hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The data clearly show that whites pose a much greater threat to white lives than do blacks. So, I assume you support a state-run military program against whites
No, just like Israel doesn't count the jews killed by other jews wrt the conflict with Palestine. You are only 'kidding' yourself by being this obtuse.
Now, did I answer your question or are you still going to pretend that 20 = 500? Or that Palestinians are raping as many jewish women as blacks rape white women?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
This is just sophistry.
I don't believe you or anyone else actually believes that the aim of Hamas is to kill jewish toddlers. I think you and everyone else recognizes the goals of Hamas are a little broader in scope than that and that any dead jewish toddlers are collateral damage on the road towards those broader goals.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
And there are plenty of incompetent black criminals. What's your point? You don't think there are enough black people who hate white people in the US? There are plenty. If they got their hands on a nuclear weapon they would absolutely use it.
Considering the comments here and elsewhere, the only thing holding Israel back from doing their own little holocaust in Gaza is the international community of nations that don't like that sort of thing.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Yeah. One year is 500 black on white murders. How many Israelis die annually due to a direct Palestinian act? 20? If we factor in rapes this isn't even close.
To put that in perspective there are no state run military programs that try to avenge the loss of white lives. It's just contextualized as a national problem. A 'race issue'. If white people had only done more these white lives would not have been lost at the hands of blacks. Why can't jews just do that? Why do they have to be so ethnonationalist and hateful? We're all one race the human race. Say no to artificial borders and just let them in.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The moral argument from the Zionist position here is that you can't see or hear the screaming Palestinian children dying a slow agonizing death whilst the concrete wall they are trapped under slowly grinds their pelvis to a mush. But you can see the videos of Israeli people captured and that has a more immediate pull on your heartstrings so that's where we draw the line.
This is not an uncharitable argument or a strawman. The actual argument is 'look at our propaganda and feel with us'. Any objective look at numbers tells us the story that jews in Israel have been massively overrepresenting the threat they face compared to any other integration issue facing the west. Be that black or Arab.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
To put things in perspective there have been more drug deaths due to a poorly secured border and a few predatory jewish pharmacutical companies than there have been jewish deaths at the hands of Palestinians by a ridiculous factor. On top of that, prior to this event there were even more European deaths at the hands of Arab terrorists than there were jewish ones.
I think jews all around the world have a very keen understanding of exactly who is in and who is out. What you are supposed to do is apologize for your jewish privilege and do better. Accept more immigration, do more for assimilation and focus heavily on functional integration. Of course no one will do that when it's their own ingroup at stake. No one will entertain some well reasoned and rationalized argument regarding the benefits of integration, diversity and rehabilitation. Just look at the rhetoric, 'they are raping our women!'.
This is an open invitation to leverage every single anti-ethnocentric argument against jews. Never again will I have to entertain a Zionist, jew or otherwise, when they start whining about the far right or anything similar. Black on white crime in the US alone dwarfs this conflict. You have an enemy at the gates? Open up and apologize for having gates you racists.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Given the comments here and elsewhere, I very much doubt any sincerity when it comes to the alleged 'clemency' on Israels part. Apparently, the only reason jews in Israel have not ethnically cleansed, genocided, holocausted or otherwise brutalized their enemy is because it's a bad tactic at the moment. Because, I would suppose from your comment, there are stronger, morally wiser, more competent and actually merciful people out there that prevent the childish and inane racist power fantasies of hateful zionist jews to come to light.
This is a real mask off moment. Zionists wish suffering and death on women and children. They would take the lives of 1000 innocents in the most torturous way possible to save a single one of theirs. Everything they allege a nazi was they wish they could be.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't care about the discussion happening. Unlike the mods here I don't have a chance to discriminate like that. Overt and covert jew supremacists can talk all they want as far as I am concerned. I appreciate that these events at least manage to draw out some human honesty in people who otherwise sit on the sidelines as two of their outgroups clash whilst giving dispassionate and rational commentary on what's happening. Which sure is easy when your team isn't playing, let me tell you.
I care about the proposition that the thin veneer of calm and collected rationalism that it shrouds itself in is in any way a relevant distinguishing factor from any of the discourse that is and would otherwise be sneered at as being low brow or insane.
There are posters here who get called out as being holocaust deniers and neo-nazis when they post. Just as a reminder or warning to others of what they are. Well, how many of the Zionist jew supremacists here are the exact carbon copy of that sort of poster? 'Israel did nothing wrong!'. Minimize and deny atrocities, flex history to suit their narratives and do it all under the guise of rationality and 'dispassionate discourse'. Can I call out the jewish supremacists here who pontificate on the culling of children to suit their nationalist ideology? At least the neo-nazi here has the tact to deny past atrocities rather than openly plan for new ones.
