Maybe try find a more opportune time to kill your enemy than when the entire world is feeling sorry for them. Reflexively raising your hand in anger is a poor look. Especially when it ends up impotently flailing around killing civilians. Hard to call that a success.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
And where do black British rappers get their ideas from? The idea of 'British rap' is inane. The poetry and rhymes can be British. Or stuff like Cockney. 'British rap' is American. From the song structure, lyrics and style to everything else.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I still find this criticism very weak. The few black people I've interacted with have all, without exception, been Americanized just as much as our white liberal activists are. Even more so, to some extent, since they are actively looking for black American culture. There is no hint or trace of them being from Ghana or Kenya, despite some of those guys having lived there for 10+ years before coming to my country.
Why wouldn't black history month in Ireland or wherever else celebrate the biggest cultural icons that actually resonate culturally with black immigrants? They don't consume media from Africa. They consume black media from America just like everyone else.
Beyond all of that the key line to point out here is that ingroups and outgroups always come first. Black people living among white people see themselves as different. The lives of blacks in Ireland have much more in common with blacks in America than blacks in Africa since blacks in Ireland are dealing with the same outgroup in similar conditions. That struggle resonates and relates both emotionally and physically.
If you in any way cared about privileging the position of blacks in any country you should immediately go to the winning formula. Which is the US one.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Well, yes and no. The person you responded to used specific words, "defending borders". You did not use those words. You used "illegal immigration". Which is not the same thing or necessarily what was being referred to in specific.
Recognizing this, I explained in my previous post how defending the US border from drug smugglers is not at all different from defending your borders from something like Hamas given how many lives are lost in the US due to drugs. To reiterate that point, since you seem to have neglected engaging with it:
Yes, X and Y are not the same. But when X and Y both result in deaths of civilians, they are similar to that extent and can be compared on those grounds.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It's not a good effort to insinuate that the language used by someone is not in good faith when you are not arguing against the language actually used by that person.
Here's what you say:
Are you saying that illegal immigration through the mexican-american border is a similarly shaped problem as military/terrorist invasions?
Compared to what you are replying to:
Strangely, when it comes to defending borders, there is this opinion that the Southern US border is not worth defending, but borders of such important countries as Ukraine and Israel are worth billions of dollars (and the blood of millions).
'Defending' a border can mean many things. For instance, it can mean a country protecting itself against the importation of drugs that are killing thousands annually.
What I want to say: Are you aware of just how sophistic your post is? Yes, X and Y are not the same. But when X and Y both result in deaths of civilians, they are similar and can be compared on those grounds.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I'm not arguing whether or not they should. I am describing what they do when their ingroup is at stake vs when the outgroup is at stake.
Why are you blaming their Jewish group membership and not their American one?
For the same reason zionists and jews blame Palestine and not homo sapiens.
The point being made is simple. Ethnic groups exist, people act on them. Zionists and jews hide behind individualism and deconstruct identities when the actions of specific jews are leveraged against their group. But when the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly group culpability for the actions of individuals is as natural and common sense as drinking water.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Like I said before, the physical differences are irrelevant. Emotionally, intuitively, pathologically, people see no problem assigning the fault of individuals to groups and then acting on it. They just don't want it done to their group.
The Sackler family is jewish. They could not have gotten where they are if it had not been for the jewish people living in the US. The existence of jews facilitates people like the Sacklers just as much as the existence of a Palestinian residential area facilitates members of Hamas.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
But the Sacklers are NOT hiding among other Jews!
They are as much as Hamas is hiding among Palestinians. Again, lets just call the holocaust the Collateral Damagecaust. The physical differences are irrelevant to the point, which is that emotionally, intuitively, pathologically, people see no problem assigning the fault of individuals to groups and then acting on it. They just don't want it done to their group.
They, like you, see no problem delving into the weeds of a giant causal chain of events that eventually leads them to the position that the systematic bombing of 'hostile adjacent' civilian targets is something you just shrug your shoulders at. Which is very conveniently in line with their group biases. But they don't shrug their shoulders at the holocaust despite all the same arguments applying. The sheer lunacy of pretending that one somehow has the knowledge at their fingertips to decipher between the two should be awfully apparent to the self criticizing rational and well reasoned individual. The fact everyone so readily believes and acts as if they know is proof it was never about knowledge in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Every single argument you make applies equally to the opposite. This is just a long string of special pleading.
Hamas hides among innocent and not so innocent Gazans, that restricts the options for dealing with them. Many things are Israels fault but not that.
Palestinians are carrying an ethnic burden every single time Israel indiscriminately bombs one of them without finding out beforehand if they support Hamas or not. It's not an opinion but a fact. This is a fact accepted by zionists and jews like you. I might as well say it's not Hitlers fault that so many of the elements hostile to Germany were hiding among the jews.
And many of them provide passive and active support.
The majority of jews do the exact same thing with regards to the various jewish figures and groups that support and facilitate mass immigration, diversity rhetoric and ethnic protection rackets for jews that benefit people like the Sacklers.
It simply makes your whole argument look weak.
You are still not engaging with the crux of the argument. Because of that your opinion is not worth much.
The argument I get when I mention jews is; there are specific jews who do bad things. Implying in any way that there is any connection between them and other jews is wrong. Even if they hide amongst other jews, even if other jews actively hide them, the blame does not go around. It's never group applicable. Well, now the shoe is on the other foot with zionists and jews seeing no reason to not let groups carry the fault of individuals. In that spirit we can rename the holocaust the 'Collateral Damagecaust'. Since that's all dead civilian Palestinians are to them.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
All these justifications apply just the same to Palestinians dying in Palestine because Hamas did X. You're not engaging with the contention, which is that you are drawing arbitrary lines of distinction in one case but not the other. If the Sacklers carry no ethnic burden then Hamas carries no ethnic burden. If the actions of specific jews in America don't transmit fault to other jews then the actions of specific Palestinians don't transmit to other Palestinans.
The argument I get when I mention jews is; there are specific jews who do bad things. Implying in any way that there is any connection between them and other jews is wrong. Even if they hide amongst other jews, even if other jews actively hide them, the blame does not go around. It's never group applicable.
Well, now the shoe is on the other foot with zionists and jews seeing no reason to not let groups carry the fault of individuals. In that spirit we can rename the holocaust the 'Collateral Damagecaust'. Since that's all dead civilian Palestinians are.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The Palestinians are Israelis by the same logic. Sorry, I'm not doing tactical nazism in favor of jews. If ethnic lines are sufficient in Israel to differentiate between people, it's sufficient everywhere else. The Sackler family is jewish just as much as Hamas is Palestinian.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That's not the disagreement at all. The disagreement is the use of vocabulary that only excuses civilian fatalities for one side but not the other.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
When you designate civilian infrastructure as a military target you are just playing with words. The existence of 'collateral damage' as a term is completely meaningless in this context. It is only invoked as a self serving defense for when the ingroup kills civilians.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I have no idea how you could not.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The goal is not to kill a toddler any more than the Israeli goal is to kill a toddler. The goal is as much to kill a toddler as the Israeli goal is to kill a toddler. The rest is sophistry.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Your argument is that when your side kills civilians its collateral damage and when the other guys kill civilians its evil barbarity. The rest is sophistry.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Really? Never seen that as a stated goal from them. Are you sure it's not just 'boo-outgroup'?
If you have some way of maintaining white populations without borders or segregation laws I'd be interested to hear about it. Would be a new theory in a now rather dead school of thought called White Nationalism 2.0
More options
Context Copy link