hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
Most content is not so compelling that I am willing to pay for it compared to all the other content that is out there and free.
Beyond that, getting an adblock is not a lot of hoops in my mind. If I cared a lot for my time I would not want to waste any of it on an ad. Or waste any of it by paying for something I don't have to. Given I had to spend time to get money in the first place.
hanikrummihundursvin
4d ago
In defense of all who came after Buchanan, they are only where they are because of his failures.
hanikrummihundursvin
5d ago
The right wing is sailing through an interesting storm at the moment.
On one hand you have a very public clash between the donor class and the pundit class on the topic of Israel. Where the donor class seems to have lost control over a portion of the latter. How or why is not necessarily clear but it seems like the long awaited beacon of solace that can deliver the USA from ZOG is finally lit. It took a decade or so longer than the earliest prophets would have hoped, but the internet is finally facilitating a mainstream zionist critical stance through some of the biggest right wing pundits in cyberspace. Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Nick Fuentes.
On the donor side, we still have Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham on FOX standing strong in televised media. With Mark Levin allegedly making a case for himself on the radio waves. Along with Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire. But all of these voices are far less impressive when it comes to internet reach. Whilst Shapiro does have a strong base and a large Youtube channel, the internet presence of every mentioned donor class pundit, along with the entirety of Daily Wire, fits snugly within Candace's Owens reach alone when it comes to active internet views. Which would be inconsequential if not for the fact that the youth of the republican party is not listening to radio or watching TV. They are on the internet.
It's worth noting that there are large portions of the right wing media sphere that are completely divorced from this discourse. Choosing to simply sail past it. To that extent it might be a step to far to say the right coalition or media sphere is crumbling. But judging by how things are developing, the topic of Israel is fast becoming something to avoid. Why risk saying something wrong on such a polarized topic and risk the ire of the youth mob or the zionist mob? Just keep your head down and talk about the loony left or the government shutdown.
There are plenty of online right wingers with large followings who are doing just that. What will be interesting is to see how much cross contamination there is between those shows and the zionist critical ones. But to that extent, any expressed support for Israel is effectively a step towards a landmine that risks blowing the discourse up again. This puts neutral pundits in an awkward position. What good are they to the donor class if they can't voice support for their cause? But on the flipside, what good are they to the donor class if they fracture and lose their own audience?
I doubt we will see any resolution soon. Barring any major blunders from the zionist critical side, which is not that unlikely all things considered. But it's hard to imagine that this won't leave a lasting mark on right wing politics. There is an entire right wing generation on the way that simply doesn't fit within the traditional GOP mold. And it's the one demographic they would have dared to rely on. Whether that will have a transcendental effect, or if the future political landscape of the US will be too alien to have it make a difference...
American politics is so much fun. I have a hard time believing it's real.
hanikrummihundursvin
7d ago
I was under the impression that 'the left' was coming off an election win high. Can they not just continue to do what they are doing and win over and over again as right wing policies like 'legal immigration' hand them victories like in NY?
hanikrummihundursvin
7d ago
Unless you have a large enough mountain range and/or jungle. In which case you win. On the flipside, it's hard to say if there have been many successful wars waged without patriotism.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
Demonstrating bias in this context is very hard. For the most part the emotional resonance one picks up from weeks or months of accepting information from a biased source is hardly if ever a culmination of a singular aspect of that information. It's also the lack of information regarding some things, differential treatment of otherwise similar events, or the opposite. It generally tumbles along until your gut tells you that something is wrong. But by that point you're months deep into the information stream. Where it's practically impossible to do a comparison since you could not know that the source was biased or in what way.
To that extent this revelation is just a handy receipt of what everyone with a brain already knew, but could not confidently assert. To my mind a much more obvious example was the 3 day hesitation period after the Pakistani rape scandal was published about in British newspapers.
