hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
An angry Bob in middle America has no power to formulate plans for middle East invasions and then put them into action.
Many Americans wanted revenge for 9/11. The direction those emotions were guided in and the actions those emotions were used to justify were completely the work of neocons and zionists. To pretend those two movements are not extremely jewish goes beyond any reason.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must? Not to talk for either of the aforementioned 'alt right' guys mentioned, but that sentiment is generally uttered as a description, not a prescription. And what generally follows is some opining on what should be done given we recognize it as true. So I'm not sure what your contention with that truth would be considering we just witnessed a black hobo who had enjoyed being 'strong' in the NYC subway arena get challenged and taken out by someone who is now facing the consequences for not recognizing the true strength of the black hobo, which lies in the social realm some very 'fine' jews and Americans have constructed for everyone to enjoy.
For instance, considering where the prescriptive part of the 'might makes right' philosophy comes into play, when it's me and my neurotypical non-assaulting homies on the subway vs the 'schizophrenic crime commitment squad' then I don't think we are drawing any lines in the sand that are too morally complex. With full recognition that I am not a black hobo, so I'm obviously taking my own side here, what exactly is the alternative? Wait for another Asian grandma to be pushed on the tracks? Live under the tyranny of the self proclaimed king of the subway car, who psychologically torments you for his own enjoyment? You can do that, and it is in fact being enforced as we speak. But since no one sane likes that, who should be strong?
In fact it surprises me to hear you point this out since it's a very popular argument for the types of people who dislike the 'alt right' types to go to when the 'alt right' types make their group preferences known. Which generally goes something like: ''ethnic group' commits a lot of crime, we should do something about that' Followed by the retort of: 'Why are you hating 'ethnic group'? If you don't like them because they commit too much crime, shouldn't you just hate criminals instead?'
But apparently, if you do hate the criminal, you are just a pathetic dweeb with a power fantasy? So therefor RIP Asian granny, the black hobo will now sing you the song of his people as he pushes you onto the train tracks? I don't get it.
It seems to me you are just calling Hoffmeister25 low status so therefor he shouldn't dare voice his feelings on the matter.
hanikrummihundursvin
2mo ago
I'm reminded of the old clip of an alleged 'jewish Democrat candidate' gleefully contextualizing how many white men are killing themselves.
In ingroup/outgroup terms, if my enemy is dying, I can only shrug my shoulders. Is it by his own hand? Wow, how curious, I can't imagine why he would do that. I can't contextualize his death in a wider context. It's just happening. Probably due to some failure on his part, obviously. There's not wider causal chain at play, no broad narrative to examine. Because if there's one thing I know, it's that my people are innocent, and my enemy is guilty and deserves it.
Now, if a member of my ingroup dies, that's not their fault or mine. There's a wider context, a system, that's at fault. We need to do something!
That's at least the rhetorical implication of noticing this event. Maybe now something will be done since the 'people with power' will take up arms for one of their own dying. In that sense, this is a joyous occasion for the 'have nots'. The more 'elite' children that die, the more their parents are forced to take up the common cause of others who have had to live in with such conditions for much longer. Conditions that people like Susan Wojcicicki had helped create, facilitate and ignore for a long time now. Some might even be waiting for any brave soul to take aim at more direct causal factors, like the Sacklers. Why do they get to exist free of the conditions they inflict on others? Not only that, they get to profit from it.
I think posts like this help illuminate where one stands in the hierarchy of everything. Those with power can place landmines in your environment, and if you or yours step on them you just get to suffer whilst they get to profit. The worst part is that your only recourse as a 'have not' is to hope that someone with power also steps on a landmine so that they just might lead your cause forward. A sort of validation of your suffering. That's it. Patriotism/national identity doesn't play a part, voting doesn't play a part, 'the voices of the many' doesn't play a part. The statistical significance, the economic impact, none of it matters even if it is so often acted like it does matter in so many different contexts. In the modern western democracy these things don't matter at all. The only common cause people can find is suffering. In clear terms: If a powerful jew isn't suffering your problems, you will just have to live with them.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
To put things in perspective there have been more drug deaths due to a poorly secured border and a few predatory jewish pharmacutical companies than there have been jewish deaths at the hands of Palestinians by a ridiculous factor. On top of that, prior to this event there were even more European deaths at the hands of Arab terrorists than there were jewish ones.
