hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
5hr ago
South Africa also included a lot of things Israel is doing, hence why both are apartheid.
The international law that is being violated when Israel has been occupying a people for 60 years is clearly one of the bad ones. People obviously don't refer to it as a benign thing. The fact that you think that many other people imagine that violations of international law regarding a conflict zone are of zero moral weight is, pardon the term, delusional. Especially considering how known and unpopular Israel is in this conflict.
I don't see why 'unjust' would be more descriptive than 'apartheid' or 'illegal occupation'. In fact it sounds exactly the opposite. The other two are more descriptive in what exactly is being done that is unjust.
Well, it is for me.
Then you're just wrong.
hanikrummihundursvin
22hr ago
I'm not a big fan of this shoot. That being said, if someone is resisting so persistently and they do have a knife then I think the theoretical line to justify the shoot has been crossed.
What makes this look bad is that the guy seemed incapacitated right before the shooting. Almost as if the officer was using the opportunity given by the taser to pull out his gun and shoot. So the officer could plausibly have done something different to save that mans life. But at the same time I think it's a hard sell to tell anyone to get in a wrestling match with someone armed with a knife.
So all in all, knife accounted for, I'm not sure the cops could have done much to make themselves look good given they seemed incapable of apprehending the suspect without risking their lives to an extent which would, in my view, be hard to justify. Maybe if they had collectively been in better shape?
hanikrummihundursvin
23hr ago
Right, I should add judges and lawyers.
"in the interests of justice"
I don't know to what extent one is allowed to fed-post anymore, it's been a while. But... Why do Americans have guns?
The same thought occurs when the British folk are getting wrangled through their activist court system. But they don't have guns or if they do they certainly lack the bravado of the online American that would like to maintain that things like grooming gangs could never happen on his watch. Despite very similar things already being a thing, like Aurora Avenue in Seattle.
But even then, how on earth can these judges get away with this stuff? The injustice is just off the charts
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
You claim that there is a public will that exists independent of the liberal moral order. When we look at time periods before that moral order was established people were more in favor of segregation than not. Forget about mass immigration of brown people, such a thing was just unthinkable.
The US under the 1924 Immigration Act, which lasted until Hart-Celler, was just as much an ethnostate as modern Azerbaijan is in practice. Even more explicitly so when accounting for Jim Crow laws. It's not until after the Liberal Moral Order starts asserting itself that you get the 'will of the people' you allude to.
The Hart-Celler act was presented as a minimal update of sorts. One of the first big lies of the LMO. To quote LBJ:
"The days of unlimited immigration are past."
And to further the point of Dual Morality as exemplified by some jewish people, Emanuel Celler fought his entire life to expand immigration into America. Despite being an ideological zionist.
The LMO is not a coincidental thing that dropped from the sky. It was an ideological push that modulated the views of the public through distortion of fact and outright lies. The people who pushed it had views and opinions. Many of the ones who were jewish had separate opinions for the US and for Israel.
You keep saying every country should have the right, but if you don't deal with the actual moral premise that precludes that. To highlight this:
If it is a given that White America does not benefit from the majority of the black population in America, would you consider it amoral and perfectly within White America's right to distance themselves from the broader portion of the black population just like Israel distances itself from the Palestinian one? Proportionally, discounting Oct.7, around 600 white Americans are killed compared to 20-30 Israelis by Palestinians annually. Assuming the US white population is roughly 20 times the size of Israel, living with black Americans is roughly as deadly as the current state of the Israel Palestine conflict is for Israelis.
What should the broader European and white American world feel like? Is your assessment of the current state of affairs that it is good for them? The endless immigration, constant self flagellation, and everything else that the LMO dictates. Do you feel that the current state of affairs should continue or should white Americans feel differently? Should they not take the maximal self benefitting position, as you prescribe to the Israeli's, and do you support them even if they started engaging in the same tactics Israel engages in regarding how they've been handling the Palestinians.
And please, don't dip into the LMO again when answering these.
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
The distinction I was driving at is not whether you consider apartheid SA illegal, but whether considered it apartheid and referred to it as such.
But besides that, what meaning does the term 'unjust' have if we don't mean to eradicate that which is 'unjust'? How is this functionally any different from calling something a different word that conveys the same meaning; that the thing is bad and has to change? Is there any reason you would prefer referring to Israel as the unjust state of Israel rather than calling it apartheid or that its illegally occupying Palestinians?
