hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
If any of those labels existed in a meaningful sense then yeah. It would certainly be a different world if the average white American had the ingroup bias to back up their more specific heritage.
And isn't Beate Sirota's Austrian heritage also relevant?
Why would it be? The 'heritage' of Europe has consistently failed to rub itself into the jewish diaspora that set up shop there. If that theory made a lick of sense I would have expected Beate to be able to fortify the Japanese culture she was raised in instead of facilitating its destruction. In fact she, and those that came before her, would long have stopped being jews and instead just become Austrian.
It's almost as if you're looking at a large number of people from various backgrounds involved in the effort, and for some reason deciding that only one of those is significant. What do you not apply the logic "A Jewish woman did this" = "Jews did this" to any other group?
I very specifically stated that it was a Judeo-American operation. I certainly don't consider it insignificant that the Americans dropped nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities or that they firebombed civilian areas in Tokyo. I also don't engage in tactical nihilism about who actually did it. I don't pretend that the distinction of who made the decisions or who released the bombs or who flew the planes is meaningful. Ultimately the decision, good or bad, was made and carried out by 'the Americans'. They own that blame. I very specifically pointed this out in my previous post. I am the one being consistent here with applying individual blame to groups. It's not the fault of 'the Americans' that they abandoned their more specific European cultural heritage in favor of an American identity, unlike these jews who very strongly hold unto theirs regardless of where they are raised in the world.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The general wisdom that comes from 'heterodox' parents I've heard from is that what kind of friends your kid will have will be the biggest influencing factor. There's no one ruleset for all kids, but if there was one it would be rule number one. That being said, it's much easier said than done to control what kind of friends your kid will have.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Because you are socialized to deconstruct the label 'jewish' but not the label 'American'. The 'logic' only gets applied to one but not the other. 'Americans' nuked Japan. 'Jews' wrote the womens rights part of the new Japanese constitution.
It's 'Jew involved, therefor it's not just an American imposed cultural revolution'. I'm not pointing to just any jewish person. I'm pointing to the jewish feminist who wrote the part of the new Japanese constitution that pertained to 'womens rights'. Which was a very radical change from the prior cultural norms of Japan.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I feel like I've already answered your contentions in my previous comment. You've not provided a distinction mechanism between what constitutes 'organic' change and what's not.
I guess, in total, I just fundamentally disagree with you on where culture comes from in the first place. Culture doesn't fall from the sky. It flows forth from people and the conditions they create for themselves. I can agree that US 'nationalism' is dead in the water. But I'd argue that being a product of its people.
It's not hard to teach a Han-Chinese to love his country when it is undeniably his country with thousands of years of history where he is surrounded by people who look, talk and think like him. It's a little different when you were brought to 'your country' as a slave. It's a little different when the countries media is dominated by people who don't look like, talk like or think like you.
I think the history of the US has taught us that you can't railroad over these differences. And that the same ingroup pathologies you would seek to harness for your greater American cultural project will work against it when people see themselves as having more in common with those who look, talk and think like themselves. I mean, regardless of all else, why should anyone pledge their hard work and duty to the US and not, say, Israel, Mexico, China or Africa?
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I said it was a Judeo-American imposed cultural revolution. And it wasn't just some random part. She was specifically involved with the part that, I contended, upended the established cultural relations between the sexes in Japan. Which pertained to 'women's rights'. A portion she was specifically deputized to write.
You don't need to import any socialized 'logic' into this. She, the jewish feminist, wrote the part of the Japanese constitution that pertains to 'women's rights'.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I didn't feel like I needed a lot of supporting evidence since we were talking about what the perspective of a person from the 1860's would be when coming in and taking a look at the current state of affairs. I figured that such a person would not come to very politically correct conclusions about the world after interacting with a few basic facts about it in any case.
Looking at the US supreme court, it's majority 6/9 Catholic. Looking at Bidens and his cabinet, it's jewish and Catholic with Biden himself being a Catholic. I find this sufficient to say that a person from 1860 would conclude that jews and catholics are running the show. But maybe that's my bias shining through.
The '100k is past 50 years': https://datahazard.substack.com/p/interracial-murder
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The Japanese lost WW2, got nuked, and then had their constitution rewritten by a bunch of Americans.
The primary portion of the document that upended established cultural relations between the sexes in Japan was written, in part, by a jewish woman.