I think jews all around the world have a very keen understanding of exactly who is in and who is out. What you are supposed to do is apologize for your jewish privilege and do better. Accept more immigration, do more for assimilation and focus heavily on functional integration. Of course no one will do that when it's their own ingroup at stake. No one will entertain some well reasoned and rationalized argument regarding the benefits of integration, diversity and rehabilitation. Just look at the rhetoric, 'they are raping our women!'.
This is an open invitation to leverage every single anti-ethnocentric argument against jews. Never again will I have to entertain a Zionist, jew or otherwise, when they start whining about the far right or anything similar. Black on white crime in the US alone dwarfs this conflict. You have an enemy at the gates? Open up and apologize for having gates you racists.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo 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.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
I mean, I'm not really allowed to "rail about Da Joos". Nigh every single time I make a critical point about expressions of jews you are here wearing your mod hat being antagonistic and sneering at me. Going so far as to strawmanning my argument just after you accused me of doing so.
You are allowed to rail about Da Joos
This is antagonistic sneering. I am not "railing" against anyone. That's not a fair summation of what I wrote. And always referring to a critical statement with regards to jews as being about 'Da Joos' is disrespectful and childish. I mean, can I refer to any pro communist argument as 'gommunism'? Oh, I didn't know you were one of those who liked 'crapitalism'. Oh, is that a 'shitlib' argument? No really, what are you doing?
Even if you really believe "Jews" are a single unit
This is a strawman. I don't. How you could gleam that from me arguing about distinctions between jews is beyond me.
the fact is that there are Jews here (probably on both sides of any given argument) and you need to address them (yes, you are addressing posters here on the Motte when you talk about Jews) as individuals.
I am at a loss at what you are referring to. No jew came forward with their own beliefs, nor is the belief of any individual in question, nor did I insinuate that any jew had to have a specific belief if they were not neoconservative or zionist. Like, can you quote where I went wrong?
If you want to speak about what The Jews are doing, either make sure you can defend the claim that it applies to any given Jew, or stop using such broad generalizations.
I made specific claims regarding specific institutions and movements. I am sure I can defend the claim that neo-conservatism and zionism are jewish. And so far no one has bothered pretending they are not since everyone knows they are. Perhaps it's my error in assuming people would know the difference between recognizing that just because the Italian Mafia is Italian doesn't mean that referring to it as such means every Italian is a mafioso. Maybe it's a jewish thing.
I don't like this defense of Rowling. By the same token the actual position of George Lincoln Rockwell, David Duke or William Luther Pierce isn't what their enemies say they are. But everyone on some level understands that these guys are ultimately not on the same team as BLM, the ADL and whoever supports those things.
To play with the context a little bit, and introduce some snark: If I'm not a racist and I fund a homeless shelter for white people only, am I still not a racist? I mean, I have a lot of black friends, and I do want them to have civil rights, just not the same civil rights I as a white person have. I'm just against the excesses of the modern black activist movement.
I think there is a very obvious ingroup and outgroup distinction that people can very obviously see past. It doesn't matter what the fine print says. Ultimately Rowling is not on the 'correct' team. And in the name of the ideological/intellectual wave that carried feminism: Just like a black person need not define what 'acceptable' means by the wants of white people with power, trans people should not need to define what 'acceptable' means by the wants of women with power. Just like, in the past, women said that they need not define what is 'acceptable' by the wants of men with power.
Rowling, and women, have power. If they are choosing to not lend it to trans women they are doing harm to them. The prison example is especially obvious with regards to this.
I don't think there is an ideological/intellectual tradition worse equipped to deal with trans arguments than feminism. The only way that has been demonstrated is to out yourself as a caricature of a conservative that is pulling the ladder up behind him before the poor people show up. That then mocks them as he is up there and they are down there by telling them to hoist themselves up by their bootstraps.
hanikrummihundursvin
6mo ago
The moral argument from the Zionist position here is that you can't see or hear the screaming Palestinian children dying a slow agonizing death whilst the concrete wall they are trapped under slowly grinds their pelvis to a mush. But you can see the videos of Israeli people captured and that has a more immediate pull on your heartstrings so that's where we draw the line.
