DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
Tell me about it.
User ID: 745
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2hr ago
So when we start factoring out these unfalsifiable rumors, it seems pretty obvious to me who won. America can threaten Iran at will and they have no meaningful way to retaliate.
That's not how wars work, though. You lost in Korea, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, and in every occasion you enjoyed vast military superiority by the end. "We can kill them, they can't kill us" is simplistic and part of the problem, which is a bronze age savage's theory of victory coupled with an actually cost-sensitive political and economic system.
As for interceptors, I find the alleged exhaustion rates plausible despite "classified" noise from your India-tier corrupt officials, for the following reasons: corrupt people are generally untrustworthy; we know 21st century America is generally subpar at physical production; we know that some arms sales were frozen and THAADs were harvested from Korea; we know that interception rates have declined over the war, esp. in Israel; we know the bases are wrecked.
This gap will grow as America is the only power capable of building into Space and the AI frontier.
I won't even argue the facts again (China is about 5 years behind in space and 8 months in AI). On priors, why do you believe this is even plausible? You must know that you have fewer people than China, fewer highly intelligent people, lesser talent allocation to STEM, less industrial capacity, less energy, less cutthroat markets, less… pretty much everything, except some legacy IP. Is this just blind patriotism?
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
13hr ago
And omitting it is a cheap way to overstate your case
This is a fair outsider perspective but I stand by my arguments for why it's valid to omit.
Wouldn't you say that Iran also intended (and quite plausibly still hopes) to establish a strait toll regime as a war goal?
There has, to my knowledge, never been a serious Iranian discussion of the toll regime (as opposed to just closing the Strait) before this war which they did not choose. They rolled out tolls as a financial cope and negotiating tactic well under attack, after they learned that Hormuz denial is indeed very effective even though their fleet is gone. I tend to agree with Noah Smith of all people that "Before the war, Iran didn’t control the strait, simply because it didn’t realize it could. Drone technology had advanced to the point where Iran was able to shut down Hormuz, but Iran didn’t know that until the U.S. attack forced it to try the risky and desperate move of actually shutting down the strait.". Of course, war aims can change, so now they pursue legitimization of the toll booth through MOU negotiations, because come on, it's an awesome new revenue source and influence lever. But it was not part of their core objectives and strategic thinking (and neither was sinking their Navy for the US). To be clear I think they might win this, too, but I wouldn't weigh it heavily either way.
from my point of view, the MOU is a temporary ceasefire instrument to be replaced by something more permanent
Guess I have to agree to disagree. The MOU is extremely close to the original Iranian counter-proposal they published in response to Kushner&Witkoff's "deal" (terms of capitulation). That the US saw it fit to sign on to this shows that the US is really weary of the war and willing to end it on net unfavorable terms. Of course, Trump being Trump, he might just ignore the reputational damage and risks of Iranian gains solidifying for a few weeks of open Strait and US forces regrouping, and secretly intends to defect on most terms. But on the sum of evidence so far (eg Israel and Lebanon related noises), I do believe he strongly prefers to not continue in the short-medium term, so it is an end to, at least, the First US-Iran war, and the actual terms of it having been concluded.
so that you don't have to concede that the United States dealt a severe blow to Iran's ability to project naval power, an objective that was reiterated by Hegseth on March 2 in case you just thought it was a one-off.
I don't dodge it, I just deem it to be a cope. What "project naval power"? How was Iran ever a credible naval force? For years of reading about the Iranian Question, I don't remember ever seeing a serious concern about their growing naval capabilities specifically. IRIN was always doomed to sink at the first contact with the USN, at least I believe so, the USN has crushing advantages in every aspect; and Iran wasn't preparing to go on some aggressive expedition, so there was no great incentive to do it now. Russia, itself mediocre in naval projection, also wiped out Ukrainian naval capabilities early on in the war (which it's arguably losing now); this changed very little. The success here had been overdetermined, but that's also why it couldn't have been the goal – it couldn't endow Iran with a credible coercion/deterrence tool in the way that threatening Hormuz or Israeli desalination plants or South Pars field does. (Moreover the MOU doesn't say they can't rebuild their Navy if they so choose, and with the reconstruction funds and lifted sanctions they'll be able to afford it. Though it'd still be of little irrelevance.)
