hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Peterson vs Fuentes twitter drama
The entire story is shown in this thread. Someone is asking why something is 'like this', Fuentes predictably answers 'Jews', Peterson swoops in to condemn, and then the rest follows.
The AmericaFirst/Groyper movement seems to have finally found another 'gatekeeper' to poke. After Charlie Kirk rather expertly adjusted his rhetoric to fall outside the AF/G firing line.
To avoid doing another dissection of Peterson: he certainly seems to have been bitten by the Zionist bug. For all his posturing as a rational and reason minded clinical psychologist when talking to feminists about feminism and the difference between the sexes, the merits of individualism and focusing on immediate short term goals and family, he seems completely unhinged when it comes to semitism.
Bullies thrive on weakness, and whilst it might not be nice to push peoples buttons like this, I'm left wondering just why Peterson is such a rabid philosemite. The trolls can only do what you allow them to get away with, as Charlie Kirk demonstrated by defusing the avenues of attack. Peterson seems to be doing the opposite of that.
As a further question, is this part of the right wing sphere dying? I'm not sure how Peterson is doing. Last I heard he did a rather big media deal with Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire. Whilst the AF 'conference' or whatever it's called, didn't do so well.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Started using the term 'anti-white'.
He used to get 'invaded' a lot by AF/G, both online and in real life. He could hardly hold an event without the open question line being filled with AF/Gers asking about his stance on immigration, demographics and the relationship between Israel and the US. Most notably asking him over and over about the USS Liberty incident.
Charlie, to his or his handlers credit, changed his tune a bit. Becoming more aggressive against anti-white rhetoric. There's a layer of irony here, but there was definitely a change. But if there's lore here I'm missing I'd be happy for someone to correct the record on this. I'm not as tuned in to politics as I used to be.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Hard to call Democrats anti-Israel. There might be a lot of pro-Palestine rhetoric in the voting base but I've yet to see that born out in any policy or elected official rhetoric outside of 'the squad'.
How much should a host country suffer on behalf of outsiders before they can legitimately demand that they be left alone?
I see the term 'diaspora nationalism' thrown around a lot, where the immigrants are proud of who they are, where they come from, try to live through some of their homelands culture through cooking and music and such... And whilst there is a lot of examples of that in real life I don't feel it captures the whole of what's going on.
In my experience 'immigrants' adopt and invoke a sort of universalist ethos. Immigrantism, for a lack of a better term. The core of it is simple: So long as the immigrant is working hard and following the law, they should be allowed to stay in whatever country they are in.
It's hard to argue against this in practice, since it's a very emotionally confrontational thing to tell someone that they are not wanted despite those things. But at the same time we are seeing first world countries shift towards third world norms. All the hard work, all the faith in the old country and whatever else sentiment carried by immigrantism doesn't change this constant slide towards things becoming worse.
I feel like there needs to be some reciprocation of charity here. Maybe try tugging on your own heart strings as little The good first world folk let you in, now they want you out. Why should they feel obligated to empathize with mix status families with young children when, as things are going, the first world can't effectively have children of their own.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I don't think acceptance of being wrong on any particular subject matters. Centrist philosophy dictates that nothing ever happens. Be that the invasion of Ukraine or assassination attempts on world leaders. If anything does happen it's a 'Black Swan' event that no one could have predicted. Then it moves into the past and we chalk it up to things that happened in the past but could never happen now because reasons.
A more cynical reactionary philosophy would say: Things like this have been happening and will continue to happen as things move away from the abnormal spikes of human flourishing that European people afforded themselves, that centrists have grown up with, and towards a more balanced representation of humanity. Which happens to be ill equipped to deal with scarcity and large populations of terminal 'have nots'. Something that Europeans, through millennia of suffering, managed to break away from for a few short decades.
There's no individual instance of 'aha' that can change a centrist mind. They can always cope back to the vestiges of their top 5% lives. Maintain that the world is propelled forwards by the actions of normal, rational and well meaning people and that because of that no forecast of doom can ever be accurate.
To that extent there's no counter argument. It's long been a meme that a frog in a pot won't jump out if you bring it to a boil slowly. It's just really annoying to sit in the water listening to your fellow frog talk about how the water isn't that hot yet.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I consider doom to be anything that causes a reproductive collapse or any sort of negative large scale genetic bottleneck.
On that front your comment illustrates very well why I have a big problem with centrism and centrists. You trace back the steps of modern human history, drawing confidence from that which has brought us to a point of a self induced dysgenic bottleneck.
