hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
If we evaluate everything from a position of intellectual titillation then yeah, bring it on. But that's not what anyone does. So why should someone like this get a pass? There are plenty of people who think a single person shouting 'boo whore' is more valuable than a thousand Aellas.
hanikrummihundursvin
5d ago
I wasn't trying to contradict any of your reasoning. That's why I said that propaganda is what you say, and then I elaborated further on what you were missing to understand my point.
By blocking I mean people with certain views and impulses can't have an outlet to vent their emotions or resonate with others.
As I tried to get across before, Rogan acts as a lightning rod for those people who fall outside the mainstream media ecosystems. He amplifies their impulses and ideas through resonance. Without him they are much like the now splintered audience of TotalBiscuit. They hate many things about the current state of affairs, but they don't do it because they are told to do so by Rogan. They already did. That's why they are there.
Exactly what my argument would predict.
Then I don't understand your contention about the limits of propaganda. So long as the left can exercise power over existing mediums and curate media ecosystems, they just continue winning. They dropped the ball on Rogan, but similar things have happened in the past. I mean, how could Rush Limbaugh have been so popular whilst laughing about gay people dying from AIDS? Why can't the left have their own radio shock jock?
Fixating on the idea that the 'left' can't have a Joe Rogan, Rush Limbaugh or anyone else when the only reason such people have relevance in this context is that they are not 'left' seems asinine. Due to total cultural dominance the left have half the population isolated and starved of emotional resonance. This population then gravitates like flies to whatever guy shows them light. And even then half the flies are too scared to go against the mainstream programming anyway.
To me this all seems like a product of total left victory. Sure, it's a problem to set up a concentration camp for your enemy. And the partisans hiding in the forest are an issue. But you still won the war.
hanikrummihundursvin
7d ago
Propaganda is what you say, just on a much larger timescale. With the addition of blocking certain ideas and types of thinking. You don't need to spread your message all the time. Just make sure it's the only message available.
As for Rogan, he was a mildly failed comedian with a small time career in TV. Nothing about his podcast was deliberate beyond what any other random podcast was. No one knew what could become of the medium. I'd say Rogan's success was about as deliberate as a person winning the lottery. If you want to say that you can deliberately win the lottery by buying a ticket, that's that. But that doesn't fit any conception I have of deliberate action.
The left did not need to change themselves to kill the internet. They won't need to change themselves to block the next Joe Rogan. It reminds me of an old video game reviewer called Total Biscuit. He managed to position himself as probably the biggest reviewer of video games. He passed away from cancer a few years ago and nothing has replaced him. People still play video games, people still fret about missing graphics options and bad games being sold for 60 dollars, but there's no central outlet for that like he provided. No public voice echoing their woes and reinforcing the validity of their wants and needs in the face of tone deaf developers and greedy publishers.
Around 50% of America is already not on board with the program regardless of Rogan existing or not. The question for the left is not 'how do we get them onboard'. The question is 'how do we keep them silent'. How do we keep their wants and impulses locked in a societal straightjacket so they don't threaten our power. Joe Rogan is bad for left wing propaganda since he exists as an outlet for the impulses 'non left' people already have.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
You're approaching this from an angle where propaganda is something I don't think it is.
Joe Rogan wasn't 'built'. It was an accidental fire that happened to be able to exist since it spawned from spheres that were very much not intellectual and not mainstream. Fighting sports, drugs and a clique of mildly failing comedians. On top of that it was a new and emerging medium. It did survive by chance. It was fringe enough that no one with money wanted to touch it until people figured out just how big it had gotten.
By that point Rogan, through his own personal conviction and other things, figured out he didn't need any money men. The technology to monetize was, by chance, there to be used. His ownership of this thing he had made was more important to him. You can swap Rogan out for a different person and that person could just as well have sold the whole thing out for a big paycheck as soon as he could. Let Spotify or whatever interested party dictate the guests or allow them some minimal control over what is allowed to be said about certain topics and whatever else. Really not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
Similar to how cries of cries of a lack of internet censorship were eventually heard, the calls for a left wing Joe Rogan will eventually be heard. This exact same game was played out with early internet culture. "What goes on the internet stays forever". Turns out this is not true. 'The Internet Hate Machine' was eventually neutered and killed off. Be that through direct action by the powers that be, or that people change, grow older, die, or whatever else. To that extent there is nothing that is lined up to replace Rogan. And like with other mediums, the slot Joe Rogan fills will either be subverted and controlled or bricked up.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
The Joe Rogan problem for the 'left' is "We control everything except this one thing". I don't see how that is propaganda having its limits. Just that one side is not completely omnipotent. The propaganda still works well enough. We wouldn't be where we are today if it didn't.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
That's the fault line in all of this. The outgroup is stupid cattle that needs to be herded.
