hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That's not the entire truth though. The backdrop to the peaceful protests was violent riots and full scale political terrorism, as is examined in detail in Days of Rage In full context, the civil rights movement is not just a bunch of innocent blacks getting beaten up by sadist white men. But that would only exist as a sideshow to the baseline that black people, in general, are not more virtuous than others, despite many people intrinsically believing so.
As for black men and crime, as long as the societal norm is to apply blame and dish out punishment based on historical crimes made by your ancestors, like is done to white people, on top of blaming them as a group for any activity a white person undertakes as an individual, which is done on top of actively marginalizing against white men based on the comparatively poor performance of blacks, as well as actively fostering an environment that excuses black crime and vilifies white crime, and all of those activities existing under an umbrella of anti-racism, I see no reason why we can't have an active anti-racist marginalization campaign enacted against black men.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
No, it's still not.
It is and the Wikipedia link in your linked comment says exactly the same thing I did.
While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of invading and occupying the Home Islands too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat.
Like I said in my comment, the only reason for nuking Japan was to induce unconditional surrender. And my overarching point was the US did not need Japan to surrender in the first place.
I find it hard to talk about since the propaganda is so heavy. It's gotten to the point where my inclination towards most posts that seem to indicate a preference for one side over another is that they are simply bots. Maybe I'm just going insane. Same thing happened when talking politics on reddit in 2015-16 on certain subs.
On the flipside I've seen both 'sides' be so consistently wrong I don't feel like tossing my unqualified predictions and biases into the fray. Aside from platitudes about 'war bad, peace good' I don't think there's anything to be said other than trying to piece together what has actually happened so far. A discussion that is, again, marred by both sides posting inflated and deflated casualty stats at one another.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I agree to an extent. Conflating demographic replacement with blacks was always an implicit lefty meme born out of their inability to distinguish ingroup/outgroup bias from narratives surrounding immigration and birthrates. The concern over blacks in the US is not demographic but 'cultural' for a lack of a better term.
When 6% of the population is committing 50-60% of all violent crime you should be allowed to ask why they are all black men and what can be done about them as black men before you start restructuring your potentially high trust white society to account for such a disruptive minority. In that sense blacks act as a disruption generator that fuels the aspects reactionaries hate the most about modern lib/left/progressive expression. Primarily the aspect that they are traitors who refuse to face the hard truths and instead let others carry the cost of the fantasies their unexamined privilege affords them.
To that end black emancipation was never achieved off the back of a popular majority. It was always the elites pushing the envelope and imposing their delusions on the lower classes. The old generation with their old propaganda gets cycled out and the new generation with new propaganda gets cycled in to continue where the old left off.
On the other hand, modern US society is in part based on worshipping black people. I mean, can anyone deny to ridiculous effort both sides of the mainstream enact in just to get a black person to mouth off their talking points? And the fact people genuinely feel that their side is more valid if they have a black person on their side.
I wish I could find the study that, in broad terms, showed how depicting blacks as fighting for a just cause made people more likely to assume blacks in general were more virtuous. It, at the very least, confirmed all of my biases regarding the effects I felt after being exposed to a nigh endless propaganda stream of blacks protesting during the civil rights era against the evil white supremacist empire. I mean, why were the evil white police hitting the innocent blacks who just wanted to be treated the same? My 12 year old brain could make no sense of it, and came to the obvious logical conclusion that one side was good and the other evil.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
In an alternate universe the US just settles on a peace deal with Japan rather than surrender. Instead of relying on a racist caricature of the Japanese being completely insane and willing to fight to the last man, woman and child if the white man ever sets foots on their sacred shores, I think it's more prudent to assume that the Japanese high command recognized that the war was over and was looking for ways to end it on equal terms. Which, according to the mainstream US story, was exactly what was happening and was indeed the purpose behind the alleged Japanese plan of 'Ketsu Go'.
The notion that the only way to end the war was with American boots in Tokyo is a mythical one. The US did not need to drop the bombs since it did not need the complete subjugation of Japan. On that note, the US had no grand strategic forethought that could reach past the nose of the allegedly jewish propaganda described above. Leaving them with the USSR in Europe and China in Asia.