That hesitation period was very reminiscent of Swedish news publishing at the time, that centered around minimizing negative backlash against migrant crime. Which in and of itself was based on a theory that if migrants could be accepted and integrated into Swedish society, the true social cause of the crimes would be dealt with. In contrast, news publishing that stoked negativity towards migrants would only hinder integration and acceptance. I always liked that theory and its practical application as it demonstrated just how insane the progressive/neo-liberal economic project is in practice, and how inhumane and sadistic the necessary policies to sustain it are.
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
You are making the maximally antagonistic accusations against people to maintain an argument. That just doesn't track with me when I try to relate this to actual people. I'm not under the impression that every man or woman is perfect. No system fits all. But when we are doing a compare and contrast with the goal of finding a solution to an existential problem you have to give some form of answer that doesn't just amount to 'boo outgroup'.
If you think modern Korea is trad or that Poland isn't socially liberal, or that the TFR of Poland is in any relevant way worse than Sweden or France after accounting for immigration, you need to recalibrate.
Yes. "Traditional gender roles suck and are outdated. Stop enforcing them."
How will the rejection of traditional gender roles impact warfare in a way that reduces the need for cannon fodder? Won't the nations that maintain a strong army just get ever stronger if other nations strip away their military capabilities? Isn't that partially why Russia could invade Ukraine? I don't see how this can maintain itself.
At the very least, if you claim to value women, treat them adults with an equal say rather than some cross between property and a child you can fuck.
Is that not how all these modern problems are happening? Is that now why we are looking towards a future where there are less native men and women in general? My proposition would be that if these are the results we are getting from the answers men and women are giving to their modern predicament, we must be asking the wrong questions.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
Men had prior to the sexual revolution tried to maintain systems of chastity and monogamy for the past few thousand years or so. Being marginally successful at the same time they marginalized women enough to keep the system going. Then, correlating with a rise in women's empowerment and finally culminating at a time of unprecedented power of women, during the 1960's, it all officially went tits up. And you say that this happened because men just wanted casual sex. But I'd ask: When did they not want casual sex?
The traditional system worked by restricting access to sex in any way it could. These systems were explicitly weakened and torn down by women. That's what women empowerment is practically defined as. One could agree it's not just the women. There were venomous actors involved in the process as well. But I don't see how women escape culpability here, given the only systems shown to work rely on constricting women and access to them in some way, and the history of the modern women is proudly defined as the revolt and destruction of these systems.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
To make another observation on top of that, you only ever see the kind of observation you are making in a vacuum that doesn't also factor in that men have a lot of duties in a more traditional system. The accusation that the "gender-role conservatives" would be quick to reject traditional masculine obligations seems quaint given that we have historical and modern examples of men being put to that test. Sure, some run, but most accept their place in the meatgrinder of whatever war being foisted on them.
Do the detractors of "gender-role conservatives" offer any argument in relation to this fact? Should the women of Ukraine be obligated to have children in the name of their society after a sizeable enough percentage of men have proven their mettle as cannon fodder? Or are the womenfolk free from any costly duty to society regardless of anything?
One can easily agree that there are a great many ailments afflicting all sorts of people making arguments over the internet. What I don't see is how in a broader context, one can look at the modern setup of alleged male and female freedom and the demonstrably disastrous consequences and say that this is fine. It's obviously not fine. So what should the "gender-role conservatives" be saying?
hanikrummihundursvin
19d ago
Reading the interview, the interviewer was on a warpath. KJP seems to have stepped outside the party line with her book and now she needs to be brought to heel or pushed aside. Lines like this from the interviewer:
You’re talking about Biden like loyalty was owed to him. Isn’t loyalty owed to the country?
Wow, what a shitball of a question.
This comes after KJP maintains that the Democrats had no idea if they had a better candidate than Biden. Which has to be considered at least somewhat true. So points to her for that.
