hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The same way Libertarians "guarantee" anything. By making stuff up on internet forums.
I believe my principles and my vision for the future will lead to good just like Libertarians believe about theirs. The thinly veiled insinuations that I don't sufficiently share your values or hold the correct ones in high enough regard to be trusted is, to not labour a point, asinine.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Hoppe does want a monopoly on what a good society is in the society he lives in, even in a Libertarian utopia. He wants the ability to freely associate with those who agree with him and freely disassociate from those who don't. To the end of ostracizing those he does not like from his society and protecting his society from those that would harm it. He does not want to live with the 'undesirables' or subject himself to their whim and suffer through whatever affronts to his moral sensibilities that their twisted minds can come up with after they've been afforded the freedom to do so.
You trusting him more than me to not have that ball roll into some kind of totalitarian foreign policy is completely irrelevant to my stated views. If that's all you have I am very content with saying you don't have much. Because I am not asking for something radically different from Hoppe. I just want the thing formalized in plain English instead of squeezing it out through Libertarian priors.
I assume my preferred views wont lead to "tyranny" for the same reason Libertarians assume theirs wont lead to "tyranny".
To clarify I don't have a problem with vaping heterosexual white men with Asian wives. It's just a critique of what looks to me to be a blindspot. Similar to how early internet Atheism, looked at as a group of people, started expressing itself as an entity. Sure, they weren't advertised as a group of slightly autistic white teenage boys. But a lot of the expression of the group was dictated heavily by the fact that a lot of them were. Same for Libertarianism. It's mostly just white dudes.
As for Hoppe, his objection did not pertain to murderers and the like. It pertained to people who disrupted social normalcy as seen by those who connect together in a social covenant. If the covenant doesn't like homosexuals, drug users and jews, those could all be physically removed by the covenant and it would be completely Libertarian to do so.
Some of us are true believers. I want you to do whatever you want. Just don't violate me or mine.
I think the meat of the disagreement lies somewhere in the paragraph you wrote here, so let me try teasing something out.
If I set up a Discord server where I sell estrogen to consenting persons whose age I can't exactly verify, and I accept monetary and sexual favors as payment, and enforce a social hierarchy within the Discord server that functionally facilitates predation on people curios about this sort of thing, and I owe my entire existence to people under 15 consuming pornography at a great rate, that's just fine? Like, if your son comes in my discord server, pays me with sexual favors and starts consuming estrogen I sell him, rendering him sterile and depressed, but he also has permanent rectal damage after falling to peer pressure and posting videos of himself inserting large plastic items into his anus, then someone leaks the videos your son put up on the discord server, which was technically public, and your son later kills himself... Did I violate your son?
Because I didn't ask him to join the server. He got that idea from reading comments on a porn site.
As a parent, what was your course of action regarding your son? Given you don't control the internet, and you believe you should not exercise control over the internet to stifle what others can and can't see. Completely ban the internet in your house? That limits your freedom quite a bit. Try to block 'pr0n' and hope there aren't actors who want to guide your son towards watching it past the block?
My point would be that my discord server inherently infringes on your right to exist in a nice and healthy way. You should not have to live like the Amish just to avoid sexual deviants and freaks.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It's just a way to twist the knife of liberty a bit. From a Libertarian perspective you could not even begin to ask me this question. I don't owe anyone an explanation of what I mean by it. I just say it.
This would be an extremely salient critique if I wasn't in a thread with Libertarian minded people talking about limiting the liberty of others because they happen to not like and not believe in the thing others are doing with their own liberty.
The LP is not a stick I am hitting Libertarians with because it's a silly group filled with people on the spectrum. I mentioned it precisely because those people, the most looney left-Libertarians, are the only ones standing by the principles. The King of Gondor is dancing naked on stage to protest government corruption, foaming at the mouth at the mere insinuation that people need take a test to drive a car. And he is a legitimate noble king. Far more so now than ever before as the 'respectable' and 'sensible' or 'adult' Libertarians walk back on their oath to liberty above all to protest trannies and drag queens.
I would say Libertarianism is futile because eventually Libertarians realize they don't want to live in a society filled with things they don't like. They actually want nice things. A nice society, like described by Hoppe. Some might even recognize, on some level, though it is a stretch, that just because they like smoking weed doesn't mean it's good for a free market economy to actively promote it to children like it's soda. In fact soda might be just as bad or even worse, I mean, look at the obesity rates...