As is the case with most of the foreign policy ventures of the past, we are living through the failures of 'great' historical figures who amounted to little other than drinking the cool-aid of their time. With history serving as a sugarcoat that we can use to help convince ourselves that we are the end product of 'great' men making the best out of a bad situation. Things just happen, the moral arch of history bent in such a way that we had to do what was done. So no matter how inhumane and horrible we acted, just know it was ultimately justified. God bless and Amen.
Did the Japanese who fought for the US change it in any way? Or did they get to watch their ethnic kinfolk firebombed and incinerated via incendiary and nuclear weapons? Is Japan, under the fading soft power occupation of the US, thriving or is the nation slowly withering away?
The high road was taken by former Group Captain Elizabeth Nicholl. She left in protest to what she was ordered to do. Her replacement receives an award for doing what she was unwilling. She didn't run to China, she didn't flee, she did the maximum amount she could to draw attention to the situation without incriminating herself as an insubordinate member of the RAF. But with the world being how it is, there is no incentive for anyone with power to step away from their racist ideology that ultimately demands white displacement.
As an exact contradiction to the situation MLK found himself in, there is very little fertile ground for white victimary discourse in mainstream politics. It doesn't matter if it's white men or boys getting snubbed from education and employment, or little girls getting raped by the thousands by newly imported browns. MLK wasn't special and he didn't talk to the people. He talked to media and he talked to elites who rode him as a prize horse for a victory lap over the dead south. White people in the UK have no such backing. When they do organize they get ridiculed and ostracized with the full force of the media or they get outright banned and imprisoned.
So I'd ask again, what does a British male pilot owe the state that discriminates against him? Becoming MLK? Overthrowing the government and media hegemon? Or do a Mike Buchanan and speak into an empty jar for over a decade? Surely someone will listen...
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That's not relevant to the point. I doubt you think that getting racially discriminated against is right. So from the perspective of a UK pilot who gets treated like some sort of subhuman by his government, is his allegiance to said racist government admirable?
If we are not venerating the loyalty of a subject to their country, what exactly are we doing? By what metric is loyalty to a country that doesn't value you and racially discriminates against you good? Do you just not like China?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
"Didn't accomplish X specific goal" != "waste a year at least on just that and the only practical real world impact is an enraged left".
This is a bad strawman, but a worse argument. Halting immigration is a goal in and of itself. With obvious 'practical' impact. The fact it would allegedly 'enrage the left' is irrelevant.
The net result is the public has seen this, and Republicans have become better for it. Post-Trump DeSantis >> pre-Trump DeSantis, for example.
The public has seen what? Republicans, outside of the most inane culture war rhetoric, are still the party of big business and Israel.
Trump never campaigned on being the white nationalist/antisemitic president you seem to wish he was. A reminder of his campaign:
I never said he did. He did, however, campaign on BUILDING A WALL and DEPORTING ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Maybe you missed it.
Why? China is the Nazis now? I don't get it.
If I'm wronged by someone I don't particularly care to modulate my response to what some Japanese megacucks did in the 1940's. Should I? To turn the ingroup/outgroup distinctions on their head a little: How far should jews have submitted themselves to the Third Reich? Does it reflect as a good or a bad on the character of the jewish people who allegedly sold their fellow jews out to nazis?
The point being made does not pertain to a rise to power but an aspirational ideology. I sincerely doubt many National Socialists today are drawn to the idea because of its chances of political success and popular appeal.
It's instead about recognizing how the world moves and figuring out a way to wrestle it down to a point where it serves you rather than enslaves you. As an example, you can recognize that the profit motives for capitalist elites exist. To that end you don't need elite conformity to a cause, you just need a few motivated men with a monopoly on violence to stop by their house and kindly ask them to work towards a national greater good rather than their profit motives.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The elites are not the object of the ethno-nationalists affection, the 'people' are.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I think most ethno-nationalists have a better understanding of the idea, that the past and current ruling powers are not their friends, than most others. Which is why so many of them see appeal in National Socialism. To that end you don't need ideological conformity and purity from the elites. Just a strongman to tardwrangle them into doing what's good for the people.