I see a pattern where Americans overstate their investment in impressive but strategically irrelevant feats just because these are things they can actually do. It's a cheap way to pad the metrics by announcing a thing you're confident about as the goal. Murdering Khamenei and other guys, destroying the Navy, "infiltrate Iranian land space and build an airstrip". So? What does this gain for you as a nation, relative to a scenario where you didn't do it? Not having to do it a bit later? It's a good flex on its own technical terms, but why should I believe these flexes were strategic objectives rather than instrumental moves in service of some cogent strategic objective? For all other goals, from "regime change" to "stopping missile and drone production" and even "steal oil", I see the answers. For nukes, I also see the answer but again, Iran was willing to compromise on the nukes from the start, the war at best changed something on the margins of the JCPOA 2.0 (and seemingly not in favor of the US). For the navy and assassinations… eh.
Before you accuse me of motivated reasoning, consider how the defenders of the war – and you – also apply Straussian lens to Trump's communications, correctly assuming that he's untrustworthy (just in a different direction) and his Actual Intentions (like reasons to sign such an MOU) must be deduced from first principles.
…All that said, ultimately my thinking is simpler. The US is a vastly superior power, and chipping away at the margins is beneath it. The real «objective of the war», universally and sometimes openly understood and lobbied for over decades, spelled out by Netanyahu, evident in the bulk of Trump's and Hegseth's communication too, was a generic Neocon/Zionist intention to «finally solve Iran». Remove it from the regional calculus, deny its resources to proxies, and make it unable to threaten Israel in the long term, by whatever means work: aiding an organic power transition, installing a pro-American/Zionist puppet regime, collapsing the nation into civil war, imposing treaty terms that defang it relative to the status quo, or "bombing it into stone age". Iraq, Syria, Venezuela… And Iranian objectives, on the contrary, were to survive, preserve the status quo, and hopefully improve on it by getting sanctions relief. In this sense, the present situation indicates Iran overachieving on its objectives, whereas the US has not just failed but made its position worse.
Agreed that this is very premature given previous fake-out "deals". But I do think that the MOU is qualitatively different, and American eagerness to sign it, allows me to say that Iran won. If, say, negotiations break down and the US resumes high-intensity strikes, that'll be a separate arc. I'm not saying Iran won forever.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1d ago
Wikipedia gives the following incomplete list of objectives:
The Trump administration gave various explanations for starting the war, including forestalling Iranian retaliation after an expected Israeli attack,[84] destroying Iran's missile capabilities, preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon,[85] seizing Iran's oil and gas resources,[86][87][88] or regime change.
Oil and gas shitposting has obviously failed. Regime change, well, you see. Unconditional surrender, not mentioned, certainly failed. "Destroying missile capabilities" – significant attrition but that's a cope, Witkoff wanted them to give up on production, something absent from the MOU which even proscribes interfering in such matters. "Forestalling Iranian retaliation", worse than failed, it was caused by the aggression. Proxies – Iran had forced the ceasefire in Lebanon (thus, preservation of Hezbollah) to be the #1 issue in the MOU, if you go through the timeline you can see that this isn't really what the US wanted and not a win for the US+Israel either.
The nuclear stuff is the biggest sticking point, I agree. But the thing is, did Iran even move far from their pre-war position? It seems to me that they did not, in which case the US didn't even need the war to "win" here, therefore this is not an achievement of a military objective.
Iran has to take some responsibility. It has never published its seven-page written offer for a new deal, including the annexe, which was shown to Witkoff during the final round of talks in Geneva, despite calls from inside Iran to do so. Araghchi has said he hoped the truth of what happened on the final day of talks, 26 February, would soon become known. He could do this himself by publishing Iran’s offer – one that Jonathan Powell, the UK national security adviser who was present at the talks, thought worth pursuing. Kushner admitted a deal could have been presented that was better than the Obama nuclear deal secured in 2015.
