hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
To be crude: Those folks will become fertile soil for MOAB 2.0. Like the people unlucky enough to have shared a slice of continent with Osama bin Laden.
The cost of indefinitely providing medical care to people who cannot care for themselves may seem steep, but it is trivial compared to the cost of not doing so.
My gut tells me this isn't true at all. Where is the direct negative for the western world to not giving free stuff to an infinitely growing third world?
It feels like you are hoisting the western world on its own petard. Leveraging the massive amount of sympathy and charity it has given, which has driven it to its knees, in order to justify it continuing the practice to not face the wrath of the people it has been saving for the past century.
hanikrummihundursvin
5mo ago
Why this person and these people in specific warrant recognition over all the others is where the pocket theories come into play.
Not to do a driveby on your post, which goes into a lot of topics in fine detail, but it feels like you are falling into a quagmire of interacting with the 'post-war consensus' too earnestly.
Simply put: It's an either or. Either you believe in the 'post-war consensus' 1 2 and you have a pocket theory for why Hitler is justifiably considered the master of evil, or you don't believe in the 'post-war consensus' and you recognize the satanization of Hitler as a function of human psychology interacting with propaganda that is necessary to justify the overarching moral narratives of the winners of WWII and the cold war. Nothing proves 'We are the goodest guys' quite like 'because we triumphed over the evilest evil'.
The most obvious way to tell the belief in HitlerSatan is downstream from propaganda is that nigh everyone, apart from the fringes, has their own pocket theory of why Hitler is satan and not any of the other guys from histories greatest hits. There's no strictly objective metric at play that people can latch on to. It's literally every single reason it can be, all at once. This works since we are not dealing with rational thought but post hoc verbalizations for the emotions that have already been instilled in people.
These emotions are not there because anyone directly told people to have them. They are there as a necessary logical consequence of our informational environments and how our minds deal with not just information but the implicit question of why we are seeing the information. We know Hitler is the most evil because we learned about him the most out of anyone. That's where the association is made. Why did we learn the most about him and his reign in school? Why are there so many movies made about those guys and how bad they were? Obviously because he is the most evil. Why else would we have been learning about him the most? It's a feedback loop in your brain.
At risk of getting too deep into 'generative anthropology', we can only hold one primary victimary narrative at a time(with some caveats). The victimary narrative of our age is focused on the iewish people, their suffering and why it was a result of HitlerSatan and his evil beliefs.
To make a long story short, the answer to the question of what makes Hitler into "literally Hitler" is not found by digging deeper. It's found by throwing away the shovel and leaving the hole of the post war consensus.
Driving away effort posters is bad. Especially when it's via 'grudge mobbing' where the effort posters are saddled with the baggage of previous effort posts and have to face criticism for those posts every time they make a new one. Getting mobbed from multiple directions on multiple topics. Tracing got some of that last time I saw him here and it was not fair.
But effort posters driving away criticism is also bad. If you want to interact with an online space where everyone adores you as the minor e-celeb you are then you might need a different venue than an open forum. Walking on eggshells because the residential online royalty decides his balls need fanning today is in one word pathetic. It's one of the hallmarks of a toxic forum.
Tracing got support here along with the negativity. His ultimate response was to threaten to pack up his toys and leave. What he wanted done by the mods or the users of this site is still not clear to me, though it is very clear this space is poorer for him not being here.
I would however want to ask him and those who lament the lack of him: Why are they here? Is it not the discussion generated, negative and positive, that is a big part of the reason why? Surely the fear of losing the effort posters has to be weighed against the ability of the fringes to comment on them. And that instead of leveraging their own importance as an effort posters to ward off criticism, they might need to take the high road every once in a while and trust that their effort is appreciated despite the grudge mob.
On that note I'm not sure where people like Tracing will go or what they seek there. Last time I saw him he was having his world philosophy rejected by trad caths on X. Where the implicit proclamations of his own importance ring a lot more hollow than they ever did here.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Because it's the best predictor. For example, how black an area is is a better predictor for crime than how poor it is. You can't look at things after the fact when you are trying to make predictions. Which is why a simple group based immigration policy like 'white men of good character' is better than 'lets throw shit on a wall and see what sticks'.