Far be it for me to subscribe to a theory of a single cause but the post-war era seem to have taken a drastic toll on the Japanese birthrate. Considering the revolutionary nature of the imposed constitution I'm more inclined than not to say that it has weighed the Japanese people down heavily. They had their own culture that was producing children and it was destroyed. That's not to say the old ways would have been impervious to technological change. But I think they were far more anti-fragile than the thing that replaced it.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Japan of the 1950's was in the throes of a Judeo-American imposed cultural revolution. I'm sure the time traveler would be shocked but not surprised that foreign occupation had left his country without its sword. I think that highlights a blind spot to the 'cultural' ideology as a whole. At any point in time can you pinpoint whatever thing is happening and say: 'see, there it is, there's our culture' with no regard for what it was before or how it got to the point it is now. I agree that a culture changes with its people and technology. But that fact does not excuse every cultural change as being a fate bound product that inertly fell from the sky.
As for your overall point I'm at a loss. We seem to have gone away from a cultural definition of work ethic and duty and instead moved towards a cultural definition of what I would call trinkets and hobbies. I don't believe you are saying that if more immigrants listened to Hank Williams that they would be more inclined to work. So I don't understand where we are going with this.
As for country music and similar 'cultural' trinkets. For me, if it's not Southern, it's not really country. I don't mean that in a sense that it has to come from a certain area. But the fact that it has to exist as something opposite whatever it is the 'North' is doing. It has to actually be 'politically' Southern. Otherwise, what even is it? Blake Shelton pseudo rapping with his coolest black friends about tractors? I find it pathetic. Why does he mention in one of his songs that 'his boys' don't listen to the Beatles but rather Coe. Shelton is a living breathing embodiment of a Yankee pop star at this point. Country music didn't grab the South just because they liked the tunes. It grabbed the South because it was Southern. It was as much a product of musical talent as it was a product of a culture war that self described conservatives have long abandoned and disavowed in favor of fortune and fame from the 'North'.
I don't think a time traveler would pretend that the US is even a country after you showed him the state of things. I mean, in the past 50 years the US has seen over 100 thousand white people murdered by black criminals. Race mixing at an all time high. Jews and catholics running the show, the Church supporting gay marriage, a former black president. And to top it all off, conservatives are more likely to support these things than not, aside from gay marriage. Conservatives certainly aren't museum pieces, but I'd have expected their will, want and tradition to lead somewhere other than where they are today. Least of all that there are conservatives that unironically proclaim that the problems with Mexicans and blacks are 'cultural' and not rooted in the fact that they don't belong in the country at all.
Immigrants never assimilated in the first place. The original founding father WASP cultural norms were, through academia, media and finally voting, drowned out by a random collection of immigrants from Europe. Though the WASP's only have themselves to blame for opening the gates in the first place. 'Assimilation' is a self flattering fairy tale Americans, mostly white and conservative, have been telling themselves for a long time now but it's nothing more than that.
The fundamental illustration of this comes from those who self describe as the most culturally American, who also happen to be mostly white and conservative, are also the ones who have nigh unanimously failed to maintain any semblance of American culture from the previous generation outside of gun ownership. Every other value that could or should have been maintained has over time been crushed to appeal to those who have power and money. Leaving the expressed cultural tradition of America revolving around guns, submission and greed.
What white conservative Americans mean when they talk of 'assimilation' is whether or not the immigrant is willing to work under whatever conditions the white conservative American deems acceptable. With no regard for the fact that many immigrants are not as submissive and greedy as they are. Which doesn't help explain why conservatives are seemingly perpetually thunderstruck by the willingness of immigrants to support the political party that promises them more money and status. Leading one to conclude that the final lacking component that makes up the mythical cultural American is delusional arrogance.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
They stopped buying it, not playing it. That happened with the release of new games, primarily Battlefield 2.
But that's all very much besides the point, which pertained to why, if you had the ability to funnel attention to something, it should be done. Sure, your hobby feels important to you. But that's what everyone feels towards their hobby.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I didn't say that was the case.
If you started marketing Battlefield 1942 I'm sure plenty of people would start playing it again. That doesn't answer the question of why that should be done or be considered important. Why should a bunch of women care about publishing books for 'blokes'? These women seem perfectly happy reveling in the current situation.
I think the underlying problem with taking ideas and playing with them like this is that you are not focusing on the purpose behind the idea or the reality it inhabits.
To give an example from an area that can and has been greatly damaged by people losing sight of the ball, so to speak: if we are using currency printed by the Federal Reserve, why don't we just print more of it? It's free money, right? Well, everyone can see that this is not a good idea since it would lead to 'bad outcome'. You can play with the idea of money all you want, but to anyone keeping an eye on the ball the games you are playing are obviously pointless.