Libertarians, like others, see expressions and assertions of morals that are too alien to them as inherently hostile. And as they grow in a world where the consequences of freedom start encroaching on other sensibilities they hold alongside liberty, they start moving away from liberty towards something else. Sure, it takes them more time than others, as they value liberty more than others. But it's just a matter of degree. And when the existence and free expression of moral aliens manages to sufficiently push society to a place so foreign and abnormal to Libertarian sensibilities that they balk at the notion that these people be free then there is no difference between a Libertarian and a person who wanted to nip this in the bud long before it got this out of hand.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Libertarianism for adults. I.e. Your rights end where my feelings begin, but for vaping heterosexual white men with Asian wives.
In a moment of clarity, I would hope everyone who is libertarian minded can recognize that the guy stripping naked at the LNC or the guys ferociously arguing against drivers licenses are much better freedom fighters than you are insofar as you oppose 'protecting trans kids' and helping children learn about gender and sexuality beyond a stilted binary.
The most salient argument against libertarianism remains libertarians being faced with what people who are not vaping heterosexual white men with Asian wives do with their freedom.
But this is a song and dance that has been done before. Hans Herman Hoppe laid down the law on this stuff years ago. Insofar as libertarians want to live in nice societies (they do) the only functional tool against the kind of people who destroy nice societies is physical punishment. You quickly stop being a libertarian in a universalist sense and turn into a Civic Nationalist.
My question for libertarian or libertarian leaning people would be, why bother with this song and dance? Why ground your arguments in some abstract first principles relating to freedom and whatever else when you truly do not want freedom for everyone to do what they please? Why not just say the things you want society to be and stand on those grounds?
I mean, just imagine the genuinely impressive amount of energy and work libertarians managed to pool together in the past decades being spent on pushing an image of a society libertarians actually want to live in. Instead they work to lay the groundwork for the individual freedom enjoyed by convicted sex offenders dressing in drag and reading to 5 year olds.
This post reminds me a bit of Sartre and his defense of jews and some of the issues inherent to the identity of jews.
Sartre had all his life been ugly and short. He was keenly aware of this and it became a part of his identity and philosophy. He saw in himself a marginalized person because of this. And he saw in that marginalization a commonality with other marginalized people. A sort of proto-bioleninism. The most prominent of these were jews.
Sartre wrote an entire book on anti-semitism and jews. Only to later state that he did in fact not know a single thing about jews and judaism, but was instead just describing and defending himself. But the defense stuck. The book has been tirelessly praised by jewish scholars as capturing the essence of being jewish, and is often quoted by leftists as refutation of anti-semitism. Full of the typical scathing psychoanalytic remarks on the psychological and philosophical deficiencies that would drive one towards a dislike of jews.
How could a man who knew nothing about jews defend them so accurately and valiantly? In what turned out to just be a sort of reverse Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, there were one too many things that added up. Despite being fiction it hit a little too close to home.
A part of jewish identity is being marginalized. A part of jewish identity is being on the outside. And in the sense that Sartre elucidated, jewish identity is being weak, neurodivergent, depressed and ugly. As horrid as it might sound. You can say that these are not true and point to beautiful well adjusted jewish people and I would agree. But to that end I would argue that these people, in Sartre's definition of jews, are less jewish than the ugly ones.
BAP seems to want to step outside this bear trap of jewish identity. He wants to be beautiful, strong, happy and healthy. A celebration of idealistic normalcy where there is no revenge of the nerds because there are no nerds. In that sense it's not just a rejection of Sartre's jewish identity but the typical American secular jewish identity.
To that end I think he, along with any aspirational dreams regarding the state of Israel, run into the problem of just becoming Nazis. Not in some abstract sense but a literal one. All of this stuff has been written out before. Be eugenic, be happy, healthy and strong, be a people to be proud of. Strive for something greater. And in an inverse of Sartre, they need to turn away from jewishness for the same reason Sartre was drawn towards it.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I always saw him owing his existence to a white right wing masculinity crisis in the US. Similar to a political Dan Bilzerian or other types of Instagram celebs. Where the typical figures of the right wing sphere are more dweebs and nerds than manly leaders. But they all recognize that being swole would be a much better look. So they adopted him as a sort of proof of concept.