You not seeing any place is not equivocal to there not being any place, as far as I'm concerned.
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
It's not a question about what the public wants. The moral order is dictated to the people and then the people vote for the speed by which the moral order will be implemented. Your object level analysis is just inaccurate and perfectly illustrates this.
If we broach the factual terms, such as the reality that the first immigration law signed in the US limited immigration to white men of good character, that's never been relevant to a modern liberal. Or the Hart-Celler act. Under your conception, the US was a white ethnostate until that point in the 1960's. Or how the majority of Americans have supported segregation or worse for longer than they have not. Modern liberalism just paves over that with propaganda about a nation of immigrants and an entire genre of diversity propaganda. And you're just blatantly dipping into that modern liberal framework when it's convenient.
But that's exactly the thing, that framework is universalist and totalitarian. It applies to all. So when a person like you or Adam try to carve out an exception that contradicts that entire framework on the basis that the survival of a specific ethnic group is actually super important, and they can't coexist with any other ethnic groups because those ethnic groups are unchanging in their hatred of them, then yes, I do wonder if this is not just the Dual Morality that's alleged to afflict many diaspora jews rearing its head yet again. What even else do you call this sort of thing?
Because it turns out that when the shoe is on the other foot and they are dealing with other members of their group in their homeland, they prefer the same thing I prefer for my group in mine. Even though that's what I've been told all my life is really bad and evil. They want segregation, all of a sudden, rather than to rely on the fundamental moral good of all people. It doesn't make any sense.
The case for open societies was never made on a case by case basis. It's an absolute and complete moralizing ideology. Saying that you believe in it for one case and not another doesn't work.
There's no explanation given by you or anyone else for this. You're just not supposed to notice.
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
If I'm clearly angry it's because you're not interacting with the topic on the level ideological priors that drive beliefs or tactfully sidestepping the factual points that don't line up for you. I don't buy the sudden 'ethnostates are OK, actually' now that the topic is Israel. Or the idea that, coincidentally, ethnostates have just happened to be bad idea up until this specific point. Or the idea that, just now, we're going to walk away from all the moral priors of the liberal world, including the belief that populations can change in their belief and behavior.
If that doesn't apply to you, and you're here as a non-biased rational actor who just judges things on thing at a time, with no moral code or overarching ideological view, fine. But I genuinely don't believe you at all. I think that if I bothered to walk through your comments I'd find a moral quandary where your disposition is the polar opposite to what it is in this case.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
The case you are making for Israel is the case every neo-nazi has made for their own country. All of your assertions derive from illiberal worldview that is directly tied to the modern conception of neo-nazism. The idea of ethnostates as a coherent concept in the first place is going over the line, let alone that they could ever be good.
I do not blame Jews (or members of any group) for not wanting to go extinct. No group has an obligation to embrace its own obliteration.
You're not engaging with the contention. We can agree between the two of us to any illiberal view on the world for the preservation of our peoples and whatever else, but what's the relevance of that to the discourse relating to the reigning powers that be who are liberal and don't agree with us at all? Who'd denigrate the very idea that there are coherent and exclusive groups in the first place outside of the conception that the one that is better off should help the one whose worse off.
I don't think Israel is unique in being or wanting to be an ethno-state, and there are plenty of comparable nations.
I already explained why this line of thinking is invalid. Ethnostates can only be alleged to be common as a result of history and circumstance. But nigh every first world nation, including Japan, is transforming away from that. That is the direction of modern liberalism. Israel is unique in that it's demanding a different direction for itself for profoundly illiberal neo-nazi reasons.
To highlight this further with your example of Azerbaijan, if Azerbaijan was becoming an economic powerhouse, with opportunity that would make the life of foreign immigrants better, would they or would they not be obligated to open their borders to immigration under liberal priors? I'll repost them here:
There is only one race, the human race. We are all inherently good, of equal worth, moral character and our faults are only a product of environmental circumstance. Openness and trust good, prejudice bad. We can all learn and better ourselves if given the chance and resources. Immigration is a universal good. Economically, culturally, morally and to the exclusion of any preservative conception of an ancestral or genetic ethnic identity. It's a moral duty to improve the conditions of others to help elevate them to the privileged point you coincidentally occupy today and any conception of your ancestral lineage or future progeny or majoritarian ingroup bias that exists to the exclusion or detriment of others is the greatest moral evil in existence.
Which one of these do you disagree with? What do liberals call people who disagree with their core values? Who do you think you are to them?