If you want the long and short of it look at economic outcomes for immigrants in Denmark. Turns out the only net positive tax paying immigrants are from other European countries and specific Asian countries. Everything else turns into a net negative. With that information you can craft a very good immigration policy if you care about net positive tax payers. But for some reason that's not good enough for any 'liberals'. As they stumble over the 'racism' aspect of it. Bending the knee to the modern 'woke institutions' they claim to be in opposition to.
And again, how has that worked out? Would you describe thier 60 years of tenure as a good thing?
Not for me, no. But it's been very good for them. They have had conservatives bent over the bed for 60 years and they show no sign of letting up. In fact, every decade a new crop of 'conservatives' pops up it's more progressive and liberal than the one before. And they all believe themselves to be the opposite! It would be comical if it weren't for all the ugliness, destruction and pain it causes.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
No, you care about race because you made a choice to care about race.
Race correlates with behavior. This is a fact. You can ignore it and make bad decisions or take it into account and make better ones.
And again, how has that been working out for them? and how has it been working out for those institutions?
They've been in charge for the last 60 years and have been solidifying an underclass to secure their existence into the future... Pretty good, I would say. Most of them have ballooned in size, with the people in charge becoming richer and more powerful. At the same time they have increased their influence. Not just in America but globally.
Mine is not the "cucked liberalism" of 30 years ago, mine is the cucked liberalism of 200 years ago.
Your anti-race position says otherwise. There is no reason for a classical liberal to hold any reservations about race as a relevant metric. Which is why actual classical liberals who had to make decisions took it into account.
Define black, define poor, define violent.
Is this a joke?
I understand that you will likely disagree but i would contend that a reduction in social status is a small price to pay for clean streets and relative peace.
I don't understand your point. For instance, Jacksonville has a very high violent crime rate. Not a surprise given its sizeable black population. Compared to San Francisco, with a relatively small black population, but a big Asian population, it has a comparatively and relatively low violent crime rate. I don't understand why you are comparing these cities as if I would like one over another. There are areas in both that are safe and not safe. The most predictive variable when looking at crime is how black the city is.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Considering the mental maturity of those doing the voting, he's the perfect guy.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
I think the implication of the phrase is: Abortionists made a big deal about this election being about abortion. Their slogan has long been "my body, my choice". They lost. Fuentes makes fun of them by saying "your body, my choice".
Assuming there's more to it, be that a conspiracy by the federal government to make more women vote democrat, or that Fuentes is actually trying to express his belief that he can rape all women, seems rather far fetched and silly compared to the alternative I just gave.
Let me ask you this: do you think Fuentes is saying the phrase as a neutral statement of fact, or is he saying it intentionally to rile people up? Maybe that answer goes toward explaining my point.
He is obviously saying it to mock and rile people up. Why would that go towards explaining your point?
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
No more than any government policy controls anyone's body
That's what I've already said.
In fact, the slogan is an extreme red herring on the abortion issue, as it's designed to obscure that another body is involved (the child being murdered).
If that's what you thought was nasty about it that's fine. I don't think that's what other people found nasty about it though. I mean, do you?
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Maybe I'm delusional regarding the cost of things but it feels like you could do so much more with all this money. Just hire Mr. Beast and give him 100 million. Hell, go to a swing state and spend 20 million on some small scale infrastructure project. Or just hire a different candidate.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
And what framing is that? That the republicans are going to control women's bodies? Isn't that what they are doing?
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
I think they "came to be" by rejecting both our nation's founding principles, and the "low-key barstool populism of men like Nixon and Reagan" in favor of the rhetoric of people like you.
Then you would be wrong. The people who came to be the ruling class in California just promised a group of people within their constituency certain things that those people wanted. These things were not illegal because men like Reagan made them legal. The only principle of the founding fathers that was rejected was rejected by both Reagan and the now ruling class of California: That immigration be reserved for white men of good character.
People who care more about the color of a man's skin than they do their behavior/content of thier character.
I care about race, since race correlates with behavior.