I mean, lets be honest here, if anyone in the past had suggested that the only peaceful end to the I-P conflict could be found with every jewish first born boy staring down the barrel of a shotgun I think the fine jewish supremacists here would find it very easy to report the comment. Let alone if someone was psychoanalyzing themselves to get past the hump of just killing would be mothers before they had a chance to give birth to a 'problem'. No, I've seen comments here designed by trolls to incite exactly the sort of nasty viewpoints you are talking about and they get banned.
I would say that this place is kind of insane, but it's not. It just has no self awareness. I wish it would gain some so we can stop pretending that there exist rifts between the neo-nazi and the average jew supremacist here. Having sat through years of dispassionate moral grandstanding at the hands of people who now either sit awfully quiet when the ball is in their court or are going full oy-vey-88... yeah.
I don't see why these events should change anything from a rationalist perspective. After all, there are still people here in favor of mass immigration despite the harm its caused in Europe and the US.
My advice to jews everywhere is to turn the other cheek and genuinely open their hearts and society to the Palestinians who are obviously hurting a lot right now. Violence is never the answer. This is the only way for Israel to survive.
I'm reading mostly what the 'rational' pathway towards Israel's victory is. Which, so far, is mostly achieved through some form of PR friendly killing of non-combatants.
I think the line between 'dispassionate' and whatever 'passionate' is in this context is aesthetic at best. I personally prefer the honesty of passion over the pretense that whatever is being discussed here by overt and covert Zionists isn't just as barbaric and tribal as the 'passionate' expressions. That goes for those who forgo commenting on this topic as well.
I certainly wouldn't have entertained the notion of proposing that the end of the conflict can only be achieved through strategic culling of civilians and the routine killing of jewish first born boys. A comment which spurs the question of why we wouldn't kill potential jewish mothers instead... But here we are.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Exactly what I wrote? Israel used to be a prolific place for sex trafficking and slavery. But they changed their tune in the late 90's after a US DoS Trafficking in Persons report ranked them as Tier 3. Meaning Israel was then in a group of nations that could face sanctions for the abysmal state of their country.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Considering the amount of sex slaves and their history in Israel I'd advise the JIDF to pick a different thing.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
And the point of that paragraph was to give an example of how people think.
The fact that a country existing provides some mechanisms for others to seek recompense does not change the fact that people feel they are owed something from another group. There's no crucial difference. Jews felt the Germans did something to them. Not the country, the people. Cruel acts against individual Germans or people who collaborated with Germans are seen as just. The fact that there exists a mechanism, due to Germany being a country, to seek recompense does not change the fact that there is a motivation behind using that mechanism. That mechanism existing or not is irrelevant to the point being made about how people use language and generalize with regards to groups they do and don't like.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Did all the Jewish people in the world take a vote and agree to be bound by its results, or something?
No, just like not every German in Germany voted in the elections that got Hitler power. But jews did express themselves through thousands of organizations that convened and agreed that they would take action against Germany in 1933. They did not need to be a country to do this. Which displays just how contrived and argumentative your insistence on 'countries' is. As if these people can now not be responsible for their own actions because they don't qualify as a country.
The country of Israel was very specifically created by one specific movement, the Zionist movement; as you surely know, there were a lot of Jews at the time who explicitly and expressly disagreed with the Zionist movement, its actions and its goals.
So what is the ratio here that allows one to associate Germans being responsible for the holocaust but not jews with Zionism?
I don't really understand the references to "some Jews" continuing to boycott the Germany or whatever. That would just indicate that most don't, no?
No, what was being demonstrated is that jews see no issue holding a negative opinion of Germans. Which would be equally wrong with regards to your post on what people should do. Demonstrating just how irrelevant your particular pontifications are with regards to my position, which is the same as the jewish position on Germans.
It just seems to demonstrate the difficulty that talking about "Jews" as a people as an equivalent to a country is
Except no one was talking about Germans as a country except you. If jews could not take collective action unless they were a country you would have an argument. But this is obviously not true, as jews can take actions as individuals and as groups. Like they demonstrated in 1933 and have demonstrated time and time again with collective action through organizations.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
No one is saying that jews being 'successful' is a reason to not like them except you.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
German people were interned in the US following the US entry into the war. Plans were drawn up for more extensive internment of all German Americans but were scrapped since there were too many of them. Redefining things to be a 'country' is irrelevant. Getting down to brass tax it's about people. Everyone understands this when they are forced to act in reality.
However, that still doesn't make all Jews everywhere liable for the actions of Israeli goverment.
Yet, to this very day, many jews harbor resentment towards Germans. Some going as far as they can in upholding the old anti-German boycott.