The Palestinians and Israelis can make peace and if the neo-nazi conception of Israel has to perish for that peace to happen liberals have no reason to care. It's a process that's already ongoing in the west. Why shouldn't it happen to Israel?
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
It's a universal principle for men that they don't like women of their perceived ingroup mixing with men of the outgroup. And whilst I appreciate having a black American taking the time to center another universal issue around their own identity, having a black penis does not, in fact, prevent one from feeling anxiety and insecurities over the outgroup taking ones women. Like the many 'bedwench' posts left by black men under otherwise happy mixed race couples on instagram demonstrate.
The dialectic surrounding outgroup competition for women between men has been had. No race of man wants to dig into whose hoes are the least loyal, actually. There are enough of them to go around. And ultimately, no one really wins by fretting about where other people manage to find love.
That doesn't change the biological fact that endlessly mixing populations together will ultimately and irreversibly change them. Which is why an other wise liberal democrat was making the ethnonationalist case for a population he actually cares about preserving.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
Related to this topic: Rotten Tomatoes manipulating review scores.
There's now a website account for the change the website made in around 2019, where it started weighing the scores towards ticket buyers through a phone app.
Odyssey was heavily featured as having a 97% Audience score on RT, but a 60% score when adjusted for the 2019 changes. More specific info can be found in the 'More Info' tab.
It's kind of crazy to me that this is spawned from /r/KotakuInAction . Old dogs continue to bark.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
If these words are not to be used to convey the meaning of the unfair treatment that is alleged, I'd assume you do not apply it to South Africa, or even dignify words like pogroms?
The object level is that Palestinians are the world leader in child amputees. To that extent it would certainly seem correct to state that apartheid or violations of international law regarding occupation fall short of describing the inhumanity of Israel's terror campaign.
As for where the new Israel should be placed, I don't know. But I do know that between the many billionaire zionists, resourceful population of Israel and the international community, especially counting America, could find a universally beneficial solution if the subject was approached seriously.
hanikrummihundursvin
3d ago
I'm just sneering for the love of the game.
'My fellow whites' is morphing into 'My fellow neo-nazis? Well, as a fellow neo-nazi, Of course he is right. I would welcome this brother with open arms into the pan-nationalist fold. As anything else? No, he's actually wrong in the most racist way possible. It's a declaration of war against modern liberal societies and their moral identity.
The ideological priors that underpin that identity are very robust and ubiquitous in western societies, from being taught in elementary schools to being depicted in pop media. There is only one race, the human race. We are all inherently good, of equal worth, moral character and our faults are only a product of environmental circumstance. Openness and trust good, prejudice bad. We can all learn and better ourselves if given the chance and resources. Immigration is advertised as a universal good. Economically, culturally, morally and to the exclusion of any preservative conception of an ancestral or genetic ethnic identity. It's actually a moral duty to improve the conditions of others to help elevate them to the privileged point you coincidentally occupy today and any conception of your ancestral lineage or future progeny or majoritarian ingroup bias that exists to the exclusion of others is the greatest moral evil in existence.
The people saying, "Why can't you just all be one state together with equal rights regardless of faith or ethnicity?" are either being disingenuous or stupid. It is obvious to anybody looking at the situation honestly why that cannot work.
'Anyone who doesn't functionally grasp and agree with the principles of Neo-Nazism is disingenuous or stupid'? Apologies if I'm misinterpreting this and you are saying modern liberalism is 'working' for the west. But regardless of that I don't remember anyone proclaiming modern liberalism needs to work to the benefit of ethnocentric jews in particular. We all have to share this earth. Palestinians and jews included.
Sure, it sucks jews are a global minority and will definitely go extinct under this paradigm, but that's the case for most peoples. We will all end up beige.
Israel is different to the United States in being an ethno-state, but ethno-states are common. The US is the weird one, not Israel.
We generally accept that democracy is good. Stating that non-Japanese people would be incapable of participating in it in Japan without destroying it for the Japanese is the most illiberal and racist thing I've heard in years.
Ethno-states can only be alleged to be common as a result of history and circumstance. But nigh every first world nation, including Japan, is transforming away from that. That is the direction of modern liberalism. Israel is unique in that it's demanding a different direction for itself for profoundly illiberal neo-nazi reasons.
Under no modern liberal definition is the direct continuation of distinct ethnic groups genetic lineage necessary. Jeet and Muhammed can be trusted to carry out your traditions just fine.