But I agree that ethno-nationalists generally go through a sort of metamorphosis where they realize that the object of their affection hates them vehemently and wants to kill itself in the name of diversity and the GDP. If a loved one explains, with a smile on their face, that they want to kill themselves, and that nothing would make them happier, do you constrain them with force and suffer their hate or hand them a rope?
British RAF describes applicants as "useless white male pilots" in leaked emails.
In a bid to increase its diversity, an organized and systematic discrimination of white men was implemented. Leaked emails from RAF staff include vehemently racist and sexist remarks, reports have revealed.
Under a subject line entitled: "BOARDING PROFILE", a squadron leader wrote:
"I noted that the boards have recently been predominantly white male heavy, if we don't have enough BAME and female to board then we need to make the decision to pause boarding and seek more BAME and female from the RF. I don't really need to see loads of useless white male pilots, lets get a focussed as possible, I am more than happy to reduce boarding if needed to have a balanced BAME/female/Male board."
The emails date back to 2020. But even before then there had been a focused anti-white anti-male effort to discriminate against white men in a bid to get women and browns into service. The full article linked above gives further account to the full extent of the conspiracy that kept multiple white men applicants out of service and further discriminated against those that managed to enter. In contrast with women and browns who were fast tracked through the process.
As is noted in the article, the conspiracy was temporarily halted as Group Captain Elizabeth Nicholl resigned from her post in protest to what she thought were unlawful hiring practices back in 2022. Voicing disagreement with Air Vice-Marshal Maria Byford, the RAF's head of recruitment. The row led the RAF to claim that no discrimination was taking place, as a Ministry of Defense inquiry was launched into the nature of Nicholl's resignation.
"The Royal Air Force will not shy away from the challenges we face building a Service that attracts and recruits talent from every part of the UK workforce. We will continue doing everything we can to increase our recruiting intake from under-represented groups within the provisions of the law."
And at the time the evidence for 'strict' discrimination was lacking. As then leaked emails only noted anti-white sentiment in propaganda creation:
'Gents, do any of you have a "pilot who is preferably not a white male" who would like to be the "RAF" face at a press event for the release of Top Gun 2? Shy guys get no cakes so shout quick as offer has also gone out to other units.'
Nicholl's replacement, Group Captain Dole, saw no issue with furthering the conspiracy of active anti-white discrimination and went on to be awarded an OBE in the 2022 New Years Honours List. As the RAF proudly met its target of 20% women, 10% browns. Thankfully a part of the racist and discriminatory process by which the goal was reached is now out in the open.
Contrasting this anti-white conspiracy with last years report that China was "luring" UK pilots to train its pilots, what exactly does a white person owe a state that actively discriminates against them?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
And nothing done about immigration, his biggest promise. I don't think it counts for all that much to make the establishment right show their 'true colors' just before you join them. Does anyone love Israel more than Trump? By the same token I don't think you can make much hay about his SC picks, given they are all basic establishment right shoe-ins. Trump had his chance with leveraging his wall funding with the government shutdowns. He caved and in return the US still has infinite illegal immigration.
If we go by rhetoric alone, he was the Che Guevera of US politics. By action? It was business as usual. Along with record low black unemployment numbers...
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
We keep returning to 'academia' as a current thing. Sure, current academia suffers from all the ills. My point is that an academic institution doesn't have to. To point at current academia and say that it had to become this way because it did is not very pertinent. Stricter oversight over what can be taught, rather than promises of more 'academic freedom' would be a step in the right direction, which is the opposite of the DeSantis rhetoric. Which at best deflates a small part of academia without removing its ability to inflate itself again.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Afghanistan has plenty of natural resources. They're just not being exploited properly. Although there are some ongoing Chinese mining operations.
Battlefield 2042: Middle East DLC
Iran and the Taliban had a little border scuffle recently. Leaving 2-4+ dead and some wounded.
