site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 270 results for

domain:amphobian.info

I find this and the discussion below rather fascinating. It's pretty clear from multiple responses, including some of your own, that you don't simply lack willpower. And it's not at all like some folks would have you believe these conversations go down, where there's a bunch of folks (made of straw or something) telling you that you just lack willpower or are a stupid failure or something. Instead, you're trying to self-proclaim a lack of willpower, which is mostly contradicted by all available evidence.

And further, instead, you've not described almost any challenges that in any way really resemble any sort of lack of willpower. Most of the actual challenges you've described are just problems with a variety of known solutions that actually work... and, well, you've also proclaimed that you have an urge to find those sorts of things.

Frankly, as I put it:

There are a bunch of reasons why they don't do it, and that's okay.

I don't think you've quite hit the nail on the head yet for why you don't do it, but I think it's pretty clear that it's not a matter of willpower, and it's probably not really a matter of a couple minor challenges that have a variety of pretty well known solutions, either.

It was recommended on SSC, which I read for the deep dives, eg 'X: much more than you wanted to know'.

But Quirrell can't cast spells on Harry. That's the whole narrative reason why the resonance mechanic exists; if Quirrell can just confound Harry or erase his memories, the plot becomes unsolvable.

It seems notable that libertarians and communists are very different kinds of people- I don't think this is entirely assimilatory in nature, I think this is more selection effects. EG you see very few female libertarians.

Now she is planning to remarry.

Just to clarify, is this because she met someone new, or is that her vague expectation on how she'll proceed?

I wonder what socially conservative child support reform would look like.

The money goes into an account handled by a third party who is in charge of ensuring the money is spent on the child's needs.

None of it goes into an account the mother controls. When the child turns 18, we can either give the child full control of the account or (here's a thought!) refund it back to the father.

If electoral politics is fake and we're living in a dictatorship of the CIA, how'd Trump get elected?

Having someone killed in prison and leaving the motives undiscoverable is child's play. 80 IQ hood gangs do it all the time. This seems more than within the competency of the Clinton's or Royal Family's fixer.

I also don't think anyone would care if Bill was partying too hard with 16 year old girls. He's, uh, not exactly a current figure these days and nobody sane was going to trust him with their daughter anyway. Probably most of this stuff is beyond the statute of limitations or otherwise not prosecutable too.

if you know you're not, what could possibly convince you to hesitate at the last second?

The Epstein data has been released. There is no intact 'list'; it was destroyed at the same time as Epstein died, or shortly thereafter. Trump thinks bullshitting about how it's no big deal is a better move than coming clean that they don't actually have much data.

The one thing that sticks out about English-language media coming out of Israel is that approximately all of it is aimed at Americans.

Well who else would it be aimed at? Israel has plenty of people who know English but the most common native languages are Hebrew, Arabic, and then Russian. No doubt Hebrew and Russian language media coming out of Israel is aimed at actual Israelis.

Great post. Can you finish the story through the present day? It feels like the story ended right when it was taking off ( I understand you’re not writing a biography of Epsteins life, but it would be a compelling read if you did).

Didn't he explain that in parseltongue, which is the language that allegedly prevents the speaker from lying.

Of course, the reflexive reliance on the killing curse is indicative enough on its own.

Oh, I also remember that my other theory was that Harry himself had been specifically confunded to be unable to make any direct observations about Quirrel's true nature, which is why he was seemingly unable to make basic reasoning/connections about the guy even as evidence mounted.

And then there's a moment in Chapter 104, right before the finale pops off for real:

"Wait!" Harry blurted.

The Potions Master's hand hovered about his robes. "Why?" said the Potions Master.

"I... I just think you probably shouldn't call them..."

In a blur, the Potions Master's wand was in his hand. "Nullus confundio!" A black jet darted out and hit Harry, striking in the direction Harry had already started to evade. There followed four other spells, containing words like Polyfluis and Metamorphus; and for those Harry politely stood still.

Snape literally hit him with a spell for dispelling confusion caused by another spell, and then SHORTLY THEREAFTER (mere minutes later) Harry puts together the entire puzzle of Quirrel's role in everything.

Just really interesting timing, that.