Palestinians are not like that
This is just low brow racism. If you can teach them to hate you can teach them to love. Israel needs to open its borders, but most necessarily Israelis need to open their hearts.
How will we make that happen? As the morally good, we will implement desegregation and forcibly integrate the schools at gun point if need be. You will also share prisons overcrowded with Palestinians who will rape and torture you to death because it makes them feel happy but we won't make a big deal out of it or change anything because segregation and apartheid is the greater moral evil.
We will create media that promotes ethnic grievance directed against you to remind everyone of your physical and moral crimes. We will make media about how morally good and righteous Palestinians are. We will make media about how Palestinian men and jewish women are romantically made for one another. We will make vague pseudo-scientific genetic arguments about hybrid vigor and how mixed babies are superior. We will make pornography specifically depicting the act of copulation between the two ethnic groups and make it de facto accessible to children.
We will be lenient on Palestinian criminals who rape jewish women and children and outlaw media that tries to highlight or speak against this. And we will at every turn promote the idea that this is morally good, brag about the fact that we've done this and proclaim that any jew who thinks otherwise is a malignant tumor besieging society that must be ostracized, forcibly reeducated or otherwise destroyed. It's also actually a mental illness to believe any of this is happening, or that it's bad, planned or that you don't deserve it.
You fail the liberal test. Ms. Greddle would like to have a word with you after class.
A short introduction to Liberal Zionist rhetoric, and why they usually just keep quiet.
A day ago a very interesting interview between Krystal Ball and Rep. Adam Smith took place. The topic of contention was Israel.
tl;dr: Openly defending Israel as a jewish ethnostate is OK as a democrat.
The interview starts off cordial enough. Adam establishes himself as the typical neo-liberal everyman who can sympathize with the plight of the downtrodden AND the military industrial complex (What a guy!) whilst Krystal fronts the now typical faux radical left 'not everyone in the DSA is insane, actually. At least I'm not' media personality that goes hard on the issues that pull on the heart strings.
Where things go south unexpectedly is around the 11:30 mark. Krystal compliments Adam on his recent strong voting pattern against aid to Israel, specifically the Thomas Massie amendment, and asks him to explain his thought process and change of heart. Adam waffles on a bit about his opposition to the Netanyahu government, a typical Liberal Zionist talking point, but then suddenly veers off the rails:
So you know if you have a situation where Israel is threatened on all sides and, I know it's like well no it's not saying they don't have right to exist, just they have to let all the Palestinians back in and then effectively the Jews no longer control Israel. Okay.
This is not out of context, this is the argument. Yes, Liberal Zionists are democrats. Yes, they are against the Netanyahu government. Yes, they believe in the concept of Israel as an explicit ethnostate. He believes it is not possible for Palestinians to represent jews in Israel. Two ethnic groups can not coexist. They are definitionally in a zero sum game of survival. That's the establishment democrat Liberal Zionist view for jews in Israel.
Understandably, Krystal catches on to this Neo Nazi Zionist talking point that's somehow found its way into her otherwise progressive liberal leftist studio:
Well, I'm sorry, but don't you like equal rights for all ethnicities? Like, Something that you in theory support as a Democrat?
Adam replies, a little more flustered than before:
Well, well, well, sure, but, but the, the practical result of this is if you say there should be equal rights within Israel, but if Israel allows [equal rights] they cease to exist as a country.
Mein Kamerad... Krystal replies:
No, they cease to exist as a Jewish ethnostate. That's very different from ceasing to exist as a country.
To which Adam retorts:
Oh, come on, come on!
Which is the extent of his argumentation that isn't a soft recital of the many permutations of ethno nationalism argued for on the old /r/AltRight, RIP.
Krystal, to her credit as a host, tries to segue this into something else and asks why the US taxpayer should care about a jewish ethno supremacist project in the middle East, which Mike Huckabee would have been happy to answer. But Adam can't really seek refugee in the Scofield Bible so he doubles down on Neo Nazism Zionism for jews:
We, we, we, we got to, we got to drill down on that. Okay. Okay. All right. They cease to exist as an ethnostate. So basically, Jews would live in Palestine and be governed by the Palestinians, by the Arabs. Okay. And, and maybe that's just what has to happen in the minds of some people, but understand the consequences of it. Understand why Israel was created in the first place. So that the Jews would have some place to go. Okay. And to just blithely say, "Well, yeah, it'll go away and it'll be fine." So that's point.