I can't look at modern Western societies and think: This has gone great! In fact, considering the technological advancements that have been made, I have a hard time imagining things going worse short of a more immediate mass extinction event like a nuclear war or pandemic. The amount of desperately needed first world genetic material that will be lost every single day in the coming decades will never be replaced. All in the service of an ontology built up as reasonable and moderate by its adherents.
To make a long story short: if the path you took led you to doom, it doesn't matter how scenic it was, it was the wrong path.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
The obvious need is for the advancement and maintenance of first world societies. You need first world people to stave of stagnation, deterioration and corruption.
On a social level the proportions that make up a population are very important if you care about first world living standards. This is why populations like Iceland can create a better living environment than populations in various eastern European countries despite the total number of high trust, high IQ people being higher in eastern Europe.
It has to pay off to be high trust. Otherwise the people predisposed to trusting will learn to do the opposite. This creates a drastic division within a society where people, most often the smartest who are very capable of forming collectives of trust, close themselves off from wider society because engaging with it fairly is not worth it since it has too many trust breakers.
This effectively makes nepotism and corruption a winning move, which is obviously awful for anyone who idealizes any modern conception of a first world society.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
No, I would not want to trade places with the people who had to suffer for millennia to get to the place the west is today. Which is why I really don't like it when we squander those hard fought gains via man made genetic bottlenecks.
You seem to be, as centrists are want to do, ignoring the contention being made and the problems being pointed out and instead framing yourself as a defender of western civilization. The problem I have with that framing, outside of it being a dishonest rhetorical cope, should be obvious. I am not against the flourishing of European people. I like the modern comforts I have. I like the low risk high reward society afforded to me via technological advancement and high trust.
The reason I have a problem with centrism is because I don't want to lose all this good and I very much implied this in my previous post.
The worst things you can say about the modern West is that
It causes a genetic bottleneck that kills itself off. You need something self aware that offsets the problems caused by all the technological advancement. There are historical figures and movements that understood this, and centrists love to sneer at them. Going so far as to cast the doom of the western people in a salvageable light rather than admit they're wrong.
About half the word is either white or East Asian. There is plenty of "high quality" genetic stock of that's what you care about.
Most places on earth have people with many great qualities. East Asia, maybe, in particular. However, I don't want to live in China, Korea or Japan. I want to live where I live now and I want my future descendants to be afforded the same luxury. I am very much not in favor of introducing the sort of status and award obsessed 'Asian' into my immediate environment. It leads to the same toxic study and work culture on display in those countries and I very much prefer mine over theirs.
This genetic stock wasn't present at the start of the universe. It was created out of nothing by selection effects. Equivalently high quality genetic pools can be created if they are adaptive
I very much don't want a repeat of the horrible history of the European man. To suggest this makes you more radical and unhinged than anything I heard of outside of maybe Mao's alleged boasting of Chinas suitability to survive in the chance of a total nuclear war. "What if they killed 300 million of us? We would still have many people left.".
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Sometimes saying less is better as it steers the conversation away from irrelevant tangents and arguments. But here we are.
I don't view the holocaust as a strike against National Socialism any more than I view Asian American concentration camps during WW2 as a roadblock in the way of hapa ubermench supremacy. I find the association and repeat regurgitation of those kind of arguments incredibly stupid. It almost pushes me to a point where I no longer believe dialog on a policy level is possible since most people seem completely incapable of not talking about the holocaust. To top it all of, people feel very emboldened to make stuff up about the Third Reich. It's a bad guy that no one except a bad guy will defend. So you can make simple untrue statements that feel true due to emotional association with pop media whilst being completely devoid of any historical context.
On that end I am almost pushed to abandon any political thought and just start talking about the holocaust and how it's a ridiculous fairytale. The numbers really don't matter. 600 or 6 million, it's an animating myth for a victimary narrative. It's a black person speaking out against white supremacy since slavery used to be a thing. It really doesn't matter how many slaves there were, what color, who dunnit first or whatever else. Anyone can see how idiotic all of that is until its their own victimary narrative. Then people act out the exact same pathology without blinking an eye.
As for the EuroAsian synthesis, I don't see how there will be a synthesis, only a temporary transition period. Even assuming no outsider immigration, which is happening in all countries mentioned, Europe is taking in East Asians whilst China is not. The trickle of DNA goes one way. So it's just a matter of time before the European stops being hapa and just becomes Han.