This is not an uncharitable argument or a strawman. The actual argument is 'look at our propaganda and feel with us'. Any objective look at numbers tells us the story that jews in Israel have been massively overrepresenting the threat they face compared to any other integration issue facing the west. Be that black or Arab.
hanikrummihundursvin
7mo ago
This is a great example. Jews just exist in a form that is impossible to assign negative cause to. So the natural conclusion is that anyone who assigns them any negative cause is suffering from some ailment or pathology.
This is just such a transparent expression of ingroup bias. Like, it can't be that jews actually caused something negative to happen or are in any way instrumental in the proliferation of anything bad and that some people had a very natural and human reaction to it. I.e. not wanting to live with jews anymore. No, the Nazis were instead jealous of jews.
Your contention relies on the Germans requests being unreasonable when you could just as easily say that they weren't. Not the least considering Poland could have been much better for it, along with all of Europe, if they had aligned themselves with Germany against communism and what National Socialists recognized as capitalism in the hands of the international jew.
My argument isn't selective about anything. I think you should step back and recognize just what narrative is being revised. Hitler could have done things differently, but the obvious case here is that so could everyone else. In the context of general WW2 narratives that shovel all blame on Hitler in particular, and to a lesser extent the Treaty of Versailles, there exists an obvious angle of blame that is never talked about lest it draw attention away from the great myths we have created out of Hitler and the holocaust.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Post WW2 jews are in the most prominent positions in media and academia in the country that dictates the 'Overton Window' of the western world.
The 14 words for the state of Israel are not a problem. And so long as the worker revolution is communist and so long as the communism is jewish there are no issues with it. There might be some grassroots opposition to both Israel as a white supremacist ethnonationalist colonialist state and communism as a satanic force of godless mass murderers who don't understand Austrian economics. But that resistance gets mowed if it ever grows to far in an antisemitic direction. Even if it's just Glenn Beck accidentally rattling off all the jewish founders of the Frankfurt School live on air, or an innocent hippy on a Facebook group wondering why Israel isn't taking in more refugees. There are control elements in place to shut those things down. Both Glenn Beck and the hippy will get a talking to about what acceptable opposition to these things looks like and they will either fall in line with the astroturf or get ripped by the root.
That's, for me at least, a theory that neatly explains why things are how they are today with regards to these things.
It would be a fitting end for that line of thought to see Hanania completely ostracized. Left with nothing but a substack and a horde of disgruntled wignats in his comment section.
Wignat politics being a dead end always rings hollow when the ones who turn up their nose and sneer at it end up contorting themselves to speaking in riddles and code to not offend their overlords. Which is a complete conspiracy theory by the way. There are no overlords of course, Hanania just can't be allowed to speak his mind and has to hide his name or weave his truths with mainstream politics for the same reason the sun rises and sets every day. It's just the way of the world, right?
The zionist takeover of the conservative party happened decades ago. Men much better than Hanania were tossed out for saying much less than he did. He made his bed in the containment zone created for and by those men. His antics do nothing but rustle and agitate those already in that sphere. All this talk about him as if he matter at all is, from that standpoint, just inane. He would at best be the brightest snowflake in a dissident right snow globe, but he's not even that.
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?
If the number is not 6 million but 4 million then the Holocaust narrative isn't correct and people would not be correct in believing in it. If you don't believe those kinds of details to be important then your perspective isn't very relevant to a discussion on the Holocaust. Especially not as I defined it in my post.
that narrative is that during the second world war the German government deliberately killed a lot of jews on the basis of their ethnicity.
This is broadening the scope of the topic to a point where any act of war is now proof of a holocaust. Germans deliberately killed Russians as part of the war. Russians deliberately killed Germans as part of the war. If this is your view of the narrative it is just irrelevant to the critiques being made against the historical holocaust narrative.
If your point is that Germans killed jews because they didn't like them, and that's the only important part of the story, then I have to say that you don't have much to stand on when it comes to the complaints Russians have. The Germans sure did kill a lot more of them.
This is supported by such a weight of evidence supporting this that it's accepted by pretty much all reasonable people who don't have ulterior motives for trying to weaken said narrative.
Yes, people dying in WW2 is supported by a lot of evidence. Other than that your sentence is such a shitball I can't believe you wrote it. "pretty much all reasonable people who don't have ulterior motives"? Really?
