hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
Immigration discussion is two faced. You are either talking personally about individual people, in which case the average conflict averse person will have nothing bad to say to anyone's face, or you are talking broad statistical trends that factor over larger populations, in which case the argument against immigration is a very clear and resounding 'not very good'.
These two positions are held at the same time, but never in the same room.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
You can do this type of reductionist deconstruction with every story.
As a counter argument: Using the 'correct' view, good stories are about the journey. Not the Shyamalanaman plot twist, clever subversion of tropes or badass value shifts.
It's easy to get overwhelmed by these short term moments, designed to give you an emotional high, and lose focus on what's actually good when you're born into what's effectively a vortex dragging your brain towards this sort of short term stimuli on an ever-accelerating repeat. But we should be able to spot it.
This vortex afflicts both the consumer and creator. As can be seen, for example with projects like Star Trek. One of the big problems with new Star Trek, to kick that dead horse, is the narrow scope of the overarching narrative. It's not about a transcendent view of humanity, that existed in the older versions. It's about... Brexit? Immigration? Racism? It loses sight of what makes the 'journey' of watching Star Trek and being immersed in that universe feel good. None of the bells and whistles of the new era matter since the journey you have to take to enjoy them involves wrapping yourself in some sort of post-progressive pessimism where humanity is still constantly tripping over itself.
By the same token, categorizing fairy tales by their plot elements is just... For a lack of a better term: Not getting it.
You don't really need a plot twist at the end of a story with a simple moral message. And whilst the OG versions of these fairy tales often had a quite a... 'convoluted' message, they lived on to serve a different purpose. In short: These movies should be wrapping the viewer in the warm embrace of a loved one that's just sat down next to them on a sofa with a grandfather clock rhythmically ticking in the background. Ready to soothingly tell them a story from memory. Instead the movie is contextualized in political feces before it's even released.
hanikrummihundursvin
3mo ago
Another example of 'rationalism' and related isms, just being conflict aversion.
If you hide your preferences behind an 'is' you've rhetorically/aesthetically removed yourself as a motivated actor. You're simply a 'rational' being doing 'what makes sense'.
It would be permissible to excuse certain actions and beliefs on the basis of objective reality. And we certainly shouldn't believe things that are false. But the inexplicable predicament many 'rationalists' have to contend with is that their view of objective reality somehow manages to conform itself precisely within the lines of the mainstream Overton Window. Often rubbing shoulders with the more left leaning parts of it. It betrays their alleged pursuit of truth and reason as little other than social conformity. Furthermore, their seeming inability to notice this and question in an endless ocean of articles and blogs paints them and their social networks as, at best, childishly ignorant of their own motivations.
A thing: If Bezos is on a lot of gear it might be messing with his libido/sexuality.
A more likely thing: That woman is a turn on in more ways than just physical. Maybe smart, confident and sexually aggressive. On top of that she is probably motivated to keep her man.
To that extent it shouldn't be a wonder a 'feminist' of sorts wouldn't like her. Similar to how Amy Coney Barrett is disliked by many feminists, despite being a power feminist wet dream. Lauren Sanchez might just be a go-getter who doesn't care about what the patriarchy tells her and instead does what she wants.
It's kind of funny. Two women expose the lived experience of most feminists as kind of pathetic and their ire against the 'system' as rather fraudulent. Apparently some women can have it all. So why don't you?
I'd be interested in knowing if there is some feminist literature out there on this topic. Inequality between women is a subject usually broached through terms of class and race, but barring that, most of the stuff I can find reads more like a lot of cope. To take a maximally aggressive angle: Why should the women who win at life pay heed to the women who lose? And why should anyone take the advice of the women who are by comparison losers?
A part of the upheaval of Andrew Tate was the fact that he wasn't a 'loser' whilst doling out MGTOW/incel talking points. Does he have a female counterpart somewhere on the internet?
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
Musk representing himself as a powerful man is a break with the conventional institutional 'representatives'
The strength of the 'institutional representation' system is how intangible it is. Lies get woven into 'official' reports that get represented as fact based on 'scientific consensus' by completely replaceable 'spokespeople'. And when someone seeks to fact check these representatives and what they say they are met with the rhetorical equivalent of cold hard brutalist concrete: "Are you saying science is wrong? Do you not believe our intelligence communities? Are you anti-intellectual? Do you not believe in physics?!"