It may also have been a mistake not to allow Witkoff to keep a copy of the offer, since he could at least have shown it to technically more competent officials in Washington. Witkoff would later describe their reticence to hand over the document as a “tell” that they were not interested in a deal, and were just playing for time.
However, Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association (ACA), said it was understandable the Iranians did not want to hand over their negotiating position given Trump’s record of publishing confidential material on his Truth Social web platform.
Also, Iran was talking about lifting 80% of the sanctions as their carrot. Now they get 100%, for much the same terms. So no, I think this is still American defeat, and the only way to spin it otherwise is to claim that Iranian terms were untrustworthy when originally proposed but are more trustworthy now that they know just how brutal and perfidious the US can be. I find that to be a pretty flimsy argument.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1d ago
America won.
Ah. Very well, carry on winning then. This is what the Chinese call spiritual victory. Seriously though…
America killed a generation of Iran's leadership
Literally what does it matter? Why do you even mention this? "Kill some dudes" is not a meaningful military objective.
War critics have simply continued onto the next set of predictions. Because the Iranian regime didn't completely collapse, and sanctions will be lifted as part of a peace deal, America is supposed to have lost. Whatever you guys say. I don't think any of you want to be convinced. I think you just want to hate America.
that would hit so hard if war proponents didn't move through different war objectives.
Some did get fulfilled. I'm personally partial to this specific Truth:
There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER! After that, and the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s), we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before. IRAN WILL HAVE A GREAT FUTURE. “MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN (MIGA!).” Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP
This, as far as I can tell, has come to pass in its entirety. Iran has chosen new great and acceptable leaders (Mojtaba Khamenei and his team); Trump even wants to meet with him. The US and allies will aid Iran in reconstruction, granting Iran (and Oman) authority over the Strait, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before. Iranian military-industrial complex is fine (estimates for missiles and drones suggest they're not halfway done, whereas you are out of interceptors) and will be upgraded, given that there are no terms prohibiting that (which there were in Witkoff&Kushner's draft). The nuclear question didn't move much from their "surprising proposal" you responded to with assassination of Khamenei's family, and they had a decades-old fatwa on nukes to begin with. Americans acknowledging Iranian regime's legitimacy and committing to "not deploy any additional forces in the region" is as close to UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER for a superpower as one could imagine.
But I think the case is going to become more and more obvious as time goes by.
Yes, I imagine so.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1d ago
Thanks for the clarity, I'll put it simply too.
People extend different amounts of charity to friends, to family members, to neutral strangers and to the hostile outgroup. This does not map cleanly onto political allegiance. For example I still nominally have friends of the Zigger persuasion, and either do not discuss the war and the broad issue of the… diminished credibility of the Russian national project, or try to make my points from the remaining common ground. Some friends who have Powerful takes on the need to eradicate Russian nation. There are also some people in this community whom I respect and disagree with, people with rich, coherent and defensible belief systems leading to different conclusions from mine, and I'd rather not shit on them over claiming something that I'd say disqualifies a stranger from having political rights.
But at the end of the day I'm a Sinophilic Russian who wants broader power decentralization. You're the kind of guy who can seriously posit that it might be "treasonous" for Americans to undermine an undeclared American war of aggression via criticism (which also makes you immune to the substance of much of the criticism, since the US has in fact lost the war for military reasons many critics had been bringing up, but your school of thought allows the causality to be inverted). Your epistemics and morality also appear shot:
The way you are writing is worrying, it makes me worry about how you are doing, where this dehumanization is coming from, and so on
In truth, we call it all off now, Iran will probably finish arming themselves and nuke a civilian population, likely Israel.
But at that point you have overt politicking putting American, Israeli, Middle Eastern lives (and maybe everyone else?) at risk because you want to slightly increase the chance you can spend two years repeatedly impeaching Trump.
Make the PR bad enough and we stop with the job half done and everyone loses.
No, not everyone loses. Just your team, which might not even represent the aggregate interests of the American nation. Your team's interests are not humanity's interests, they're maybe forgivable (though I don't think they are) but particular. "We need to win… for everyone!" is a self-serving argument.
