hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
I'd think that the example of the old lady refusing to rent to non-whites would be particularly pertinent given the modern dynamic where hotel owners rent out every room to the government so it can house migrants in them. And then these migrants rape women and children. Just search 'uk migrant hotel rape'. It's practically a sport at this point.
I think you are not paying the respect prejudice deserves. And that this is a cognitive and moral failing on your part. You are looking at the words, not the emotion.
I saw this a lot in the aftermath of the big purge of the Alt-Right from YouTube. Where lefty youtubers could claim, after the fact, that they ultimately won and that the alt-righters had always been kind of stupid. And to an extent that's not an inaccurate observation. There were a lot of 'vapid' and 'stupid' creators in that space. They didn't really understand HBD to any relevant extent, they didn't do well in debates and they certainly could not predict how bad things could get. But they did get an audience. How? Principally because their attention was on the same gut wrenching worry others felt. That the current state of affairs was bad. They could not necessarily articulate why. But they had a gut feeling and others could emotionally resonate with that.
To that extent, it should be a source of embarrassment, continuously, for every person that was more intelligent, erudite, or otherwise better equipped to handle reality, that they are continuously shown up by random racists when it comes to identifying threats. The trajectory of the western world has been so comically bad the past three decades that it's hard to imagine how it could have gone worse.
Turns out, almost every economist is a retard, actually. Along with every educated person that can read, write and reason yet fail to recognize that no, importing the third world will not be an economic benefit, colonialism didn't make Africa poor and 'poverty' doesn't make black people rape. The racist could not necessarily articulate why he knows what he knows or believes what he believes. But they had a gut feeling that has outshone every alternative. Sure, they continuously fumble the moment, make bad arguments and otherwise embarrass themselves, but ultimately they've not been the ones who've been wrong when it counts.
Farage has been saying things for a long time. So far he has only proven to be a populist voice with the very same 'moderate' anti-white policies of Labour and the Tories. Ready to play the respectability politics and then lose when push comes to shove and his party is faced with the same problems that have driven the majority of the west towards the now typical anti-white solutions.
Without a worldview that is a hardline fact based contradiction to the blank slate alternative and without the moral backbone to stand by a specific people, there will be no positive change. Reform has explicitly rejected all avenues that can logically lead to success. They can win elections, but what will they resort to when the left political machine re-asserts their claim on the moral mandate that Reform refuses to contest? When the sheer weight of demographic change starts impacting every aspect of political life? Will Reform really get a steady enough supply of ethnically motivated rape gangs, murders and other crime to challenge the moral narrative that every western media outlet is churning out to their captive audience 24/7?
Reform is not fighting a war. They're an informal surrender. Be prim and proper, don't rock the boat, keep a stiff upper lip and don't look at the endless horde of foreigners waiting on the horizon that are all motivated by an ethnic ideology that demonizes native Brits.
hanikrummihundursvin
22d ago
I'm all for accepting that people can change, but if it's a choice between a person who has shown they are capable of being a Nazi and a person who hasn't done that, well it's a pretty big disadvantage.
What's the functional difference between being a nazi and being a zionist? Or is this just a metric dependent on what is further outside the Overton Window?
Outside of that you're not offering anything concrete here that relates to the tattoo that rises above class sneering. To that extent you answer your own question. A peachy clean political candidate that looks like they were cooked up in a lab is the exact aesthetic someone like Platner counters.
The hysteria around this is entirely predictable. The 'upper classes', or the people pretending to be upper class, really do not like the lower classes. But they do often talk in favor of representation and class mobility in theory. Well, here you have that representation personified in Platner. But as we see in practice, that representation is low class coded, of course! So 'upper class' folks instinctively, balk and sneer. 'How could he? I would never!'
Lets just face the music. The German army was cool. The SS were cool. The uniforms, runes, equipment, it's all aesthetically cool. Especially to young men who have little or no reason to otherize Germans.
To that extent there's no reason for a marine grunt to not get a cool tattoo. Cool people don't care about the opinion of some hysteric jews that see another shoah in everything. Or maybe it's the opposite, and that's kind of what gives the aesthetic an edge. After all, Satanism wouldn't mean much if it wasn't for hysterical concerned Christian mothers.
That being said, the entire news cycle around this is just political propaganda. There is no reality to this, and no controversy. Just an emotional whirlpool kept going through mass media soundbites generated entirely to push a narrative through any means available. The safest bet would be that Platner is getting negative press from more than one angle due to his ongoing political campaign and pro-Palestinian rhetoric.