I think EY intended Harry's issue seeing Quirrel for evil as an example of a massive failure mode for rationalists (I really don't want this thing to be true so I will purposefully avoid accepting information that would make me update that way). But it also makes sense that Quirrelmort might take the extra precaution of screwing up Harry's thought processes just enough to avoid catching on too quickly.

I find it funny how they think "we're imposing another, different burden on men" somehow "cancels out" the burden they want to impose on women and means women (and me) aren't allowed to say anything about it or have a problem with it. Judging by the fact that the pro-life side can't even with abortion referenda in Kansas and Missouri, it's not a very persuasive argument.

ETA: on second thought, perhaps my original comment was too sneery and I should be arguing to understand instead, in which I'll state that from what I've seen the pro-lifers seem to have NO plan to change people's minds other than double-down on the same things they've been doing for decades. But maybe I'm just ignorant of the facts here.

Somebody with her profile, especially if she was ever an actual intel asset, puts their fucking real name as their handle?

Ross Ulbricht was arrested for a similar OPSEC failure, so I don't think it's completely implausible. Per Wikipedia, "[t]he connection was made by linking the username 'altoid', used during Silk Road's early days to announce the website, and a forum post in which Ulbricht, posting under the nickname 'altoid', asked for programming help and gave his email address, which contained his full name." I won't discount parallel construction here, but I think there is a certain point in an effort like this when you realize "this is for real", but you can't easily scrub the account history: a new account would itself look pretty suspicious and probably point right back to the original -- "DM'd all the other mods and asked for a new account to be blessed" is itself suspicious if you don't trust all those mods, and it's visible to users that a brand new account was given mod access. Satoshi seems like an exception here, but I think it's hard to leave no trace in these sorts of situations generally.

Early Reddit also strikes me as a place where a power-user could steer the conversation more broadly in ways that would be useful to more than just intelligence agencies, or could just be a personal power fantasy. Bots weren't believable conversation partners a decade ago. Observably, various political activists have gotten a lot of mileage out of moderating default Reddit subs, so even if maybe the impact of that is fading today, I think "digital conversation influencer" might have been a playable role that would get one into real conversations in the halls of (non-digital) power.

Well this explains a lot about your stated positions.

Makes me realize that I probably turned out as weird as I did because I kind of had a one-foot-in-one-foot out upbringing, where half my family was churchgoing patriotic traditionalists and the other was more... bohemian? And both sides seemed pretty happy with their lives and had things mostly held together.

'How does everyone fit into society' is a question that needs to be answered and if you've already decided personal characteristics are the way to go about it, well...

We've talked about basic life scripts before, and in general I think that demolishing those scripts has made life harder, scarier, more uncertain, less fulfilling for most people. Becoming an adult is difficult enough when there IS a direct example to follow. Now you have to do it while explicitly being told there is no one 'right way' to go about it.

When every single day, month, year of your life feels like you're having to hack through uncharted wilderness, and determine your location via a hand-drawn map and dead-reckoning, then yeah you're going to keep second-guessing a lot of decisions and live in constant fear of bear attacks, vs. staying on a well-beaten, marked, and lit pathway. (I overstate the analogy just to make a point).

And as you note, people who LARP Conservativism don't really push a RETVRN to such life scripts, or have a plan for bring those scripts back. Because telling your viewers "go to church, follow the bible, and accept your given place and role in life without much complaint" is so utterly uncool and, for an influencer, self-defeating. If the audience does that they will start listening to their pastor more than you, right?

In fact, now I think about it: the term "Conservative Influencer" is almost a contradiction.

I don't think this mentality can come back from the government, but only from intermediating institutions that democrats would like to punish for doing their job and pushing this. But this is the key difference; most adults have probably worked it out for themselves but nobody ever says it out loud.

Agreed. But both the right and the left seem to have converged on the idea that the government ought to be the single wellspring from which all morality and practical guidance comes. What to eat, what to wear, how to arrange your affairs.

Again, overstating the case. I have spent a good portion of my adult life groping around for SOME institution, group, maybe even (ugh) ideology that would give me a provably reliable path towards a better life. But very explicitly not wanting to fall into a cult.

The only one that hasn't let me down in some egregious way, and has remained a steadying force in life is, no shit, my martial arts gym.