In other words, you're a two-bit hegemonist, and hostile outgroup for me. When we talk about matters pertaining to your project and to mine, much of the meat you can find is poison, and vice versa; and just like you don't sugarcoat your assertions, I won't do mine. Did you ever say anything interesting? I don't remember, but do you think your cited posts, premised entirely on these self-serving axioms and warped morality, appear to be meaty to me, or just petulant, entitled chutzpah?
But I won't concern troll about your mental health. That'd be too self-serving.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1d ago
Compare it to the Iranians who have sworn to fight "until complete victory" while insisting that no negotiations have even been happening.
Yes, let's compare. Indeed, to our knowledge, no direct negotiations with the US have been happening at virtually every moment where the US was claiming negotiations, and the MOU is both extremely similar to initial Iranian terms, dissimilar to Witkoff-Kushner terms which Iran had dismissed, and an admission of Iranian victory. They've performed so much better than you that you can't look at this. Wiki:
On 25 March, Pakistani officials delivered a "15-point proposal" from the US to Iran, detailing a ceasefire plan.[15][16][17] The US proposal included an end to Iran's nuclear program, limits on its missiles, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, restrictions on Iran's support for armed groups, and sanctions relief for Iran. The Iranians rejected the US proposal, with an anonymous official telling Press TV that "Iran will end the war when it decides to do so and when its own conditions are met". The Iranians issued a "5-point counter-proposal", including an end to US-Israeli attacks on Iran and pro-Iranian forces in Lebanon and Iraq, security guarantees to prevent future Israeli and US aggression, war reparations, and international recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.[18]
On 31 March, Pakistan and China delivered a "5 point initiative" for peace, calling for an immediate end to all hostilities and allowance of humanitarian aid into the region.[19][20][21] Trump claimed on 1 April 2026 that Iran had just asked the US for a ceasefire and that the US would consider it once the Strait of Hormuz was "open, free, and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion ... back to the Stone Ages!".[11] Iran's foreign ministry called the claim "false and baseless". The IRGC said the strait "will not be opened to the enemies of this nation through the ridiculous spectacle by the president of the US".[11]
Pretty clear who's been full of bluster here and who achieved victory.
I think I don't know, you don't know, Daes definitely doesn't know (or can't say if he did, isn't he posting from China these days?)
Uh-huh. From the inner spiritual China. The politruk does keep a tight watch over what I get to post on themotte. @aquota see, I really wouldn't have needed xitter to lose interest in dancing around the fact that some Patriots are going off their rockers and it's pretty funny.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1d ago
See, this is what I mean.
See what? You're basically hiding in the fog of war and proposing a deeply nihilistic epistemology that Trump's tendency to brazenly bullshit everyone makes every circumstance completely open to interpretation. I don't believe this is how this works. Operation Epic Fury had been declared Over in early May already, by the Secretary of State, who doesn't have remotely Trump's reputation. The US and Iran have signed - not announced, not "leaked" – an MOU which is clearly an admission of defeat relative to any claimed early-war objective of the US, and a bunch of obvious Ws for Iran. Could Trump ignore it all, restart the war, and actually beat Iran this time? Quite possibly. Such things happen in history. But that'd be another, separate war. The terms accepted now suggest the US was pretty desperate for an off-ramp.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1d ago
Thanks
The ritual with public chiding and howling of Les Miserables is insufferable.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1d ago
Like if somehow the war had ended unambiguously on good terms for the US was this supposed to be evidence in my favor?
Yes, because it'd suggest that my opponents were largely correct to treat it as another culture war side show, and demand charitable discussion of American efforts and speaking of their leaders Trump and Hegseth as imperfect, maybe not highly moral, but rational actors with non-insane motivations, who have a plausible, debatable opinion on what's best for America (specifically, another war in the Middle East). And that insisting that the war is a wholly unjustified crime perpetrated by basically murder clowns is "TDS", "twitter fried his brain", or some such.