Maybe I am being too hot tempered and uncharitable here but I really can't fathom what your point of bringing 'countries' into this would be other than to obfuscate things. Jews did not need to be a country to act as a people. They knew of themselves as the jewish people, they grouped up as the jewish people and they made declarations and took actions as a people prior to Israel ever being a thing. In fact, the only way Israel as a country could come to be in the first place was because of jewish people acting as a group.
So to turn your thing on its head a little bit, and to attempt to highlight my issue with it; are jews liable for the creation of the state of Israel?
Who implied that? I don't understand.
I just see your point being predicated on the idea that people can't take issue with what some jews were being successful at and/or how.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That's why one of the part of the rules is: Be as precise and charitable as you can.
Maybe you could be charitable and understand that when someone says the Germans did something, they don't mean every single individual German. Maybe you can understand that when someone says jews have won a lot of Nobel prizes, they don't mean every single individual jew. I mean, of course you understand that. Everyone does. 'Jews have won a lot of nobel prizes' is not a statement anyone has ever taken issue with. It's just that when the implication is negative the ingroup bias of some gets activated and they start demanding special status for their ingroup.
I don't accept that jews are more special than others and I don't accept that I should use extreme and autistic verbal rigor when talking about the ingroup bias of some whilst freely ignoring it for others. I think people should be able to be charitable, see past their bias, and recognize what is being said without dragging everything through the mud of tactical individualism. Like I said in my prior comment, you don't need to prove how every single individual German helped the Third Reich when justifying they pay war reparations to jews. You don't need their tax returns to see just how much they were paying. You just draw a blanket group based judgement. They were German, they now have to pay. I'm making a similar judgement call. If one is jewish and one sees all of the negative stuff specific jews have done, why doesn't one have to own that? The Germans had to own all of their actions. They couldn't say that it wasn't them, but rather individual soldiers, politicians and the 30% or so that voted for the NSDAP in the 30's. Why should jews be allowed to not just disown all responsibility, but ultimately claim that these things aren't even jewish. It's like saying the NSDAP wasn't actually German.
The fact Germans are paying for anything is because citizens do in fact inherit the financial responsibilities their government has agreed to.
Why do they 'inherit' that whilst jews don't inherit that specific jews in powerful positions who identified themselves as jews and representatives of jews, who identified their organization as jewish and who declared economic war on Germans in the name of their explicitly jewish organizations due to actions taken by specific Germans against jews in Germany?
Seems like we've erected a very one sided standard. Individual Germans take responsibility for Germans as a group. Individual jews don't take responsibility for jews as a group. Even when jews are explicitly grouping up and expressing themselves as a group. It seems like, in a negative context, there are only individual jews and they can never reflect poorly on jews as a group. No matter how much ingroup bias jews display. Yet here I am pretending that this just doesn't exist. That jews don't have an ingroup bias that they routinely express every single time someone is critical of jews.
Here's a thought, if people don't see themselves as jewish, stop being jewish. Say you're Italian or Romanian. But no. Even on the internet, where no one knows you are a dog, jews and people who ingroup jews take time out of their day to reply to group generalizations in the context of negatives about jews but let actively rely on them in other contexts.
I'm not saying anything about all jews being X. I'm pointing out a double standard. Other individual people have to own their group and how other individual people of that group have made that group look, especially if those individuals did something bad to jews. I could understand how a fervent individualist would not want to participate in such a thing, but people who act on their group biases are obviously not that.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That's not the argument.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Claiming that certain Jews did things that you dislike is of course not necessarily pathological.
Then why do I consistently get the response that it is? Regardless of anything else, my point stands. There is a very distinct and clear form of ingroup bias whenever the 'jews' are criticized. There's never a concession made or a 'rational' framework of cause and effect. In this very thread the act of killing a Nazi collaborator is framed as justified, not causal.
However, blaming Jews as a group for things is certainly and in all cases a form of irrational, shoddy thinking.
Is there anyone in the world who believes that every single jew in the world was doing the things the "specific" jews in Weimar Germany were doing?
What you are saying would have salience and some form of coherency if it wasn't for the fact that the entire modern world is based on the idea that there are nations of people. Like Germans. Who were paying, and are in some form still paying, for the actions of specific Germans during the war. Do we need to be able to trace the causal chain of how a specific German housewife helped the Nazi regime during the war, which justifies her and her offspring pay money to jews until the day they die and beyond? No. This nihilistic autism is only presented when someone makes even a vague generalization about jews having done something.
I mean, can we come up with some term that describes the specific jews that do anti-European, anti-civilizational, anti-society, anti-Christian stuff? You know, not the good ones but the "specific" ones and those that support them. Because I'm tired of people acting like they are explaining something to me when all they are doing is playing PR for their ingroup. As if I just can not fathom that the jew I played video games with isn't Magnus Hirschfeld.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
This is a great example. Jews just exist in a form that is impossible to assign negative cause to. So the natural conclusion is that anyone who assigns them any negative cause is suffering from some ailment or pathology.