Outside of that, it's rather obvious KJP is carrying water for Biden. But to what end? Is he not out of politics? The earnest defense of his honor, whilst admirable, is a political dead end. Suicide, even. She's a fish out of water and the interviewer is hammering on that fact again and again. To a point where it obvious, which KJP picks up on at the end of the interview:
KJP: When I talk about the broken White House in the subtitle, I’m talking about the Trump White House. So what are the Democratic leadership actually doing to beat back and fight back? What are they doing?
IW: I’m not here to answer for the Democratic leadership. I would—
KJP: You’ve been answering for the Democratic leadership. [Laughs.] You were giving me their answers.
I think these final lines sum up the interview quite well. A politically daft operator and a democrat establishment shill embarrassing one another. Sure, KJP was floundering throughout the interview, and I'm sure the book seemed incoherent to those who feel which way the winds blowing politically, but getting caught off guard by a political hitman in a hostile interview can happen to anyone.
To steelman KJP: Running with Biden through the election and then benching him and getting Kamala in as VP was probably the best choice given they did not have a better candidate than Kamala. My guess is that the people behind the scenes got greedy, pushed Biden aside and went with Kamala to their detriment. To that extent, KJP defending the honor of Biden is just as much a political dead end as the interviewers defense of the current democrat establishment. Two political losers fighting over lost scraps.
hanikrummihundursvin
25d ago
At that point it's all incentives and the term becomes meaningless in describing peoples motives. Since by the same token you can say that an honor system incentivizes revenge killings or that a modern Scandinavian system incentivizes crime by being too lax with punishments whilst also doing the opposite. It collapses reality into a system based thinking that makes no sense and has no predictive power since it takes no account of what people are thinking or doing on their own terms.
hanikrummihundursvin
26d ago
The standard of old law in Iceland had little to do with incentive structures. It was an honor based system. People will feud. Legal recourse was there to end feuds in a way that maintained both parties honor. If you killed someone without a representable cause the law had no leverage to assert over the representatives of the victim, they could kill the would be murderer if they had the means. You would be much more likely to see legal pressure put on both parties after the revenge had occurred so that the feud could end. And that's not counting for family relations and politics that would play a big part in the process.
hanikrummihundursvin
29d ago
Things have been moving fast for the past two decades, that doesn't mean everything has happened.
In either case it's besides the point. The emotional weakspot of breastfeeding is obvious in this context. Not wanting to make those who can't breastfeed feel bad is exactly the type of thing that skews the lib/left/progressive academia to churn out bad research.
This theory, similar to the latest Matrix movie, describes a sort of rebellion of the artist against the industry, medium and ultimately the audience. Like a band that is tired of playing their hit song again and again so they instead smash their instruments to close out the show.
To me it's always felt petty, childish and self absorbed. A critique I'd levy against many modern artists. Worse yet, it implies that the artist is above the audience. That they know how to make something great, but are choosing not to. Which is simply not true.
The proposition that the Wachowskis could make another thought provoking Matrix movie is unfounded. The proposition that Rian Johnson could make a great Star Wars movie is unfounded. If either had teased that they could deliver exactly the kind of experience everyone wanted, but instead took it all away at the end, then they would at least have the merit to call themselves trolls. But they could not muster even that. Worse yet, neither managed to rebel at all against the industry that owns them.
The Wachowskis were goaded into making another subpar action flick that could make Warner Brothers some money. Rian Johnson tried to sour the new to protect the old, but all we get is an endless stream of crap so bad the old gets stained with it anyway. Rian intentionally making a bad movie changed nothing, he just got the 'sub par directors makes shitty Star Wars slop' party started early.
This type of endeavor is perfectly described here.
In an age of mediocre slop and mass produced thoughtless timewasting, the rebellion is making something good, deep, pure and thoughtful. But Rian can't do that. Maybe he lacks the talent, maybe he was constrained by the industry, or maybe the mass audience is simply too fractured, deracinated and mentally fried to ever be reached with a meaningful message, or maybe it's something else. In any case, as an artist in a world of slop, Rian isn't above anything or anyone so long as he participates.
More options
Context Copy link