To be clear, I expected the war to end in Iranian defeat, but not really "good terms for the US". As in – probably ground operation, some more atrocities, more losses, high reputational damage, high economic damage, attrition of stockpiles, unmanageable conflagration in the region, dangerously inflated belief in capabilities vs China, and other assorted wages of insanity and malice that make it all not worth it. American defeat was well outside my model, so this is "winning too much", as it were.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
1d ago
As long as it's the Iranians I can agree
Call me a Western supremacist and racist but on Feb 27th I did not expect Iranians to come out looking more decent.
none of this is new for Western, or any other sort of leadership
Many old things are vile and, worse, not even effective. There's a point to having standards.
It's all there is to it, and all there ever was.
That's because it's not such a small thing as you try to make it out to be. It's not like Hegseth has bad facial features or that I get the ick. It's that his entire shtick is shit. His… ah, I've already covered that, didn't I. Aesthetics is correlated with holistic value. This is how a commander presents himself when he's likely to wage a nonsensical war in a reprehensible manner. This is how a secondary antagonist in a Disney adaptation of a children's fable looks like. Apparently, this is also how a guy looks when he's about to blow it. We're not on SlateStarCodex, but Scott would surely say that nothing is ever a coincidence, or something to that effect.
But anyway, there is something new to it. Again: the US has lost the war. So:
The perfect two-line summary of the entirety of pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump discourse, isn't it?
I concede I should have added the third line, for example: "and then Trumpists fucking lose, having debased and betrayed themselves for nothing".
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2d ago
I was shown the door, after repeatedly petitioning for fair and non-preferential treatment* and with the clear and not unreasonable suggestion that I'm expected to self-immolate upon coming back. The 90 day ban had expired like 2-3 days ago. I might write another update on the AI competition (like my long-running series on Ascend hardware, given that they're rolling out SuperPODs in July-August, and DeepSeek given that they're finally raised $7.4B…) when there's some alpha. Oh, Cheng Li-Wun's visit to Beijing (and next to Washington) also should have gotten some coverage. And https://europe2031.ai/ in light of the Fable pullback. I think @Stefferi and other resident Europeans might care. Advanced drone warfare reaching Moscow and starting to make inroads in Lebanon… Lots of stuff to talk about. Maybe one day.
Thanks for remembering me, I guess.
Sorry for hijacking, @self_made_human.
If you're interested in what I'm going to write (assuming I won't get banned again right now), maybe you'll see reason to check in from time to time.
*If @Amadan wants to knock me right out again, he's within his rights to do so. I legit was fed up with the mods for this year-long public game of "Oh no Dase, you're such an asshole of course, what a shame, but you're too precious to get banned… or at least you were, long ago… what do, hm? Hmm?!" which invited resentment from the Oppressed User Underclass conjured into existence by the very act of this public distinction. My requests weren't an attempt to suicide-by-cop, I just wanted them to stop it.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
2d ago
So in the post which earned me the ban, one specific line that invited complaints, glib pontification about my being brain-fried by Twitter, and even concern for my wellbeing (eg from @Throwaway05) was:
Your democratically elected representatives are worse than their authoritarians. I'm quite serious, we can just take a glance at "them" and see that Iranian leaders you're murdering look and talk like normal white Europeans from a developed nation, while yours, authorizing those strikes – Hegseth, Trump – are barely human but instead some degenerated swine from a Fromsoft game (and unsurprisingly detest Europe and revel in harming and humiliating it directly and indirectly).
I stand by this line, and I believe it had aged very well indeed, complete with the claim of superiority of Iranian leadership material. In particular Ali Larijani, the butcher, the Kantian, had been vindicated, and killing him proved to be utterly futile. This is a triumph of the human over the bestial, reason over dogma, intellect and will over emotion and matter. Pretty clear-cut actually. I think Americans should reflect on this phenomenon, it's like their movies and cartoons, except they weren't the underdog protagonists.
The bolded part was labeled «Nazi talk», and: «Systematic dehumanization of someone you dislike and leadership figures of them is a classic sign of disordered thought processes that often lead to things like the rise of authoritarian states, ethnic cleansing, justification of deaths of people in that group (ex: Charlie Kirk).» Throwaway, being Mentally Well and Socially Adjusted, felt it prudent to only say that «the current admin has plenty worth complaining about».