To this extent academia and media are just PR firms that wash dirt off of policy positions for the people in power. Like immigration being fantastic and without any flaws. Or that we can't share one last moment with grandma on the hospital bed due to risk of spreading COVID, but that we can protest against racial inequality by joining a giant street protest, rubbing shoulders with hundreds if not thousands of random people.
So, in fairness to Musk being incorrect sometimes: So to was the prior system sometimes incorrect! And just how incorrect it got and how impossible it was to fact check is practically why we have Musk where he is now.
I'm not sure what Hanania is after here, other than whining about the fact that X doesn't boost his posts when he links to his substack and that he wasn't picked up to be involved with any of Musks projects. Or that mass media has allowed people Hanania considers lesser than himself to reach heights of clout and upvotes he can only dream of... All things directly or indirectly mentioned in the article. To that extent the entire thing is just an embarrassing pout from the author. I mean:
The right-wing clubhouse Musk has created is just repulsive to anyone who is independently minded. I wasn’t surprised when Musk unfollowed me...
Yeah... At risk of breaking the rules: lol. lmao even.
A first impression: If we take a lot of leftist dogma as being true and discard obvious analogs to reality and claim they might be inaccurate, then we might just be able to explain why our ideology is seemingly not mapping on to the world around us.
Now queue the arguments through analogy, 'what if's' about reality, and a mountain of research motivated entirely by a need to collapse all genetic gravity into a neat environmentalist fold.
Scott Alexander seems to have a good eye for strategy. The article is effectively just an advertisement for a few plucky anti-hereditarian rebels who want to expose the fatal flaw of the hereditarian Death Star. Scott speaks highly of the effort, but obviously signals that he is going to wait until the rebels actually fire a torpedo into the thing. And there in lies the problem for the rebels.
For every alleged fatal flaw exhaust shaft that the hereditarian Death Star has, environmentalism has less than nothing. Every proposed theory has failed to explain the big problems. So... What's the point? What exactly are we doing here?
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
2mo ago
I think, respectfully, that the time to take a principled stance against online crowdfunding was what, 10 years ago? The cat seems very much out of the bag on that one...
On top of that, this event as a whole, as @corman puts it, is part of an ongoing conflict. With a whole host of new technologies. For instance, having a camera shoved into your face by a brown person isn't as much of a neutral event as your child getting sick and dying. It's a deliberate act of hostility fueled and maintained by other people. Fighting against that is not the same as fighting against, say, cancer.
I don't think there is a conflict averse highroad for people to take here. The causal chain that drives white people towards group solidarity is initiated by hostile actors. White people organizing and rebelling against these emergent aggressors and using whatever tools they have at their disposal is noble, just and good. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to justify why and through what mechanism white people should fight against this unjust circumstance as an alternative.
Ambivalence is not a morally neutral act.
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
Dysfunctional social policies cause/exasperate problems.
Problems are incompetently addressed with system bloat.
System bloat starts weighing the functional parts of society down.
Functional society members want bloat cut down.
Dysfunctional social policy advocates say system bloat cannot be cut down, citing: Who will address the problems?
The correct way to contextualize this predicament is through hate and sympathetic horror. Government waste is just a symptom.
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
3mo ago
All too often 'systems' in practice get excused by idealism. POSIWID works as a shorthand to cut through that idealism.
Scott seems to be coming at this from some critical angle and I'm not entirely sure what the point of it is. You can wordplay anything into absurdity and uselessness.
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
The problem with this is that there is a very clear record of condemning people for their thought crimes on this exact basis.
You can't kick a non-white person and call them a slur without making the attack racially motivated.
You can't create a right wing political movement whilst owning ethno-based political material without being labeled a neo nazi terrorist organization.
By the very same token, you can't stab children in the face whilst owning an Al Qaeda training manual without being labeled a muslim terrorist.
You're describing what you want, not how to get there. That's the fundamental difference between engaging with reality and not.