The gym I teach at provides the following:

  • A strong routine. The schedule for classes has been the same for years and years.
  • A curriculum of new material to learn (I've mastered basically all of it, but that just lets me reach out and find new stuff)
  • A great social group of generally good, reliable people. (If they weren't good and reliable, they wouldn't stick it out. This stuff is HARD).
  • A certain amount of moral instruction: "We are teaching you to inflict physical harm on your fellow human, here are the conditions under which you can do so or should do so."
  • A system for advancement (there are tests on a regular schedule, and you earn higher belts as you go).
  • Which also allows for a benevolent soft hierarchy. Higher belts are more experienced (and theoretically more dangerous) and thus command some respect, but they have a reciprocal duty to help lower belts learn faster. And nobody thinks, for example, a blue belt has the authority to ORDER a yellow belt to do something.
  • Also fun.

I'd guess this checks a lot of the boxes for people who want to be able to follow instructions and see improvement in their life circumstances and be rewarded for the progress. There was a period of time where I think Corporations tried to sort of provide that to employees to make them more productive, but the underlying loyalty that requires has dissipated.

Church is still there, but good luck picking one that isn't compromised by political activism or that is mostly full of LARPers.

That seems to leave most people with joining up with political activism or getting into politics. Which tends to make everything worse.

Revisionist theories are not much worth engaging with unless they offer an explanation of what happened to Eastern Europe's Jews. For example, the 1926 USSR census records about 2.6 million Jews. The 1931 Polish census records about 3.1 million Jews. What happened to these populations? The current European population of Jews is estimated to be about 1 million total. Is there evidence for a post-war migration of such a large number of Jews to America, Israel, and so on? As far as I know, there is not. There was substantial migration, but from what I understand, not enough to explain the collapse of Europe's Jewish population size. Revisionists, to be taken seriously, should not just pick holes in mainstream theories - they should present an alternative theory that accounts for the evidence. If the European Jewish population collapsed through emigration rather than killing, let's see evidence of the emigration in quantities enough to account for the population changes. Disease, famine, and so on are not good explanations, because they do not explain why the Jewish population collapsed so much more than the populations of other affected ethnic groups.

About those nurses, apparently they get tattoos to help manage their “trauma” which is presumably excreted from an organ somewhere within their bodies.

History is full of men who wanted nothing to do with it. And rightfully so.

Wars of succession are rarely fought to get the other guy to take on the, ah, "curse." There never seems to be a shortage of men ready and willing to take the top job.

It's only redeeming quality is that in the hands of your enemies, it is even more terrible than in yours.

These people have "enemies" because they wish to gain power and subjugate their rivals. If they didn't want to do those things, nobody would give a shit about them.

The vision of the reluctant ruler is a very romantic fantasy for the armchair philosopher, or for those with zero power in their personal life, but has very little, if anything, to do with reality.

What's the probability vs Ghislaine they would name themselves "maxwellhill?" Let's say indeterminate.

Ahahahahahahahahahaha.

Bayes doesn't work if you don't accurately evaluate the evidence.

Thank you for that. But human memory, while capacious, isn't infinite, and I wonder if I'll ever want these neurons back.

I appreciate the detail. Ah, would life be nearly as colorful if there weren't so many lolcows mooing out of desperation to be milked?

The lowest circle of the Inferno, the ice is full of traitors. What has the US done, time and again? Turned spies against their country of origin. If the US government can find a reason to trust someone who commits the gravest sin below treachery to God, no doubt with as little slack as they're given, they can find a reason to trust a guy who lied at parties and fumbled around early in his career.

This is not how HUMINT agencies evaluate potential assets, no.

Most spies don't "need" to be "turned" against their country; they just need to be found.

Being a "traitor" is also very much an eye-of-the-beholder situation. Nathan Hale, patriot or traitor?

Personally, I'm very grateful to e.g. the "traitors" to communism in the USSR.

None of what you describe of his background is specifically disqualifying for his use as an asset.

Reliability and discretion matter quite a lot, in fact, for the value of an operational asset conducting sensitive missions.

They have reason to run a perpetual blackmail machine, including targeted those who appear to be on their side.