I am obviously tempted to snark, but let's be civil. Throwaway, upon everything we've seen while I was out – do you think calling Trump and Hegseth, these two powerful men in particular, swine and worse – was undeserved? Do you think that after a perfidious attack during negotiations, Minab girls' school targeted by Palantir using SoTA AI and maps 10 years out of date and triple-tapped by supposedly Iranian Tomahawks, stealthily sinking a defenseless ship, «a whole civilization will die», «bridge and power plant day», «Death and destruction from the sky. All day long», moving goalposts and retroactively changing objectives of the operation, making up «regime change» with the regime getting unprecedentedly legitimized, lashing out at allies, withdrawing defensive arms from allies and freezing supplies to allies, insider trading, 30+ fraudulent declarations of victory and/or Deal to mislead the markets, bringing the global economy to the brink where SPRs would run dry and serious demand destruction would begin, and eventual concession of military defeat in Versailles, complete with thanks to Xi and Putin for not making it more pathetic – after this entire immense, destructive, disgraceful, fractally embarrassing, entirely unnecessary, wholly CHOSEN, heavily DEFENDED and RATIONALIZED here, shitshow that has defiled American reputation and deflated American mythos (not the LLM from Dario, which sort of saved the day) –
…
…
do you think it was reasonable of you to give me a lecture on how I'm losing it, just because I expressed anger and disgust with what was happening and what it meant?
@aqouta do you still think it was my brain that got fried, and not of everyone here who treated this war as business as usual and a cause for armchair chuckling about… all manners of tedious war nerd minutiae?
@WandererintheWilderness do you still think Iranians have underperformed your standards for "human beings with moral agency and rational minds", and that Americans were more up to it?
And what have the warmongers got to say for themselves? @Shakes? @Iconochasm? I'm not even mad anymore, after all you lost, contra my expectations. I'm just kind of curious: can you process that this was a terrible idea and many supposedly cuckoo people who pointed out that the US will lose the war (like Scott Ritter) were, actually, straight up correct, at least?
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3mo ago
Well yes, that's prudent to smooth out the shock, but in the longer term the US is entrenching its position as a fossil fuel producer and exporter.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3mo ago
Well you could just not try shorting oil futures in the first place, that's a pretty zany strategy. In fact, American oil/LNG companies stand to gain BIGLY from all this. Russia is banned, Iran is being destroyed, Qatar is already 20% down for the next 3-5 years, the Strait is closed. Your commodity exports are going to the moon.
I mean. They could voluntarily reform themselves into a peace-loving liberal democracy
These are human beings with moral agency and rational minds. In principle there should be nothing stopping them from just ceasing to be an oppressive warmongering theocracy, and then, miraculously, the rest of the world would stop trying to blow them up.
Haha. Holy shit man, get off your high horse. Could you, in principle, reform yourself into a sensible person? This is just laughably tone-deaf in 2026. It's not "the rest of the world" – you don't represent the world, this won't even work as a polite fiction, "the world" is overwhelmingly against this lunacy, and not because the world likes Ayatollahs. You're on the side of a clearly fascist nation committing genocide in the name of a crude ethnosupremacist theological doctrine, you endorse the second tier version of that doctrine due to being too low IQ to understand Christianity without sectarian perversions, you're ruled by millenarian fanatics worse than Shia Muslims. You openly and proudly commit perfidy, you bullshit all the time, and you're boasting of how these interventions are not even designed to create peace-loving liberal democracies but to, like, appropriate muh oil. Your democratically elected representatives are worse than their authoritarians. I'm quite serious, we can just take a glance at "them" and see that Iranian leaders you're murdering look and talk like normal white Europeans from a developed nation, while yours, authorizing those strikes – Hegseth, Trump – are barely human but instead some degenerated swine from a Fromsoft game (and unsurprisingly detest Europe and revel in harming and humiliating it directly and indirectly). There's a limit to how much you can avert your eyes from the nature of your society and people. Or is there?