No one is claiming no jews died. No one is claiming Germans liked jews. But to what end Germans pursued the killing of jews, the actual scope of said killings and the deliberation behind it are all important parts of the historical narrative. Questioning those parts is valid and the truth stands on its own no matter what motives you feel are behind it.
On that point it would be something if all that rhetoric you spout could be turned back at you. Say, for instance, if a jew like Simon Wiesenthal admitted to deliberately lying about how many people died in the Holocaust to make the thing seem more believable to non-jews. I mean, would jews really do that? Just lie to support a narrative like the Holocaust? Would jews really lie about being put into gas chambers? I mean, being the center of victimary discourse in the west sure has its perks. So there's a motive. Can I just paint you as another Simon Wiesenthal or a Dachau jew who lied about gas chambers? After all, we all know that most reasonable people who investigate the evidence for the holocaust come away feeling very skeptical about it! ;)
Seems like your rhetoric fits rather snugly on the other foot. I would say that just as much as some have motive to question the narrative, others have a motive to uphold it. Recognizing that is one thing, but pretending only one side is doing it? Now there's some motivated reasoning.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
Which is all completely irrelevant to the fact that the neoconservative and zionist movements were jewish. Most Italians had no hand in the Italian mafia. Was the Italian mafia not Italian?
So again, most Jews were opposed, many elite Jews were opposed (we can't say 'most' only because polling doesn't exist, but I think it likely), and the major decisionmakers were gentiles, including the President who had a familial vendetta against Saddam Hussein dating back 15 years.
Which would not explain why, according to William Kristol, Bush Jr was not on board with the idea until after 9/11.
“I think you could make a case that on September 10th, 2001, that it’s not clear that George W. Bush was in any fundamental way going in our direction on foreign policy.”
"OUR" of course, referencing the neocon side, as opposed to the pragmatist side within the White House at the time. He had similar things to say about Cheyney
“Cheney is a complicated figure and, obviously, a very cautious and reticent figure, so hard to know what he thinks in his heart of hearts. I think he had feet in both camps, so to speak.”
The neocon faction, led by Paul Wolfowitz had been agitating for war for a long time and they finally found the right conditions to push it forward. That's on the back of all the events that inspired the 9/11 attacks in the first place.
Elie Wiesel on intentionally lying and inflating Holocaust deaths:
"Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential."
On a related note, Germany Must Perish!
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
'Christianity' declined in America when elite institutions started getting filled up with Catholics and jews. This happened in the 1940's and by the 1960's the new 'elite' was throwing their weight around. The old WASP ideals were pushed aside. That's all there is to the story of modern America. 1,2
To highlight why this is the case and not the other way around: America was still very 'Christian' in the 1960's. The places that stopped being 'Christian' were the big 4. Academia, media, the courts and government. It just happens to be the case that 'being Christian' doesn't count for anything when you don't control these and you now have a newspaper, radio and TV in your living room streaming the latest in jewish psychological warfare into your home.
Religion and ethnocentrism go hand in hand since both are dogmatic and confident. Christians lose since they are no longer dogmatic and confident. You can weave whatever historical narrative you want in favor of Christendom and why its the best but it all funnels down to the same modern pit we now live in.
On the whole, the closest you get to confident dogmatism in Christians is when you find racist Christians like with 'Christian Identity'. The rest exists in various stages of failure. Be that bargaining with sinners or interpreting the word of god through a rainbow colored lens.
Christianity did three things very well: Formalize a calendar year with holidays, sanctify courtship for the lower classes and emphasize reading. The rest... not so great.(there might be more, lets be honest)
As an aside, I've always considered the typical universalist anglo sentiment to be a strain of death for the western world. Listening to any moral philosophy with a UK accent fills me with dread. It's like you're always one tear away from not having borders.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
At risk of repeating what's been said downthread, your entire disposition towards the topic betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on. Veganism isn't based on some argument. Either you care enough about animal suffering to do something about it or you don't. Factory farming is, in a lot of places, a torture farm. If you care a lot about animal suffering there is no "argument". There's just a fundamental factual truth about the nature of harvesting animals for food and from there on all else follows. Same is true for 'white nationalism'. Either you care about white people, their bio-diversity, history and continued existence or you don't.