This is just such a transparent expression of ingroup bias. Like, it can't be that jews actually caused something negative to happen or are in any way instrumental in the proliferation of anything bad and that some people had a very natural and human reaction to it. I.e. not wanting to live with jews anymore. No, the Nazis were instead jealous of jews.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Troll post or not(it is), the meta argument still stands. At a certain point you realize that people who ingroup jews never accept in any sense that there is any rhyme, reason or responsibility to be found when the subject of anti-semitism comes up. Which is why you get these inane arguments to begin with.
The framework for the discussion is of a victim and oppressor, not cause and effect. Which is at odds with the 'rationalist' disposition on most other topics.
Every modern generation has to come to terms with the fact that their world gets replaced, their traditions get tossed aside, and their life's work was ultimately worth very little to anyone except themselves.
It's another trick of modernity, where the constantly evolving industrial and technological society outpaces each generation and leaves them without any heirs or students to whom they can pass the mantle. In fact, seeing someone pick up their useless hobby to carry on the tradition would make a self aware person feel guilty and sad.
Prior to such a rapidly changing world, the bond between generations was held together through tools and technology that didn't get outpaced. That could be recycled and innovated again and again. The joy of cultivating a craft and knowing it will live on.
That being said a lot of people need to take a long hard look at themselves. Most of the things people devote themselves to today are useless junk. Prior to a more civilized world, having a useless hobby could very likely lead to something very bad.
The impulse we have to devote ourselves to things that work and to grieve their loss is a small reminder of just how far we are straying away from being human. We have impulses to grieve the lost world, but not to celebrate the fact it was lost under a pile of 'better' things.
I agree with most everything you say but the way you phrase certain things, as exemplified by the 'triggered' @Folamh3 reply you got, undermines it and makes it seem like you are coming from a point that completely misunderstands why these problems arise to begin with. At least as far as it relates to what I assume is a popular opinion here; that society changed in this way to a large extent because of women's empowerment.
Now, I think it would behoove us, instead of blaming some vague thing like 'society', to recognize just what happened. Why were things allowed to change to begin with? Why didn't the men, who then had power, stop it?
The verbiage in your post is steeped in the sort of meaning that feels similar to what one would hear from a lone brave professor who decided to teach the first woman who attended his lectures despite all the men in the class leaving in protest. Or the rhetoric of a universalist 'egalitarian'.
"Fairness."
"Our future"
There are no 'fair' solutions to this problem. The very idea of 'fairness' and 'equality' between men and women was part of what created it. There is no 'us'. The only 'working' societies in the world subjugate women. The universe does not owe anyone who wanders outside of that dynamic a solution to their self inflicted problems.
To that end, regardless of how highly you think of your post, I don't think you are saying a lot. The impression I get from reading it, for whatever that is worth, is that the drowning mans salvation lies at the bottom of the ocean.
Outside of that I am all ears to an actual solution to this problem that doesn't come from Catholic neo-reactionaries and the like.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Whilst I can identify with the sentiment in your post it's also a weird position to be in.
I don't have anything in common with Brand. He seems like an extroverted weirdo with enough self awareness and sociopathy to do some real damage on those who are more earnest and innocent in their social life. At the same time I probably have very little in common with the kinds of people Brand hangs out with. Given a lot of them are probably no sheep when it comes to malicious social games. For some reason, however, I find myself siding with the guy just because enough journalists don't like him.
I have no dog in the fight. I don't even seen much utility in guys like him espousing their rhetoric. Why do I feel like his fight is being foisted on me?
As much as I want some sort of signal out there that goes against the mainstream lunacy, I don't want to become a golem that gets animated into the opposite direction of the mainstream just because. Opposition for the sake of opposition just isn't enough. It turns you into the mirror image of a progressive like Vaush or similar where nothing matters except surfing the wave of the current media hype. I can see how obviously ridiculous people who do that look. I'd prefer not becoming one even if I feel the emotional pull to side with Brand because of who seems to be gunning for him.
There's just as much a race war in the US as there is a Palestinian conflict. Either we are one race the human race with artificial borders or we are ethnic groups. I am not entertaining tactical nazism for jews only.
1200 in one anomaly year. It gets dwarfed by 3 average US years. We are still not counting the rapes.
Except it's not. If the Israeli government was forcibly making Palestinians live within Israel whilst actively stoking pro-Palestinian grievance narratives I'm sure we could bump these numbers up. Which still leaves us with the drug epidemic. How many neighborhoods should the US turn into 'parking lots' because of the Sackler's?
More options
Context Copy link