The goal of trans or gender anything isn't to create a novel and sophisticated categorization mechanism that functionally encompasses the human condition. For transpeople the goal is to be able to be whatever they want to be. Trans rights are a physical thing. If they want to go into the womens bathroom then that's what 'gender ideology' will have to facilitate. If they want to be a woman by setting up a webcam and masturbate their dicks into their own mouths then so be it.
If you want to take 'gender ideology' and play with it where it will lead to 'bad outcome' then you don't understand 'gender ideology' just like a person who thinks printing infinite money is a fun idea doesn't understand 'economics'. Worse than that, you are not even engaging with the true absurdity of it.
We can have a lot of people with a lot of bird ideas about what gender is or what trans is or whatever else, just like we can have a lot of people with a lot of bird ideas about what the economy is or how much money we should be printing. But it doesn't matter. What matters is what those with power want or what the ruling ideology says. And whilst you could argue that there is no obvious 'Federal Reserve' type body behind 'gender ideology', there is an obvious goal behind it. Just like there is a goal behind the Federal Reserve or whatever else. In short: more trans rights = good. Less trans rights = bad. Making fun or light of the means by which we get more trans rights can therefor only be at best childishly silly and at worst cynically transphobic.
The only way to escape this is by going full heterodox. Becoming a libertarian/nazi that believes central banking is a scheme cooked up by the Rothschilds/jews to enslave the taxpayer/goyim or by becoming a transphobic dissident right winger/nazi. For everything else you're just a bird in a cage.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
You just made a big statement about how modding is a male phenomena
No I didn't.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Then you can care all you want. Just like there are a few guys who still care enough to update an 19 year old mod for a 21 year old game that is played by less than a few hundred people.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That it has any relevance to what I wrote.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
???
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
Why should any man care? If the hobby can't 'maintain' men, for whatever reason, then you won't get men. It's of no greater consequence to the average 'bloke' that there aren't any men on some literary prize list than it is of consequence to them that 'Crochet Weekly' didn't feature many men yet again.
I mean, isn't it equally sad that the modding scene for Battlefield 1942 is dead? So much amazing work, some many hours of entertainment. Amazing feats of skill, long lasting friendships, memories of people who worked and played tirelessly for nothing other than love for their craft.
Men tend to just do great things wherever they are. Any creative exercise done by men has the potential to appeal to other men which snowballs itself further and further until the entire thing meets its end and the next thing takes its place. This is a process that has, for all my life, perpetuated itself without any need or input from women or some arbiter of what is good and what is bad. In fact I've only ever seen it hampered by the presence of women or these sorts of arbiters.
To paraphrase a young African American scholar: 'All a nigga knows is all a nigga loves'. There seems to be this unexamined notion that womens hobbies matter. Or that they should matter. Or that what happens around them matters. Which seems fueled entirely by womens sense of self importance. When the reality is that none of it matters any more than some random dead modding scene or that one flash animation on Newgrounds that no one will ever watch again.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
In 10 years? Maybe I'm just a fuddy duddy but that seems optimistic to the point of delusion.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
The point is there's no reason to start at all. You don't need to debate them when you can just silence them and tell lies about them.
Right, he gets flak for not debating them. But I was ignoring that because I figured we were restricting ourselves to his debates.
Well, kind of, he gets flak for platforming them and not making them look like they are evil. It's not about 'debate' in that sense. It's just about who the enemy is.
Also, I'm not sure where the flak is for appearing with Richard Spencer. Any examples?
I misremembered, it was the host that got flak.
I don't recall all the details, but my understanding is he got departnered from Twitch over saying that the rioting had to stop in an incendiary manner. Hardly for simply defending Rittenhouse at all.
Destiny had been building on the more lefty viewer pool from debating the nazis. Routinely talking about all the 'tankies' and 'socialists' he had in his chat. He was still a 'liberal' but there was a very clear crossover of viewers. That came crashing down when he did a debate with Vaush on the Rittenhouse stuff. After the pushback he got from that, a lot which coming from 'personalities' he went on a much more direct anti-left thing as a response.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
I don't understand what technology you are going to be relying on for childrearing. From the way I understand the dangers of technology, they primarily come from very effectively distracting people from propagating themselves. I don't see why anyone would care otherwise.
You're implicitly speaking about Western "native" populations
I am talking about modern native populations. In that sense it might be unclear. I'm not talking modern as in 'exists today', but modern as in, 'has abundance food, electricity, clean running water and functional toilets and the ability to maintain those things'. That mostly encompasses East-Asia and the western world.