But outside of that the guy seems to exist only in blogs, on twitter and allegedly in the heads of aspiring young Republicans. Similar to a Curtis Yarvin if he took steroids and tried to find meaning in flexing. But on that end I've never read a word the man has said.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You are just arguing against your own point. If whites aren't getting anything even if they complain about it, why would they get anything if they don't? A whipped dog that doesn't whine is no less whipped than a whipped dog that does.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You have suffered yet don't even have the gumption to demand recompense. You are already grounding yourself in slave moralistic 'I just want to be treated normal!' which is even weaker and more slavish than what you maintain I am proposing.
If you don't act like you are owed something no one will think of paying you.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
They got the snot kicked out of them. If you want to project strength when you are weak for the sake of your pride you need to be ready to sacrifice yourself for it. But that's not what modern Southern men are willing to do. As they exemplify every day of their lives where they waste away eating corn syrup and drinking liquid estrogen whilst reveling in a culture that worships black people.
Treating victimary discourse as if it's beneath you is missing the point of it. It's not for you to feel sorry for yourself. It's for the next generation to have something to ground themselves in. If you feel you have suffered you feel free to believe you are owed something. Which is an attitude that could have served Southern men very well. Rather than the endless mentality of individually bootstrapping yourself through life like you owed it something.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Seems like splitting hairs and drawing arbitrary distinctions to me. People like Bari Weiss and Shapiro aren't going off of just views on policy. They are looking at who is a threat to their ingroup and who is subservient to it.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Being in favor of Israel is what drove them to remove those who were not in favor of Israel. I don't understand what your concept of the 'problem' is.
Also, I don't agree with the idea that human nature is infinitely malleable
Neither do I. But the fact you can very effectively modulate peoples ingroup and outgroup distinctions through propaganda, as well as normalize a wide range of living conditions, is a demonstrable fact. Take any self described 'conservative' as an example. 20 years ago, 40 years ago, 60 years ago, 80 years ago. Modern day conservatives worship black people, whilst a 100 years ago most of them would not have considered them as people.
Inducing self hatred in whites is a small step on the road that's already been walked.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
And my point would be that abstracting yourself away from the problem like that is a first step towards never solving it. Or, should I say, the first symptom of a person who doesn't have the gumption or the psychological fortitude necessary to solve it.
No matter how you slice it, Mauricio needs to go regardless of how nice of a guy he is and no matter how much he is a victim of circumstance. But when people can't bring themselves to even label Mauricio as a part of the problem then they will never actually solve it. Because the ultimate solution is to remove Mauricio from the country and make sure he can't come back.
Focusing on the policymakers is a psychological copout. It might be true to some extent that policy is a big part of creating the problem and an important part in ending it, but I don't think that's what's driving people towards it. I think that for most, 'disliking' Mauricio is a step too far for them.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
So big, in fact, that it would enrage Trump voters who are, as far as I can tell, still a sizeable portion of the Republican voting block. Like, what's the gameplan here? Get your voters to hate your party?
The narrative of the Republican party having 'never Trumpers' in it was a great thing for the party itself, since it kept Trump supporters from hating the party directly. But this? I'm not seeing it.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Never Trump 2: Electric Boogaloo
I'd think the game plays out in a similar way as it did last time. Republicans denounce and disavow. Trump calls their wives ugly. Republicans then, a week later, pledge support for Donald Trump when they realize which way the wind is blowing.
I'd think the only hope for the establishment and DeSantis is the fact that Trump is old and he's spent a lot of his powder. In that sense Biden may manage to serve as a tactical landmine. You can't make fun of a geriatric dude for 4 years to then support another one without some part of your brain noticing. But ehh, maybe.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Zionist is exactly the word I was looking. How else would you describe people so desperately in favor of Israel?
Anyway, giving white people no options other than self-loathing and extremism is going to lead to extremists.
People have always been given the option of believing and doing exactly what they are told. And they wont do shit no matter how bad things get. Because they are told this is normal and they believe it, just like their idiot parents did back when a new normal was being established for their generation.
To that end the pool of 'extremists' has stayed the same.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I fail to see how. These same tactics won them their spot as the mainstream to begin with when they ousted everyone not sufficiently zionist out of mainstream publications like the National Review.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I'm not fond of language like 'hatred' but by the same token I don't live near poor black people. But even then, groups like Volksfront, a former neo-nazi street gang from the US, that was born out of the ethnic strife between poor whites and poor blacks, did not describe themselves as hateful. But by the same token they probably did do 'hateful things' against black people that they perceived as having wronged them.