I see a lot of the more liberal centrist aligned people huffing and scolding the 'left' over their inability to understand why Joe Rogan exists in the first place. How dumb the 'left' is for not recognizing that it's their own suffocating need to propagandize everything for the correct cause that creates the space Joe Rogan can occupy. But there's a small blind spot there as well.
To an extent the viewpoint that everything needs to be propaganda for the cause, and that everyone who isn't a true believe is just stupid cattle that needs to be herded and 'educated', has proven more correct than not. It's hard to find an intellectual hobby that has not been colonized or is in the process of being colonized by 'left' influence. Books, movies, TV, video and board games. For the past two decades practically every major hub and media outlet for these things has been taken over. And the stupid cattle still earnestly engage with it.
So who is really the odd one out here? The people who have managed to propagandize nigh every western institutional and intellectual space to deliver their message, or the people who periodically pop their heads out of the ocean of left wing propaganda to pissedly proclaim that you can't propagandize everything... Before diving back in.
hanikrummihundursvin
12d ago
Why can't I read filtered comments? Not directed at you per se.
hanikrummihundursvin
13d ago
I think there are too many stupid hobbies and sinful acts that too many people engage in for your point to be of much relevance.
hanikrummihundursvin
21d ago
Did I get the wrong David Cole at Taki mag? Or are you arguing for some specific definition of Holocaust denial?
hanikrummihundursvin
21d ago
He's a jew who did some holocaust denial work in the 90's. It's of great cathartic importance for some people here to notice and comment on his woes.
If I had rested any of my arguments on the fact that Caplan is not serious then I'd whole heartedly agree. But I didn't. To that end I do not understand what relevance the opinion of 'most people' has to do with anything. Much less so considering most people would say that advocating for an open borders policy is a sign of someone not being serious.
It's hard for me to address your claims when you keep the intentionally vague.
As an example, you say that my descriptions of Caplan don't ring true. You don't say which ones, but one of them was obviously true: That the environment Caplan inhabits purposefully prohibits certain things from being discussed.
My problem here is that earlier in this comment chain you rested one of your claims on the fact that Caplan has done a lot of work within this gestapo environment to be a point in his favor. This irks me a bit, since instead of arguing against an actual argument I made relating to the fact that a person purposefully inhabiting such a stifling environment and that the work produced within is not 'serious', you ignore it.
Related to that, you assert I am not familiar with Caplan and his work. Insinuating that my lack of familiarity is a point against me. But by the same token, you assert that Caplan could probably not address these points publicly, given the environment mentioned above. So how could my alleged unfamiliarity with Caplan be of any relevance?
My description of Caplan was that he has not engaged with population group differences within the US and the lackluster result of immigration into the EU when it comes to his assertions. I, as a consequence, said he is not a serious person. I am, given all of this, at a loss as to how my descriptions are not true.
To top it all off: You, despite having allegedly far greater knowledge of his work, don't point to where he addresses these contentions. Instead you just spend one too many a comment floating the possibility that he has. Well, you now say he has written about them, but you're just not telling. OK man.
hanikrummihundursvin
25d ago
I've spent a few paragraphs voicing exactly what my problems are. Whatever it is you are doing now, including antagonistically mischaracterizing what I write, should be beneath you. I can just as well assert that the only reason you are here is because you agree with Caplan and that your fixation on the word "serious" is the only in you have to play defense, irrelevant though it might be. But that would be a tad low brow and fruitless.
To answer your question about who is serious:
Insofar as people present reasons for why they believe things, they can be held to that standard. I gave examples where Caplan is actively ignoring contradictory information. Be that human differences between population groups or economic data from outside the US. Because Caplan is ignoring information pertinent to his own standard he can not be considered serious.
By the same token a leftist open borders moralizer is serious. They don't need to pretend that their advocacy has any locally positive economic benefits based on statistical extrapolations and human behavior. They just assert that people fleeing a country need refuge and that there is a moral duty to provide shelter. They can volunteer their time and effort to solidify the fact they actually believe this, but the argument is ultimately just moral.
I wrote this for you, but to me, these distinctions are largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. My point was about Caplan. He was presented by you and others as being something he is not. I did not argue that point by asserting that he is not serious so I don't see the relevance about some universally applicable definition of the word.
hanikrummihundursvin
25d ago
When people curtail their viewpoint diversity to be within the Overton Window and then ignore obvious blindspots to legitimate contradiction then no, they are not serious. Regardless of how much they work and waffle within those parameters.