You are not asking for an argument, you are asking for a bonk on the head that makes you see the world in a different light. For some that's videos on Facebook and documentaries, real world experiences or socialization. Whatever it is, you're not dealing with arguments and I think it would behoove you and people who talk like you to stop pretending you are a machine that digests paragraphs and sorts out the fact and logic. You're not.
If @do_something had looked at their posting history they would easily have seen that and the length to which @SecureSignals goes to follow the rules of the forum and to engage in constructive discourse.
But that's not what their comment is driven by. It's pure outgroup + cognitive dissonance. They see someone they don't like posting something they don't agree with and they lash out.
People who act like this and the want to get away from them and the degenerative effect they have on discourse are the reason for the motte to exist.
The lack of the usual antagonistic and sneering remarks in Amadans mod post is disappointing for the first time ever. And his validation of the otherization of @SecureSignals and the implication that there might be something 'suspicious' going on is beyond poor form.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
Wow, Germany was provoked into invading Poland; because, they were not just handed Polish land on a silver platter. What an argument.
That's pretty far away from the argument, and quite irrelevant to the passage you are quoting.
Poland, by refusing to hand over Danzig and working through Germany to get what they wanted, were aligning themselves with Britain and the US to get what they wanted. What's being highlighted is that Poland made the decision to stand against Germany on the basis that they had the backing of the US and Britain. A basis that, according to Flynn, was being heavily pushed on the Poles by the US.
Considering the US and Britain didn't have any ability to stand by their word, going against Germany was maybe the worst decision ever made by Polish statesmen. Getting some of the worst of the war and post-war occupation.
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
1yr ago
Congratulations to Effective Altruism. For those of you not understanding why this whole thing isn't good for Effective Altruism: You are now officially a group! Just like Atheism became a group through the infamous fedora/quote maker incident, you too are now an easily identifiable and targetable entity. No one will ever need to engage with what you say.
If anyone cares to ask what the difference is between Effective Altruism and just Altruism: Altruism is when you create a pyramid scam to rob people with money and give the money to powerless people who don't have money. Like Robin Hood. And then you go the way of Robin Hood, either getting killed or jailed for life.
Effective Altruism, on the other hand, is when you create a pyramid scam to rob people with money and give very powerful people with even more money all of the money. That way, unlike Robin Hood, when the jig is up nothing will happen to you, and you can go back to your polycule.
hanikrummihundursvin
8mo 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
10mo ago
This is low effort and banal. Believe it or not jewish people can have influence. And the levers and mechanisms by which factions in politics can have influence over elected officials is not some incredible feat that warrants disbelief.
The effort required is so superhumanly and extremely impressive that I'd love to find these guys and go along with them; they are clearly more competent and fit to rule than any group I've ever heard of, at all.
If that's your takeaway from the effects of neocon foreign policy it says more about your argument than anything I could. Being silly for the sake of argument is not a good look for your argument.
I don't see what is creatively bankrupt about race swapping a character. And I don't see how or why doing so would indicate that they are out of ideas.
Aragorn, especially after the movies, is an icon and he is white. People who ingroup blacks as morally superior see positions of power and feel an emotional need to elevate blacks to those positions. People who outgroup whites as morally inferior feel an emotional need to lower whites from those positions.
Amazon, WotC and all the 'woke' engaging companies are not creatively bankrupt. They are not 'out of ideas'. They are simply exploring a vision, chasing a dream, following ideology, walking certain priors to their logical conclusion. It's not about writing an original story that no one cares about. It's about representing truth and justice. Black people are better than white people. They are morally superior. They have been standing up against the racist injustices of America and the Western world for centuries. They have been oppressed throughout that time yet have persevered through all of it. There is no good reason for the iconography of the modern era being white. There is no reason why it shouldn't be black.
If you don't care about race there is no reason to care about Aragorn being black any more than that there is reason for you to care that the hero is destined to become king. If you do care about race, whether you consciously recognize it or not, there are two extremely predictable emotional responses to this sort of thing. You either like it or you don't. You feel an emotional resonance with the fact that something of value was changed to elevate one over the other. You feel an emotional resonance with someone expressing group allegiance to one over the other.
All in all, this isn't a problem of creativity. It's a problem of people wanting to hold on to the whiteness of the world without any institutional power to back it up. Sorry, you can't.
More options
Context Copy link