What I'm trying to get at is this: I can easily recognize visceral hatred in most self described anti-racist people when the topic of rent comes up where I'm from. But why is rent so high? The market is extremely crowded. Why is it crowded? Well... We imported a bunch of foreigners.
You 'hate' high rent, but you don't hate the people who caused it. That's kind of a dilemma of ones own making. If you forbid yourself from 'hating' the cause of your ills then you will simply have to suffer. That sort of self inflicted suffering might be noble and make you a good person according to some anti-racist humanist 'ingroup everyone' ethos. But it is on some level self destructive and stupid. And I think that finger wagging at the people who notice that is a very easy, but very short sighted thing to do.
I'm not saying 'hating' is a good thing. I can certainly see excessive ingroup and outgroup bias make people act stupid. But I'm starting to lean towards the idea that it might be a necessary precursor for self preservation. I mean, my entire life I have seen nothing but openness and kindness towards the foreigner, and at the same time what I would call genuine living standards have gone down because of it.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
No. You are still misunderstanding what's going on.
Like I stated in my first post, The Huffington Post and the like had already functionally 'cancelled' Hanania before they ever published anything about him. They did not publish anything from him, they did not report anything positive about him, they would not associate with him or his associates. At best they would slander him. So who can still effectively cancel Hanania after this 'dox' thing drops?
If he is not getting banned from twitter then Elon is not cancelling him. He was already considered a hostile element by the likes of The Huffington Post. So they can't cancel him more than what they had already done. So who can cancel Hanania? People who would or could potentially have worked with him!
Bari Weiss is tagged in the twitter thread because she can effectively gatekeep Hanania from the only gate he could potentially walk through to get more mainstream. That gate being the likes of The Daily Wire, Joe Rogan and any other smaller connected mainstream center/right wing media. If that gate is locked, Hanania can go nowhere and can't easily grow beyond the dissident right containment zone. That's the point of this 'dox' thing.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I think you are misunderstanding the dynamics at play. The Huffington Post is not cancelling Hanania, mainstream right wingers are. Ben Shapiro and Bari Weiss have certain things they care about a lot more than the inane shibboleths of 'left vs right'. In fact these kinds of gatekeepers for mainstream right politics make no effort to hide their distaste for any outsider who potentially recognizes and therefor threatens their perceived ingroup.
And who can blame them?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The big enemy is a North Korean piñata. If you hit it enough times with a stick a bunch of justifications for the war on terror fall out.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It sure did?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
It all depends on the framing. Like I said, you can derive some problematic conclusions from recognizing general intelligence, but what if you just don't ever recognize those? To quote Eric Turkheimer:
Why don’t we accept racial stereotypes as reasonable hypotheses, okay to consider until they have been scientifically proven false? They are offensive precisely because they violate our intuition about the balance between innateness and self-determination of the moral and cultural qualities of human beings. No reasonable person would be offended by the observation that African people have curlier hair than the Chinese, notwithstanding the possibility of some future environment in which it is no longer true. But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly, and the contention that they are smarter than Africans as ugly, because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair.
A universal truth like 'we are all getting dumber' is not ugly. Though it's not far from it depending on how you look at it.
On the other hand I don't disagree that lib/left/progressives tie themselves to a whole host of nonsense and woo to get closer to universal truths they find beautiful. Like, as you point out, Howard Gardner and his theory of multiple intelligences. And that they flatly deny IQ research and otherwise slander IQ researchers as being dogmatic racists. But you won't find these same people balking away from the idea of complimenting someone on how smart they are.
Telling someone they are smart is beautiful, telling someone they are dumb is ugly. Just live in the emotional moment and float from one to another and don't think about any uncomfortable conclusions you could possibly derive from anything. Cognitive dissonance is hard, after all.
Libertarianism is not averse to massive power disparities and the problems inherent to those don't vanish just because you allege yourself to be ideologically principled. Having an 'answer' like we are playing a political game of top trumps is just an exercise in self delusion. How do I know you are not going to pull a Stalin?
To make it simple, if your promise to your outgroup is that you wont harm or disadvantage them then you are a liar. And if you believe anyone to be above the track record of human nature, be that a faith in yourself or your ingroup, you are not a serious person.
More options
Context Copy link