There is an entire cottage industry of academics and media that exists for little other than venerating immigration. There can exist no serious thought within that sphere when alternatives are functionally verboten. The people who exist within this sphere without acknowledging just how ridiculous the entire thing is are not serious.
hanikrummihundursvin
25d ago
And I think you just agree with him so you want to venerate him.
A serious person would contend with the obvious and hard objections to the proposed policy. Caplan has never done that. In fact, his advocacy is a perfect example of non-serious thinking. Divorced from reality and extrapolated from fiction. A fiction partially maintained by institutions that you allege lend Caplan credibility.
I mean, you're not going to debate anyone in a public setting that points out that, outside of East-Asia and Europe, almost every single immigrant population group that moves into EU countries is a net negative. That seems like kind of a big deal. But no, Caplan is a serious thinker who writes books, blogs, does podcasts, has lectured at a university for 20 years and never interacts with any of it. Just create a magic category called 'Immigrant' and compare it to a magic category called 'American Native' and voila.
hanikrummihundursvin
26d ago
Asserting he has heard and answered every critique on immigration is not accurate so long as he is not distinguishing between population groups within the US. Further than that, there's a good reason why he and those like him focus on immigration into the US and not immigration into the EU.
Contrary to the lies of convenience told by Caplan, there is plenty of high quality data in the EU on immigration that could certainly have made it into his many articles and book. It's only that the alleged immigration benefits do not live up to the hype and can only be maintained through statistical sleight of hand, like counting the children of immigrants as native and playing fast and loose with population groups. And even then there are OECD countries that post flat out negative numbers.
Caplan is not a serious person.
hanikrummihundursvin
27d ago
But that's not the narrative Douglas Murray was elevating and defending on JRE. He was not leveraging historical significance, but a moral delineation of good and evil.
To that extent you are not talking about a narrative held by anyone in particular, but a narrative that a person could possibly hold. That might very well be true for some, but my point was that Douglas Murray is obviously not one of those with regards to his rhetoric when the rubber meets the road. Where, as you have alluded to yourself, Murray's ambitions do not relate to a glorious British empire beyond his own personal want need for sodomy and the freedom to listen to the sound of his own voice and those in agreement.
hanikrummihundursvin
28d ago
The veneration of Churchill does not sprout from just winning 'a war' but what war, against who and for what cause. As I stated before, it makes little sense for a fan of British imperialism to idolize the man who functionally ended the empire with his decision making.
We can also see by Murrays own words and actions that he is haggling against progressive morality as he presents his own interests in terms of his sexuality.
To that end nothing I say is a mischaracterization, only a realistic clarification of where Murray is coming from and why.
Still not seeing the mischaracterization. Why would Churchill, the man whose decision making process ultimately nailed the final nail in the coffin of the British empire, be venerated by the likes of Murray? It's because Churchill opposed Hitler.
Ideology, for the likes of Murray, is central. That is why he spent 30 minutes waffling about good and evil on Joe Rogan when the topic of Darryl Cooper came up.
hanikrummihundursvin
28d ago
I'm not seeing the mischaracterization. He can call himself a classical liberal neoconservative and suck as many dicks as he wants, he is still haggling against progressive morality.
Why else would a gay cosmopolitan man care so much about the legacy of Winston Churchill? It's because it's a part of his foundation for why the west deserves to survive. A moral narrative of redemption. He doesn't leverage how many amazing gay bars there used to be in London.
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.
hanikrummihundursvin
29d ago
Except if that definition were operative it would make no sense for guys like Lindsey, Murray, Kisin or Peterson to talk about the woke right. All four take up the mantle of 'concern for where the discourse is headed' if people they don't like are allowed to speak freely on topics they disagree with.
These ideas are destructive to communism, which is a collectivist ideology. Christians are saying that you should love each other, and that people are all, each, valuable individuals—communism says you should love each other insofar as it serves the emergent gestalt that sits on top of it.
I think a communist would say that the opposite is true. To that extent the dichotomy of individualism and collectivism is just wordplay.
Every communist values the individual. That's why they want communism. More freedom. More liberty. More happiness. They see the individuals freedom impeded by capitalism and, outside of catholic communists, religion. If love for our fellow men were elevated above love for money or our preferred rendition of Abrahamic religion, then we could much sooner get together and work towards a global change for the betterment of humanity.
Instead we get Christians with proclamations of moral supremacy, because they believe in abstract logical concepts. Or capitalists with proclamations of factual supremacy, since they can allege to best predict the outcomes of society. Neglecting to mention that these outcomes are derived from material conditions born from the very system they support.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo 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.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/05/palestinian-prisoners-describe-widespread-abuse-in-israels-jails
Was very easy to find.
Considering that Israel has denied the Red Cross visitation to their prisons post Oct 7 it shouldn't be a surprise that there are some sordid things going on.
More options
Context Copy link