But lets hash this out. If the idea is that a secret nazi is running on a Dem ticket in Maine to launch another holocaust then we can say that. If that is not the case, what is the argument other than class sneering?
Even if Platner was a nazi, is the contention that he is one now? If not, is the contention that if anyone at any point was a nazi, they are invalid in the future?
If he wasn't a nazi but knowingly got a nazi tattoo, is that invalidating? If so, why?
It's silly theater. None of the questions are explored or answered. It's just a platform for interested parties to performatively huff and puff.
hanikrummihundursvin
23d ago
The little lefty media exposure I've had of this guy was generally positive. If a small /r/socialism thread offering lukewarm critiques is all one has in the pocket to demonstrate that the far left does not like him... eh, that's pretty weak sauce. Those folks are generally not fans of electoral politics anyway. Sneeringly holding out for the revolution.
That being said, why shouldn't the Democrats elect guys like Mamdani if that's what the voters want? I don't see the republicans offer any relevant or salient opposition to that development.
That's part of what irked me about the article. It didn't feel like a very traditional perspective, despite coming from an allegedly traditional Orthodox woman. As you point out, and I am generally ignorant of, there are a lot of elements of the faith and the history of the church that are left unexplored relating to the topic.
But at the same time, one could argue that people are flocking towards 'traditionalism' in general since it is being presented as a solution to their modern problems. I'm not sure executions or formalized acceptance of being an incel are what they are looking for. So whilst I lament that there was a rather modern woman presenting herself and her modern problems as being Orthodox, I can also sympathize with her woes. She was having a hard time finding or formulating solutions within Orthodoxy, along with other people. That's a legitimate concern to raise, despite the alleged faults of the messenger.
To that extent the article serves as a sideways critique of much of the generally male dominated Traditional online discourse, that oversells Traditionalism as a silver bullet to a lot of our modern woes when it's not so clear that it is.
I agree things can not go on like this if we want to survive, but I also don't see this piece of social technology of the past being all that useful.
It was not Christianity that did the heavy lifting back in the day. It was a useful tool that fit the needs of a specific people in a specific environment. But it was the environment that drove that need. Principally by how barren it was. Now the environment has changed, and our needs follow. And unless you want to commit to the bit and go full Amish or similar, then you're not going to get much mileage out of Christianity.
I mean, that's why you end up with stupid evangelical dance concerts. That's just how reduced the utility of Christianity is in modern society. You already have the broadest strokes of philosophy, law and culture existing independent and separate from it.
You need something concrete for those who lack the lifetime of regret that is seemingly required to understand just how damaging modernity can be. You can't afford to waste time on teaching people about theoretical burning bushes when the real danger is starting our progeny in the face in real time. Especially when we have seen just how little sway Christianity has today. I demand new technology.
I don't disagree. My point was that the state of affairs Farage represents is what got us to this point in the first place. And as your post implicitly reiterates, Farage does pose any threat to that state of affairs. Instead he is riding the wave of suffering and strife it creates, without any logical recourse to end it.
If the British public is not ready to assert their claim as the rightful and sole owners of their lands, then that's a problem that needs to be realized and solved. But as I said, Farage does not represent any move towards that direction. The realization I'm trying to convey is that the best case scenario for a Farage government would be a more skillfully managed decline of the British nations. It's better in the short term, but the long term result is the same. The end of the British people.
This is an established paradigm in modern right wing politics. Historically there are two camps that believe in some form of solution to this existential crisis of the west. The Secretly Based Camp and the Accelerationist Camp. The SBC believes that there are secretly based politicians that are playing electoral politics, hiding their power level just enough to get elected so they can save the country. The Accelerationist camp believes that the accelerated deterioration of the native populations QoL is a mechanism that can wake them up to act in a more radical way in their own self interest.
To summarize, Farage represents the worst option. He's neither secretly based nor trying to upset the status quo. Instead he is cashing out on all the pent up pressure that the negative effects of the status quo create without representing any chance to correct the course.
Now, maybe Farage represents something different and new that exists outside this paradigm. One can only hope. But I don't see why one would think that considering we now have an established history of SBC candidates failing to live up to the hopes that were tied to them. Farage seems to fit neatly into the established paradigm as what's commonly referred to as a Release Valve. I don't think that's an unfair description until proven otherwise.
More options
Context Copy link