Yes you can. Specifically by tackling the behavior directly. The cucked liberal identitarian whinges about "disparate impacts" and "social capital" the based conservative declares "looters will be shot" and allows the cards to fall where they may.
The cucked liberal runs every socially relevant institution in America. The based conservative licks their boot and talks tough on social media before folding to the new cucked liberal politics like every single conservative before him. I mean, everything you've professed to believe so far is just the cucked liberalism of 30 years ago.
Im going stop you right there. When I look at the US today (or anytime in the last 40 years or so) the most socially dysfunctional states are almost never the states that are the most black or brown, its the states that are the most blue.
So black population centers aren't the most violent and poorest? The social dysfunction you see in places where the murder rate is comparable to Africa is somehow not as bad as in white neighborhoods in Vermont? I'm far from convinced.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
I'm failing to see the relation. Being unable to have sex without taking responsibility for either contraception or the consequences of unprotected sex are not the same as being forced to have sex.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Fuentes made fun of women after Trump won. Fuentes is also a 'fed'. How should I relate these two things together and why?
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
I am sure he is a federal agent in some deep state conspiracy to... do... something? I don't know where the plot goes from there, hence why I asked: What does Fuentes being controlled opposition even mean?
Some arrangement was definitely made and ... Then what happens? Like, the FBI need to pay some guy to be a shock jock on twitter? They put CP on his PC and now he has to do as they say which is... Make fun of zionists, women and democrats?
I don't want to sound too dismissive but I don't know what relevance I should place on the notion that someone is a 'fed'. I mean, can I just refer to Ben Shapiro as Mossad and therefor dismiss everything he says when it inconveniences me somehow? I don't understand the purpose of calling Fuentes a fed otherwise.
There's nothing nasty about making fun of the people who practice murdering their children so they can continue having careless sex with no consequences.
What does Fuentes being controlled opposition even mean? As you said yourself, "bodily autonomy" arguments are vapid. Laws are made that govern this type of stuff. It' already 'your body, my choice' and it always has been. Why sanctify the democrat crocodile tears by buying into the idea that 'your body, my choice' is a nasty thing to say? Oh, you can't have unprotected sex and then murder a baby to rid yourself of the consequences of your good time? Boohoo.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
You want to see what the "third-worlding" of America looks like in practical terms? California is your patient zero.
That's exactly my point? What did you think I was saying when I pointed out the folly of California? How did you think Californias current "ruling class" came to be?
Yes I know. It's also a rather stupid and Unamerican way to frame things[...] The problem is the importation of parasites and social dysfunction from Asia and South America.
Can you place the parasites and social dysfunction in a box or does it come with the people? It's obviously coming with the people. Where did they get it from? Does it fall from the sky or is it just a product of these people not being like white people? And the most important question of all, are there any realistic mechanisms to sort the people from the parasites and dysfunction?
You see, the specific corner of the US I am in has a sizeable black/brown population that's been here since the 18th century. In short, my America isn't "browning" so much as it is brown and has been for longer than anyone can remember.
Your particular corner of America is not representative of America as a whole, which ued to be 85-90% white between 1910 and 1960. The social dysfunction that has followed the largest non-white group of 'Americans' has done so for the entirety of the countries history. These people are obviously a problem, regardless of what you think it is.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
If you want to tie your future to third world politics, sure. That is exactly what happened to Reagan's California.
Democrats are not looking down the barrel of demographic collapse. Every single relevant immigration demographic votes Democrat. You are completely wrong in this assumption. To put things a different way, both Republicans and Democrats in the US face a demographic 'collapse' of their white voter base, as the white share of the population is shrinking. Both need their share of the voting block to grow, but it's only Democrats who are successfully doing it by. Republicans are doing worse than nothing for the last 80 years.
Trump has no 'anti-immigration' stance. As the man has repeatedly stated he wants as many people as possible to come in legally.
The "browning of America" is a non issue next to the "Asiaing" or "South Americaing" of America.
The 'browning of America' counts everyone who is not white. That includes Asians and South Americans.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Naw. Even if there was some great conspiracy to brown america
Nawone said that there was.
intermarriage rates have been getting higher for decades.