Well OK.
To all the Adam Smiths of the world. Why is having an ethnostate good for the jews but not anyone else? Why don't jews benefit from diversity in their western style open democratic society like everyone else? Why doesn't the magic freedom dirt in Israel transform your third worlders into engineers and scientists like it allegedly does everywhere else in the west, who would be just as jewish as anyone else in a few years. How is it possible to represent anything the Democrats have represented the world over and then believe this for Israel in the back of your brain?
Adam arrived to this interview ready to earnestly make the point that ethnonationalism is good for jews. He wanted to say this and he did. And I get it. Because he's not wrong. It's just that he believes it's wrong for everyone else. Most Liberal Zionists must understand that this contradiction is impossible to defend, which is probably why they don't talk about it at all. Hell, I'm starting to believe they can't even conceive of it. The Dual Morality is so strong it probably doesn't even register as a contradiction. But to hear it from the horses mouth is flabbergasting.
This statement might be even worse than the current state of academia.
'We feel that it might be of concern to those it might affect towards matters of their interest that it perchance could perturb them to stumble upon the consequences of our actions biting us in the ass.'
They shook hands with the devil and outlawed the academic pursuit of things that didn't line up with their personal politics and preferences. Observations, methodology, objectivity and facts be damned. They reaped the benefits in all aspects of life. Taking great emotional fulfillment and joy, pride and status from the whole thing. Reveling in it for decades. But the devils grown hooves and wings and they don't know how to deal with him anymore.
They deserve no sympathy because they are pretending to speak against this ridiculous state of affairs whilst trying to hold on to all their ill gotten goods without acknowledging it's all tied up with the devil. As soon as they leave they hold no leverage and they know it. That's why the sordid evidence of their activities is proudly on display. Professor of X from the prestigious Y University. That's their argument. 'Look at all this that the devil gave me'.
You would think a university professor had some knowhow, prowess or power by dint of their personal excellence regardless of their title, but no. They can't even leverage the fundamentals of objective academic rigor to half the students that graduate from these institutions in the first place since their conception of academic rigor depended on the exact opposite. Those are your students. This is your product. This is your ideology in action. You are the professors. You did this.
The only dignified thing for these people is to resign. Or be placed in a Jubilee style debate chamber where they have to debate 20 ethnocentric black people that have been rigorously educated by America's top professors to believe that their identity is the best way to understand the world. I'd wager these professors last 10 minutes before their own ethnocentric bias starts leaking out.
Maybe we can nip this new 'Intellectual Dark Web' wave in the bud and finally get a definitive answer of whether the victimary narrative of our time should be slavery or the holocaust. Which is what I'd wager this all comes down to anyway. So many wonderful choices.
hanikrummihundursvin
5d ago
Somewhere where they can act peaceful and dignified and not murder tens of thousands of innocent civilians, lobby for wars that kill millions and displace and disrupt the lives of even more.
hanikrummihundursvin
5d ago
It's an illegal occupation of Palestine. If we're concerned with using the correct terms. If your argument against SA apartheid is that it's just internal election laws then I'd want you to also recognize that SA wasn't an apartheid state either.
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
It does. But it seems like a necessary step to take to prevent more genocides.
I mean, if you're suffering from FOMO and it's your wish to get the last one in before we stop you're welcome to make your case.
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
I don't know. Is there apartheid lore I'm missing from the middle East?
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
I'm OK with the existence of a jewish homeland. Israel as a particular project is problematic as it infringes on another peoples homeland. I'm also reluctant to offer much support for the Israeli side in that dispute given how belligerently zionists have behaved.
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
Unlike the many zionists and jewish people I've interacted with online over the years who continuously argue against ethnocentrism, national security and sovereignty for people who are not jewish, I'm supportive of all nations having a secure homeland.
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
There's nothing interesting to that objection. It's the equivalent of stating that a labrador and a border collie can not both be dogs since they're not exactly the same.
It's especially predictable that this would happen when, to this day, people put racist jokes and child pornography in the same basket. When the metric for where you draw the line is your emotional perturbance upon seeing something, and not an object level thing, like age, then this is the logical conclusion.
As soon as you move the line, you forget where the line used to be. That's a fact leftists rely on, and centrists never manage to wrap their head around. Whilst the right wingers reminisce about the line as it was 10 years ago, having forgotten where it was before that.
More options
Context Copy link