If colleges judge black people on their individual merit you will lose the vast majority of black enrollment overnight. Black people and many others will resent this. Black people and many others will organize based on their race and advocate as a group block for their group interest. This political movement will dominate politics. Call it 'Civil Rights Reloded'.
To fight this you would have to purge academia and nigh every single popular base of mass media in actions that make the Trump of today pale in comparison. That's the reality we're getting at.
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.
There is a double edge to the nihilistic view on race that whites are allowed to have. That being as soon as someone flips the narrative on its head, you are greeted with all the same nihilistic arguments facing any other ethnic group. Best exemplified in the 90's era rhetoric of 'everyone is racist'. It deflates the whole victimary discourse and drives it towards whatever pit of nihilism awaits it. Further than that, if you set up teams, it's only a matter of time before someone starts to genuinely root for theirs, even if it's the designated bad team.
People against European-white ethnocentrism, like Jordan Peterson, saw this coming a mile away and have spoken about the dangers of invoking any sort of ethnic identity for European-whites. Instead preaching the universalist individualism stuff.
There are multiple reasons for doing this if you are against positive white identity in general. The most obvious being that if you ever lose the reigns on that particular horse you might not get it back. Even if it's all supposed to be negative, you might end up with an institutional structure where the power ladder you have to climb drives you towards ethnocentric action in favor of whites. It might seem impossible today, but give it a generation or two and you have no idea what priors the youngest generation has.
On top of that, having white people not think about themselves in collective terms is simply better. You can just tell whites to not commit to any rational group action and they wont. They will seemingly buy into any individualist ethos regardless of how obviously stupid and suicidal it is. Just wrap it up in some novelty and have it appeal to their vanity and off they go. There is no risk there. Comparatively, even with a negative identity, there is always risk that some pathological nerve gets struck one too many times which, as mentioned prior, can easily spread. I'm worthless? We are all worthless. You are worthless.
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.
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.
To you and @Raziel, who commented below, I can only ask: What rigor? Who are these experts and what has been the outcome of their advocacy?
From where I am sitting, the 'experts' of the western world have for the past decades managed to run the most peaceful and technologically advanced societies in human history into the ground. Why look at anything they have done with veneration?
And even then we are presupposing that 'rigor' has ever been a relevant thing at all beyond an aesthetic preference where people with power modulate academia and media towards their own wants.
The problem for Douglas with the DR is that he spent years doing talks and debates against mass immigration and anti-western thought where he based his whole rhetoric around the fact that, ultimately, 'we killed Hitler'.
When the foundation for that is questioned and the roles of good and bad are muddled or ignored, Doug has to respond.
It's a hallmark of what I would call, in the spirit of our new term; the faux Right. Every pontification towards what is good for Europeans has to be grounded in some form of bargain of what is 'fair'. And what determines fairness is generally just progressive morality from 10-20 years ago.
Glad you posted this one. I wanted to discuss it as well in conjunction with a different post written by Foster, but the OP was lengthy enough as is.
This reply is very PUA or maybe more classically 'RedPill' adjacent. Which I found surprising considering the crowd one might expect to find following a pastor. But reading more of Pastor Fosters work, it looks to fit right in.
There seems to be an odd synergy of old /r/TheRedPill type dating advice woven into the otherwise traditionalist presenting pastor. As seen here.
The post goes over things like abundance mentality, 'sarging' to get over rejection, not being needy, friendzoning women and getting them talking, he even goes into text game... And every piece of advice there is underlined with verses from the Bible.
Whilst modern problems sometimes require modern solutions, this endeavor is certainly not coming from Biblical or 'traditional' channels, as far as I know. Foster seems to stumble into this fact when replying to a negative comment:
With your PS statement in mind, I'll say this:
Improving yourself has shown that 1) women bring very little, if anything, good to the table, 2) women do not improve, as they are raised to believe they're perfect from a very young age, and 3) the risk is not worth the reward
Foster replies:
This is really a loser mindset that rejects basic statements in Scripture.
What follows is a deluge of comments from negative posters dancing around the fact that the modern American Christian woman and the dating market as a whole are not exactly in line with Biblical norms.