I mean, I can imagine a world where every Asian and every European is married to one another with hapa children. But taking your vision without reservation and as valid in full, you will have to go much further than National Socialism to find any mechanism to turn that vision into reality. On that end, I take very little solace in the thought considering where things are today in the real world.
All of this to say, you might want to attempt a bit more empathy regarding the specific reasons why intelligent people who share your basic goals and values might still think that the fascists were and are a terrible and counterproductive model for the achievements of those goals and the furtherance of those values. One can believe that eugenics is a fundamentally good and important project while being reasonably squeamish about the specific actions historically taken in the interest of that project, as well as reasonably suspicious of some of the ulterior motives held by the most visible and historically-impactful proponents of the project.
I don't know what a fascist is and I don't know what 1940's Germany at war has to do with any of National Socialist policies I like. I really wish the intelligent people could engage with the topic of group bias and western policy flaws without defaulting to the holocaust but so far, they just don't. It's hard for me to empathize with them when they all display the same lack of reason and skepticism. Going through the same pathological motions every single time.
I'm not a smart guy. But I have a decent memory and cognitive dissonance hits me like a truck. So how can I still be here after a decade of making the same argument to all the smartest people I know? Did a swastika fall on my head when I was a toddler? Am I just retarded? Where is the light?
I mean, I certainly did not see it after the Oct 7 attack, where intelligent posters started nonchalantly floating ideas of genociding their enemy and such like it was just another day in the office. It certainly felt like a change from much of the dispassionate commentary on other conflicts. Almost like every single thing I say about group bias and pathology is correct and that being governed by people who don't ingroup me is very bad and leads to sub par outcomes for me? Nay, perhaps I should just listen to my elders and recognize why a slow death is the smart thing because the holocaust. Maybe I can entertain myself with ideas of EuroAsian paradise whilst housing prices inexplicably rise for the 240th month in a row. Almost as if immigrant paradise, promised by similar people, did not come to pass either. No really, all snark aside, can the smart people give me anything tangible as an alternative to a dysgenic society funneling into a massive genetic bottleneck?
The discourse around conspiracy seems like a gift from the heavens for any 'pro-institution' person. What an embarrassing gaff for the Secret Service.
Seeing a bunch of old men and fat assed women who look like school teachers running around the stage was embarrassing enough. But as the details emerge, it seems like it would have been hard to do their jobs worse. I was under the impression that a rooftop was a complete no-go zone when a VIP like this is around. Let alone that a guy with a range finder is allowed to prance around without anyone asking him what he's doing.
If there is no conspiracy I would like the discourse to move away from that and towards a recognition of how bad the Secret Service has to be to let this sort of thing happen.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I am starting to think there's the opposite of that kind of bias at play. 'Instinct distrust bias'?
I don't know what to call it, but it certainly feels like a lot of people turn very 'skeptical' when an aspect of their supported or preferred worldview is poked at in some way. The most obvious example of this would be mass immigration and the rise of housing prices. Implying a causal connection simply isn't a part of the program. Yet instinct would tell us it's the most obvious and important part of the entire problem in most if not all western countries.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I think this is a typical case of boomer right wingers not recognizing how far behind the curve they are. They don't get to decide what is socially acceptable in the bio-leninist coalition. Those things are already long decided on before they are performed publicly.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
There are a lot of right wing boomers in the world. Be that by birth or spirituality. I don't remember the last time any of them at any time in the past 80 years could make any relevant change to the course of history. It seems like it doesn't matter how many 'SJW Owned Compilation's there are, or how many boomers watch them and cackle.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
We didn't go full Australia on Covid lockdowns.
Neither did Canada.
We are still allowed to own guns.
So are Canadians.
The state only takes 35% of our income instead of 50%
Again, look at Canada.
All involved are neck deep in mass immigration. I'm not seeing the boomer utility here.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Counting illegal immigrants I'm not sure the US is that much better off. Maybe 'time', before their European population is dwarfed?
Canadians can own all the relevant firearms needed to resist the gubment. The only relevant strike is 10 round magazines, as far as I can tell.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
You're not resisting the government with handguns.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
The US is no better off than Canada on the immigration front, where 25% of the US population is now hispanic or Asian. Demographic projections are only going one way.
I don't care if you think Canada's gun control laws are 'extreme'. The fact is you can buy an 'assault rifle' in Canada. It might have a 10 round mag and your selection is more limited, but it's a rifle all the same. The rest is semantics.