(as if the US even has a native population, they're almost all immigrants!)
There is no United States of America without the white people that built it. In that sense most white Americans are native to the US. Other than that I find the 'native' song and dance very tiresome and low brow. I don't think how long someone has occupied an area has much relation to the value of their existence. I'm much more interested in what they actually did whilst they were there. In that sense the short existence of America, measured in centuries, eclipses large swaths the brown world and all the millennia they had to make something out of themselves. But sure, those browns are 'native' to the travesty they call home whilst the Americans are merely 'immigrants' to the place most brown people wish they could live in.
Not that I particularly care about the West becoming a slightly more brown shade of brown, I'm only concerned with economic or social collapse, and those are not on the cards.
We are too reliant on the word 'slightly' here, for my taste. From what I can understand, the demographic change in the US is much more than slight, with a white minority already being a thing for 15 year olds. I'd call it a safe prediction to say that the current paradigm won't last for long. If you only care for the next 10 years then I can see why you wouldn't care. But for a longer term outlook, again, I'd predict rather drastic changes. The most notable one being a lack of a credible 'world police'.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
People in that sphere primarily catch flak when the debate goes poorly for their side. You can't afford a string of bad debates, so as soon as one goes bad other lefties put the pressure on by asking why the person was platforming nazis in the first place if they couldn't perform.
Destiny gets slightly different kind of flak, for example by inviting Nick Fuentes on and being cordial with Lauren Southern or his most recent appearance with Richard Spencer on 'NoJumper' or whatever. To name a few examples.
I think the big breadtube channels make it seem like there is no specific reliance on networking but you can't really exist without being in the green, so to speak. Outside of channels like Contrapoints and others, that are practically too big too fail, there are plenty of channels that are one scandal away from ostracization. If they don't have friends behind the scenes they are just as likely to be drama fodder for the other channels, since they all partially share the same pool of viewers. Unlike someone like Destiny who kind of has his own dedicated base of hardcore supporters. But even then Destiny felt the squeeze during the whole Rittenhouse thing.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
This only holds up to a point. Destiny can get away with saying things in the moment that would torpedo someone else. In part due to having an audience that seems a lot more antifragile and less 'normie' than most. On top of that Destiny has been very careful in selecting who gets to talk to him. And depending on who he is talking to he will drop all pretense of believing anything at all.
His 'debate' with Sean Last was illustrative of that and his inability to argue against 'race'. Prior to that he 'debated' with Mike Enoch where Destiny all but ceded the ground to American white nationalists that pro-white advocacy was valid and needed. Not being able to pinpoint exactly what the problem with something like the American white nationalist project that Mike Enoch was associated with.
Destiny can do that. If things go bad he just rolls with the punches. His audience will stick by him and nothing really happens. It's not like the far right has any platform to advertise their victories on anyways. But if you are a lefty that exists in and relies on a network of media personalities that feed on drama and purity spirals, you can't afford any of that. You really don't have the wiggle room. Not debating the nazis and just doing the mainstream thing of calling them evil and stupid seems a lot more optimal play.
hanikrummihundursvin
3yr ago
That's assuming population decline in a vacuum. The 'transitory' nature of selecting for high fertility in, for example, the US would leave it with, proportionally, a lot of Amish and traditionalist types. The transitory nature of selecting for high fertility alongside mass immigration, however, means those who inherit the earth are not the fertile native but rather the excess population of whatever foreign country.
In real world terms that means that the country that is backwards for the longest and in turn manages to maintain its high pre-modernity birthrates the longest will be the one that wins out. There's no reason to hold to any optimism for any modern native population. Profit motivated immigration + low native birthrates + high foreign birthrates = ethnic replacement.
I think the primary part is that transexuals with 'gay face' can, to straight men, look very 'gross' in makeup. Since the makeup tends to exaggerate the 'gay face'.
On top of that, seeing full body pictures of him, he has extremely 'mannish' features. Very narrow pelvis, very broad shoulders and big head for his frame. There is nothing feminine about the guy. He just looks gay. His mannerisms are also just... gay.
I think the most plausible explanation for his behavior, as has been pointed a few times already, is that he, on some level, saw 'trans' as a business opportunity. And no one can say he is wrong.
That being said, I don't think that alone would explain why so many people take great issue with him and not someone like Hunter Schafer. I think that is much better explained by the fact that he, as a woman, just looks 'gross' from almost every angle. No joke, there are former bodybuilders who 'transitioned' that look less 'gross' than Dylan as women.
Isn't this a little too low effort? What's the relevant part neither of you are quoting?
More options
Context Copy link