On one hand I am sympathetic to Fosters position. There seem to be a lot of negative posters who, I suspect, might not be very representative of the people Foster is trying to reach. Anonymous X accounts can be anyone. On the other hand, this is an indirect participation in a long debate regarding the gender wars. As such, one would hope that people like Foster would have a more holistic approach to the issue at hand. That issue being that we are not just dealing with people who want to engage with the opposite sex but don't know how. But people who seemingly do not want to engage with the opposite sex or view it adversarially. Throwing the Bible at them might not be a solution with a very wide audience.
To underline that point I'd remind those who missed it that RedPill and PUA dating advice was looked upon with great scorn back in the day. The assertions against it being that it was explicitly and implicitly misogynistic. And to an extent I would have to agree. Though maybe for the wrong reasons:
The pastor is warning the young male sheep of his flock that the potential love of their life might simply reject them and their potential lifelong union because he, in his infatuation, posts cringe texts...
There is some disconnect here between the Bible and RedPill/PUA philosophy, at some level. Even if I'm not quite smart enough to articulate it.
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
If anything Trump is doing now is giving you pause, what kind of America do you envision where you do not feel similarly towards whatever person it is that could push forth some kind of HBD driven policy? How would anything going on now not pale in comparison to that?
One of the reasons I assume centrists are not dealing with reality is because they never formulate their viewpoint into a political movement. Even if it's just an online larp on X. It never goes further than personal opinions and browbeating their left and right sides within the Overton Window.
I don't think it's a coincidence that when they actually do go into real politics, like Carl Benjamin did a few years ago, that they end up moving towards firmer ground, be that on the left, or in this case the right. Same thing happens all the time in countries with multi-party systems. The big 'left and right' parties scoop new 'not on a side' political parties up into government coalitions, they serve that sides interest and then implode next election. Or, like happened recently with my local Pirate Party, they refuse coalitions and instead slowly drift towards the left until there's no point in having them, and then they implode.
I can go on 'lefty twitter' and see what the various factions on the left are up to, same for the right. Both groups have animating theories for how the world works and what is best to do based on that. They can have fundamental differences with each other about what the world around them actually is. They stake their claims, dig their heels in and stand for something. I can't go on 'centrist twitter' and see what the propositions are from their side. What is their view on the fundamental problems and what answers do they hold? Moderate re-education camps? Racism 0.5?
At the heart of the left-right divide is a fundamental difference in how people see reality. There is also a shared understanding of the inherent necessitated logic that drives both theories. Both parties recognize this. 'Centrists', for the most part, do not. Which is why they seem endlessly bewildered why the two sides are so hostile to them.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
Wealthy leftists are an easy scapegoat. In reality all they are doing is the same thing everyone else is doing. Existing within the Overton Window and not pushing the boundaries beyond their own comfort zones.
You can see the same effect in play whenever the police accidentally a black person. Or when someone brings up black/white sentencing disparities. People who would otherwise be in favor of harsh punishments for crimes and a stricter and stronger police force immediately fold. The institutions that desperately need support are abandoned in favor of short term emotional stimuli. Being on the 'right side' of discourse. Not falling into an 'extreme'. Not wanting to burden themselves with any of the cost of the harsh policies they otherwise say they support. Because people really do not want to live with the consequences of their ideology. Leftist or otherwise.
In turn we get George Floyd riots and Disparate Impact legal theory. Unsafe streets and people OD'ing on the sidewalk. An increase in physical suffering and pain. More neglected and dead children. This could have been prevented but people choose comfort and short term happiness over harsh reality. This is history repeating itself and a few chickens coming home to roost. This is not because of white leftists. And there are very few people here that don't themselves deserve whatever it is they wish on the white leftists.
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.
I came across an interesting X post by a right wing Christian religious man on the topic of young people and dating and would like to share:
The replies to the post range from supportive and understanding to hostile. One that caught my eye said:
I like this reply since it has a little edge to it, but I am left wondering, to what extent does empathizing with young men just translate to validating their crippling anxiety and fear over interacting with the opposite sex? Does that do them any good? To me a lot of the replies about fear of getting 'cancelled' just seem like an overblown and hyperbolic expression of that anxiety and fear. The real question should be why that anxiety and fear exist in the first place. And to what extent the responsibility to overcome it rests on young men rather than someone else.
More options
Context Copy link