I really don't sympathize with pretending
No one does. Which is why the feeling is so mutual. Americans are great at isolating themselves from the world around them since their country is so large. You can live a lifetime in the US without feeling any of the things being talked about in media.
I used to think of America as a silly place that, from my end, didn't really exist. All the news and media coverage felt similar to a reality TV show. It was striking for me to learn that most Americans feel the same way and that their own reality, like mine, is far away from 'America'.
In that respect the US is much worse than Canada. Most Americans have no idea what their country even is. How could they?
What do Trudeau conservatives like this want? We can't kill our enemies, because then they win. So when we get power we ??? and profit?
It seems like the overarching theory is that we can induce some sort of stasis where, if everyone behaves and doesn't do anything self serving with power then we can live happily. OK, that's obviously not reality, as this entire rigamarole is fueled by people abusing the power they have. On top of that they have no reason to stop so why would they?
I'm more inclined to chalk this line of thinking to conflict aversion. It's not principle but cowardice.
I am comparing relevant metrics. 'Immigration' is a meaningless category since it only tells us what is recently going on, not what has been ongoing. A short look at US demographics tells a very clear story: Used to be majority white. Soon to be minority white.
There is a far greater difference in firearm availability.
If you are Canadian you can reliably attain an 'assault rifle' so long as you don't live in specific cities and jump through a few hoops. Not as smooth but very similar to the US. Yes, you can't get a million and one different variation of an AR 15 or an AK platform rifle, as many of those are banned, but you can get relevant stand ins. At the end of the day you have reliable platforms that fire rifle caliber rounds.
It is popular to be excessively critical of the US. I think pretending the US is as bad as Canada is an example of that.
It's popular to point at others and say: See! We're not that bad!
There are plenty of measures where the US is an embarrassment. Violent crime and prison rape to name two very relevant ones.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
If the GOP was smart they would do the opposite. Full scorched earth Womp Womp's.
I can't believe that GOP and friends don't have guys crafty enough to weave a narrative of law and order, back the blue and whatever else out of this.
Don't make the shooting an issue, make the media and Democrats the issue. They are attacking a sacred institution, these hallowed halls of law and order and blah blah blah. Show teeth. Don't be weak and limp wristed. Blame the Democrats and media for the shooting. Whatever you do, don't let the foot off the gas. Organize pro police protests, do whatever. Everyone is sick and tired of this play. No one respects it. People just go through the motions because it's the only game in town and they're forced to participate.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
With supporters like these, who needs enemies. The point is that you don't cave in, instead you show you actually stand behind the thing in its moment of weakness. Precisely because it's being attacked by your enemy.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
I disagree. Egregious violations of public trust should not be glossed over or hidden for political reasons.
No one said this should be done. No one said this should be 'condoned', no one said anything about what you advocate.
By the same token I can accuse you of a similar thing. Hyperbolizing an event like this in an effort to throw a bunch of gasoline on an ACAB fire and then say you back the boys in blue. Which seems counter intuitive to me, but you do you.
You can stand by officers in cases like these by letting due process run its course, or by recognizing these cases as statistical outliers, or by recognizing that policing a third world population with a first world police force simply doesn't work. Not by swirling around in a media fueled frenzy. If your takeaway from any of the previous media fueled ACAB frenzies was that policing got improved or things got better in some way I'm not sure what planet you are coming from.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
When the alternatives are race riots and 'prison reform' I have a hard time sympathizing with the "high road". Whatever that even is, aside from tut tut's.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Most people would prefer the police shooting someone than being scalded, yes. I don't know how or if that fits your 'constitutional' priors.
Policing is whatever it has become. Its sanctity lies in its foundations and principles, not individual events.
Policing in the US has degenerated a lot to face third world challenges. Sometimes old ladies get shot. The police are still sacred, though, for all the old ladies that don't get shot. Or so goes the tale of why we need police in the first place.
The article, in an effort to analyze their outgroups pathologies, manages to highlight a different pathology. It's noteworthy in this case since I think it's very much shared by a lot of people around these parts.
The presupposition of a "neutral field" or a "clean game" is pretty much the default hypothesis for every 'centrist' minded person. Just like the 'radicals' seem to chase the unfairness that keeps them from power, the 'moderate' chases the notion of fairness that keeps the 'radicals' out of power.
I don't think there's any sense in trying to gleam some object level truth from these expressions. There are surely plenty of cases where the system was rigged and where the system was not. But these pathological expressions exist all the same. The only folly is presuming that your particular pathology is the cause whenever things matter to you.
More options
Context Copy link