80-90% of people are not intermarrying. The largest population increases are not from new births but immigrants, most of whom are arriving from rather ethnohomogenous places. I see no relevance to that graph unless you are talking about an America 200 years in the future. My point would be that until you have Brazil and full blown third world politics, you have more and more brown identitarianism. Which is what's already going on and has been going on with every single third world minority group that enters America.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
It's not an odd thing and my answer was on topic.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
So nothing can happen anywhere with regards to voter fraud favoring democrats without it being under the control of this group called 'Democrats'?
I'm trying to highlight the contention I made. Which was that the assumption that there has to be a higher power making measured and deliberate decisions in order to facilitate voter fraud is fallacious.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
I wasn't talking about where flat earthers get their beliefs from, but everyone.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
I'm hard pressed to call 45% to the 44% of Bush Jr "serious headway".
The reason demographics is the only story here is that the group voting 45% for Trump is growing. Whilst the group voting 60% for Trump is shrinking. And despite allegedly "fleeing actual socialism" the majority of them has consistently voted for the closest approximation of it in American politics.
On top of that, the things drawing people towards the Democrat party are far more tangible than the Republican. Most notably money in your pocket and food in your belly. As can be seen in California where 55% of immigrant households accept some form of welfare benefits. This group, as a total % of the population, is growing. Whilst the "native" group with 25% accepting welfare is shrinking.
The main point that underscores all of this is that the demographics are pushing the country towards third world norms. If people care a lot about whatever third world hole they live in being controlled by people labeling themselves "Republican" instead of "Democrat" I can't fault them. But I point out, usually in complete futility, that once you've reached that point, it doesn't matter. You get to have Brazil level living standards and if you want something else it doesn't matter.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo ago
Here's my good faith answer: They won't.
Demographically there is no future 'Republican' party. There are no measures in place to turn the tide of the browning of America. What you'll get is a third world political schema. The playbook runs the same direction everywhere: Brown identitarianism. The democrats can literally do nothing and everything will be golden.
The Republicans will change their tune and move towards 'respectable' and 'sensible' third world politics. A regimented and what they hope to be invisible caste system where specific institutions that separate the good from the bad are solidified and protected. The future 'democrats' exist to destroy this with more extreme class and ethnocentric propaganda.
There's no sense in presuming anything else. Demographically the country is being held together by a bunch of 40-80 year olds. White children are already a minority. On top of that the history of American conservatism is one of nothing but losses. There is not a single thing on earth they have managed to conserve. The only thing democrats need to do is keep on keeping on. Which is what happens regardless of who wins the elections as seemingly every single politician loves nothing but an endless stream of brown immigrants.
More pushups, more pullups, getting back to doing situps and other lying on back ab exercises. Watching this video on an exercise scientist has inspired me to stop fretting over the little things and get back to trusting the feedback my body gives me and start having fun with myself.
Crunches and such got a lot of negative coverage as exercises when I was last digging into the world of calisthenics, a good 15 years ago now. But I've been inspired to get back to the roots of exercise and just do what makes muscles ache without any specific thought beyond that. Lying on back ab exercises certainly do that.
Down from 75~ pushups in my teens, I can now do a measly 18 (jfc)
Down from 17 strict form pullups I can now do 7.
The focus will be on getting these numbers up for no reason other than liking higher numbers.
Notes on form: During pushups, for some reason, I had stopped flaring my elbows and instead kept them close to my body. Probably because I saw a youtube video on it. This makes pushups a chore, as this seemingly takes a lot of the chest out of it. Freely flaring my elbows out makes my chest ache, so we will do that.
Pullup form is still great, probably because I never watched any youtube videos on it.
Routine: 2x per day. High intensity 3xMax pushups and pullups superset.
I'm expecting a moderate improvement to pushups for next week, pullups might only advance by one. To insure high intensity I might start timing the routine. Probably not.
I'll ask for a reminder, if only to keep myself motivated. It would be highly embarrassing to write all this out and then not do it.
More options
Context Copy link