They also have reason to avoid ops that, if exposed, would cause major problems. Risk, reward.

I would ask, given what we know about his life and how often men like him skirt justice, is it probable that rather than torching literally any VIP he could draw from the list of flights, he instead just killed himself? It's not.

Well, he wasn't able to skirt justice, right?

There is also maxwellhill. Ghislaine Maxwell had a prominent hand in the general psy-opping of the giant psy-op that is Reddit. She was, maybe still is, an intelligence asset. What was Epstein, then?

You're just asserting that as proven fact? Somebody with her profile, especially if she was ever an actual intel asset, puts their fucking real name as their handle?

Come on. Be serious now.

Well, Epstein was his friend.

It's totally plausible Trump participated in Epstein parties with those young girls Trump said Epstein liked so much. At this point, it's not very plausible that concrete evidence for such activities exists.

The Epstein Story is now an albatross around the Trump Admin's neck from their own supporter base.

It's not an unprompted reaction--there's a lot of strife in MAGA World right now over it. As I said in another comment:

"The MAGAtard Nation has just been spewing BS and is now the dog that caught the car while also driving the car." Including, of course, his present FBI director and deputy director.

Well besides any formal revelation of the documentation, I'd expect at least partial leaks of any juicy bits. Or at least semi-credible rumors.

For instance, there are allegations that there are never-released tapes of Trump saying very politically correct things on The Apprentice.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-trump-apprentice-tapes/story?id=57192712

For the Epstein stuff, I'm not aware of any specifics like that. Obviously, the typical person highly interested in Epstein is also pretty dang MAGA, and this tension has now been built in since Trump I. But it's not like the Looney Left hasn't tried to believe anything possible about Trump being a rapist. Or a Russian asset.* I loved BlueAnon believing the assassination attempt was faked.

So the simplest explanation is there's "no there, there." Can't leak what doesn't exist. The MAGAtard Nation has just been spewing BS and is now the dog that caught the car while also driving the car.

The whole "intel black op theory" at least theoretically explains why no one is revealing any further details (if they even exist). Of course, if Epstein was supporting highly controversial totally black ops, one would hope the relevant intel agencies would have spirited him away, or conducted some kind of much cleaner cover up much earlier.

*For the record, RussiaGate did in fact find a lot of pretty bad shit that would have been unthinkable. But claims and expectations exceeded evidence; so some can pretend Trump was totally vindicated and it was all a hoax.

I'm not debating whether Hoss was tortured.

I'm pointing out his gave a consistent account for a long time after that. Weird that his torturers allowed him to claim he had been tortured, but were able to force him to never recant his overall narrative.

Did you even skim the source I provided that discussed corroboration? Are you just gonna ignore the sources I provide and questions I pose and whine whine whine about how it's the mainstream that's incapable of engaging with reality?

But as I've already explained, the biggest problem of all is the lack of corroboration of these claims in the body of documentary or physical evidence.

What's funny is that when I provide such corroboration, or ask harder questions for you than you can ask of me, you seem to ignore it.

Were the camps merely for labor? If so, why destroy and bury them?

How would you expect the Nazis to conduct a secret operation and cover up?

This is funny, the tiles did not match witness accounts and the manufacturers logo would have been installed facing the structure, not installed with the logo facing outwards.

That's not what my sources say. Do you have better ones?

Why was the facility buried?

They claim 800,000 people were killed at the location they "investigate" but instead of excavating mass graves they find a clay tile and claim they have proven everything, while demonstrating their eagerness to overfit on the data by falsely interpreting a manufacturer's logo.

Well, as you love to point out, they haven't been allowed to do a full excavation. They found evidence of structures that matched accounts of the gas chambers and found tiles when they dug. What level of excavation would make you happy?

Revisionists claim that there were real sanitary facilities constructed in Treblinka II. This is supported by budget documents which explicitly have a line item for sanitation facilities to be constructed in TII. So a clay tile is also consistent with the Revisionist theory that this camp featured real sanitation facilities that were falsely claimed to be homicidal gas chambers.

Ok, so then why did the Nazis destroy and bury the structures? Do you expect the Nazis to be retarded enough to put: "Fake Sanitary Facility Actually Intended As A Means Of Mass Execution" in the budget documents? What level of evidence is actually reasonable to expect?