The Taliban allegedly used material left over by the US, like the iconic Humvee. That is alleged(by me) to be occupied by a neo-conservative machine spirit.
It feels a rather hopeless situation. With both countries being alienated from the west by a large degree, it seems hard to figure out a typical 'resolution' to the conflict. Both sides need a scarce resource, water. It's a rather typical sci-fi scenario, and fiction would have one believe the only way forward is war.
But I reserve some hope for an alternative. At the same time as both countries are without western allies, it's not like the region is completely without value. And the pressure to go to a bloody and costly war might hopefully be averted by these nations forging alliances that they would otherwise not have considered. Though I'm not sure which way those would go. Having heard rumors of both China and Russia engaging in dealings with the Taliban post US occupation, they would be obvious candidates. But considering the alternative being potential war, one would hope the sky is the limit.
Then again, maybe this gets resolved without any issue. Time will tell.
You can have perfectly fine academic institutions that are not bloated with useless crap. My point is that these institutions in the west became bloated precisely because of the kind of attitude is being expressed by the DeSantis 'attack' on colleges and universities in Florida. The root cause is not academia in and of itself. It's instead whatever process that bloats it.
And Trump went after 'Sanctuary Cities' or whatever. Which ultimately amounted to very little since the root cause wasn't the cities, they were just a symptom. Very similar to the situation in academia. I mean, how did a 'Sanctuary City' come to be? Extremely lax immigration laws/enforcement? How did 'leftist' academia come to be? E.O. Wilson had a choice remark with regards to that:
We had a meeting to take the final vote on Lewontin at Harvard, and a group of the older professors said they were worried about reports of his behavior at Chicago—that he might be disruptive or might have gotten away from genetics, and so would not be the right sort of person to be at Harvard. I made the speech I will regret for the rest of my life: I said we should never accept or reject someone because of their political views. I felt so good about myself making that political speech!
Lewontin becoming one of the prime figures in the fraudulent Boasian anthropology cult that reigns supreme in every major institution in the western world to this day.
In essence, 'academic freedom' is worth about as much as a 'closed border' with an open gate. The decline is not irreversible, but reversing back to an earlier point of decline won't do much to prevent one from sliding down again.
A lot of the comparisons between Trump and DeSantis seem to rely on there being a consequential difference between them in power. I don't think that assumption is valid.
You can run a very explicit culture war campaign and 'actually do things' like DeSantis has done in Florida without doing anything of consequence in other areas. For instance, you can run a very traditional Zionist Heritage Foundation approved government that does nothing of value with regards to immigration and foreign policy and merely acts out on random anti-trans rhetoric. Can you imagine trans people not being allowed in womens sports and bathrooms? You can waste a year at least on just that and the only practical real world impact is an enraged left. Otherwise the decline can proceed as normal.
Trump did much less than that in 4 years and his supporters still adore him. Why do anything different? Pardon my cynicism but, is it for real now? Do we really believe? Are we fighting for real change this time?
On Trump:There was a very obvious tip-toeing going on with Trump and Christianity during the 2016 campaign. I wouldn't call the disposition of Christians to him a decline in their religiosity or a change of faith since that would place Christianity and religion in general on a pedestal it doesn't really occupy.
Being a 'good Christian' was always just as much about showing allegiance to the ingroup as it was about actually being a good Christian person. You can be accepted, as an outsider, to the ingroup as long as you demonstrate respect for and allegiance to it. Which is what Trump did. There's no hand of god involved with this. It's just ingroup/outgroup bias.
As for the boycott thing: it's an exciting change. From a broad perspective it seems like, to some extent, the American system has, though from a narrow populist standpoint at best, worked. As an example, white nationalism 2.0 was killed off in its infancy. Banned from all platforms. And to this day any resurgence or reinvention gets a very similar treatment. From an idyllic and naive standpoint, the 'system' was corrupt in that instance. But red tribe conservatism was to some extent left to live. Aside from the massive anti-Trump thing, and in part because of it, red tribe conservatives managed to fumble their way into organizing on Facebook. And from there, luck their way back on Twitter.
You don't need all that much meme power to appeal to a group of disgruntled folks who have been left politically marginalized for a long time. Remember the TEA Party? I mean, most of the chest pounding group affirming rhetoric had been relegated to a loser like Glenn Beck. Every other conservative avenue for proper group formation got strangled dead or acted as controlled opposition, at least in my lifetime. Caring more about 'respectability' than winning. But now there seems to be a soft resurgence of the red tribe conservative movement that is, to some extent, free of the mainstream media right.
Maybe I'm tying too much optimism to this. There have been multiple iterations of this old dog called 'conservatism' growling back at the leg that's kicking it. It's never amounted to much of anything. Assuming this will be different is naive. Especially since the whole 'gay' thing is a red herring for more unfixable issues like mass immigration, which has already 'doomed' the country. But having a common enemy is always a good baseline for organizing. Maybe the rainbow colored flag can act as a unifier for the red tribe as well. I certainly wouldn't mind the dog getting a good bite out of that sadistic leg before it finally gets put down.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I've already made my point, you misrepresenting it again isn't very interesting to me.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Just saying "it was chaotic" is hand-waving.
Thankfully that's not what I 'just' said. As my point pertained to the general inaccuracies of demographic data collection in general confounded by the tumultuous times, where people were moving in great numbers. And not just via boats to Palestine and the US, as your reply suggests. This was said by me to further the broader point that claims of confident certainty, to a degree that the holocaust narrative seems to require to fill its minimum baseline of jews, are unwarranted. Admitting to a certain level of uncertainty with regards to the data in general seems much more prudent. But, again, prudence is not something exterminationists can afford.
Can I just chalk this misrepresentation of yours up to you being a liar? I say this half jokingly.
I pointed out where you employed rhetoric and how. Maybe I should have pointed out how repeatedly accusing people of lying isn't productive to anything either so you could have dropped that as well. Otherwise I feel you are on a fast track towards the endpoint of all Holocaust arguments, especially for those who put a lot of time into the game, where both parties default to accusing one another of insanity.
I don't think all sources are created equal. Especially with regards to history. Which is why I said that there is not an obvious conclusion to be drawn. For starters I don't think the practice of looking at estimates like this is all that valid to begin with considering the error margins and the chaotic nature of events. All that is sufficient, from my point of view, is that the error margin for the discrepancy of 'missing' jews can exist as an alternative hypothesis to the question of 'where they went'. Which would also hinge on taking whatever estimates of the total number of jews to begin with as being valid. Keeping in mind that the question is open ended. To whatever extent jews went missing, there exists no baseline that necessitates they went into a camp and not somewhere else.
Any revisions downward seem to pose a rather obvious problem. Which prompts, in my view, a completely unwarranted confidence in any estimates that maintain a sufficient number of jews to fuel the holocaust narrative from the exterminationist side.
It is much easier to be born in a Jewish shtetl unnoticed than to get on a ship to Palestine or the US unnoticed.
Like I said, for every 'just so' story reason there is a 'just so' story for another. What was being pointed out is the aforementioned unwarranted confidence in any estimates that fuel the holocaust narrative. 80% is 'absurd' not because you have any knowledge of actual events, but because it breaks too far from the baseline you need to maintain.
My standard for history is that historical evidence can be extremely bad. Battles and assaults during the war could go overlooked or misreported for decades despite them involving entire frontlines and death tolls in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. The largest tank battle of the war only existed as an anomaly for most of recorded history. To stand up with any degree of confidence and say that they know for sure, down to the 100k is the hallmark of someone who should reconsider their disposition towards what they are doing.
It's in a way helpful for you to so completely make my prior point.
Maybe don't write up a peace treaty that is unfair and conducive to another war breaking out. To pretend the Treaty of Versailles was ever about peace is vulgar.
Considering you have no knowledge of what peace was possible without incinerating a bunch of civilians for spectacle I consider your appreciation of it a strike against your moral character.
More options
Context Copy link