One funny anecdote from Colls scientific excavation is that she found a fossilized shark teeth from when Poland was a seabed millions of years ago! But if the cremated remains of 900,000 people were on that site, and each victim had an average of say 28 teeth, there would be over 25 million human teeth buried in this small area where she found fossilized shark teeth.

Not sure what your issue is. The human bones were ground up. The soil was disturbed/tilled, so a fossil could have been in the mix. If the shark tooth was so damning, you'd think that would have been covered up so clever Revisionists like you couldn't use it.

People believe the Holocaust narrative because of the media transmitted in popular culture and what they are told in school.

Did the media write Mein Kampf? Did it write the speeches Hitler made? Did it compile lists of Jews, make them wear stars, tattoo ID numbers on them, and put them into ghettos and camps?

Yes, the Holocuast is used to force guilt onto gentiles and subsequent "compensation" in various forms. But it's based on a lie.

Does any part of your mind wince a little bit when you notice that you can't stop focusing on the alleged gassing inconsistencies, and you fail to engage with what on earth were the Nazis up to with the Jews and where several million of them ended up? Do you cringe at all when you have to consider that the Nazis operated in a secretive manner with a cover up to hide and destroy evidence, such that imperfect evidence is what would be expected?

The "Final Solution" was the deportation of the Jews to Palestine, Madagascar, or territory in what was supposed to be conquered Russian territory.

Wait, the Nazis were supposed to be shipping the Jews out??? WOW WHAT A GIANT MISUNDERSTANDING THIS ALL IS.

Is that what Hitler meant by "annihilation"?

But the biggest question remains: WHERE DID THE MILLIONS OF JEWS END UP THEN??????????

Again, the biggest tell here is that you simply can't deal with the overarching facts that the Nazis hated the Jews, rounded them up, and then millions of them no longer existed. (The fact you haven't even tried to contend with this rather significant issue is pretty interesting. You have all kinds of ideas and sources re: Hoss and gas chambers and human remains, but not for Jewish population statistics apparently.)

You've also not addressed the false claims you've made about the COMINT/intercepts not having any evidence of the Holocaust. Do you see why people have a hard time respecting your views and the claim that actually you're just a no-nonsense realist concerned only with the truth?

So to sum up where I think we're at:

  • Europe has a long history of negative beliefs towards and violence against the Jews
  • Hitler wrote a popular book in 1925 that was highly critical of the Jews as significant problem
  • The Nazis in general were highly concerned with identifying and controlling Jews in both rhetoric and action, before and during WWII
  • Hitler "prophesied" a number of times about "the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe" and called them "enemies of the people"
  • Hitler gave a speech to his senior leaders in late 1941 that led Goebbels to record in his diary: "Regarding the Jewish question, the Führer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that, if they yet again brought about a world war, they would experience their own annihilation. That was not just a phrase. The world war is here, the annihilation of the Jews must be the necessary consequence."
  • The Nazis had a "Final Solution" for the Jewish Problem
  • The Nazis systematically rounded up a lot of Jews and put them into camps
  • There is clear evidence the Nazis tried to destroy/bury several of these camps, particularly towards the end of the war when the tide had turned - The "Final Solution" was the deportation of the Jews to Palestine, Madagascar, or territory in what was supposed to be conquered Russian territory
  • ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
  • The pre-war and post-war Jewish population of Europe, particularly Poland, has a gap of several million Jews

Where did the millions of Jews go?

Yes, the Holocuast is used to force guilt onto gentiles and subsequent "compensation" in various forms. But it's based on a lie.

Ah, is that why people hate the Jews so much? When they suffer, they deserve it, of course. But when they don't suffer sufficiently they have to lie about it?

Here's a joke I just came up with:

A Holocaust Revisionist dies and goes to Valhalla. He gets to meet Hitler. The Revisionist says, "I tried my best to combat the lies they tell about you trying to exterminate the Jews." Hitler responds, "Well thank you; we tried our best, but I'll always regret we didn't fully annihilate those bloodsuckers."
"Oh no, the Zionist propagandists got you too," cried the Revisionist.

I'll have to workshop it a bit.