Then again, I realize that talking to Americans is as pointless as talking to demons from Frieren, you're only responsive to kinetic and financial arguments at this stage.
P.S. (given the length of the ban, btw thanks for FINALLY dropping this blat and treating me like a normal user as I've been requesting, I feel the need to say this in an edit:) I would very much prefer it if @self_made_human did not disseminate my contacts on any external platforms, for many simple reasons, not least being fed up with condescension here, and also not having any valuable thoughts to share with mottizens. I'd rather you treated me as braindead.
But speaking of the patronizing discussion about being "fried", social media incentives, speculative real life struggles, clout etc.: far as I know, other people's feelings and approval have always had negligible effect on my posting, or generally actions. There are very few internet strangers who matter enough (mostly instrumentally) to deserve any amount of charity or patience, and a tiny number of real life friends whose opinion and goodwill I value above that of any amount of internet strangers. To be frank, I actually struggle with remembering or paying attention to people at all, it often takes me months to read DMs or mail or respond to calls, even with money, glory or other rewards on the line; it's a major problem that has cost me multiple communities, friendships and relationships.
There is very little change in my modus operandi anyway; the only difference is who/whom, my ire no longer being trained on people you're entertained to see savaged, fairly or not. I've gladly taken a permaban on the original subreddit for much the same behavior many years ago now, and would have accepted a permaban on TheMotte at any later point of time if that were the cost of speaking honestly. Not all communities are for everyone, certainly not this one.
My views on the US in general and this community in particular have soured in response to new evidence, such as Resistance Libs (which we've collectively hounded off here) having been, in my opinion, strongly vindicated (unlike my own sympathy for American conservatives), and not in response to having gained some number of "followers" somewhere else. What an immature idea.
There's just nothing to be said. If there's anything to apologize for, I apologize for my recent top level posts that attempted to force an unwelcome discussion.
Entitled misinterpretations of minutiae of my rant (eg "genocidal dehumanization" of Trump&Hegseth who don't constitute a genus) do not merit a comment.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3mo ago
I'm curious as to what is driving this
The impossibility of negotiations with the US and Israel. It doesn't really matter if Iranians have coherent command or not, even a midwitted officer can independently realize the payoff matrix here. Israelis will keep killing their leadership because the official Israeli objective is regime collapse or at least degrading Iran to the condition where it can be gradually collapsed with "mowing the lawn" tactics. American negotiators (Kushner, Witkoff) are now known to be a) incompetent and b) represent Israel first, so any possible ceasefire agreements will be immediately exploited to kill Iranians with more freedom of action, like the US has done to Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq after a recent ceasefire agreement.
They don't have moves that improve their situation left, sans imposing costs on the global and regional economy and hoping to provoke a strategically unsound concession via international pressure on the US&Israel, to genuinely win time and reestablish deterrence. It's a pretty absurd bet, especially seeing as neither Israel nor the US are directly harmed by the closure of Hormuz Strait and consider giving Iranians room to develop nukes (or even maintain a ballistic missile program) unacceptable. It's also arguably backfiring with GCC countries (though this is largely irrelevant as they have little offensive capability beyond hosting American forces and allowing the use of their airspace, which they've been doing anyway).
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3mo ago
I notice that Americans have an extremely delusional and entitled ideas about what happened over Greenland and how "The Western Civilization" (though they sometimes deny this label to Europe, with arguments far more ridiculous than mine) has seen it. It has seen it as a completely credible hostility. You are a hostile alien civilization, understood? Probably not.
P.S.
Sounds like Agamemnon
Agamemnon is literally a Bronze Age brute that precedes even the height of Greek civilization, to say nothing of the West proper. Kind of says it all. There are millenia, tens of generations of divergent selection, schisms and continents between you and what white people have been building towards.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3mo ago
What of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.?
No, those are Western nations.
Trump isn't Israeli, his family is German and Scottish, his grandfather built the family fortune running a saloon in Gold Rush Yukon Canada. That's just what New Yorkers are like.
New Yorkers aren't Western, indeed. They are spiritually Middle Eastern/African. Jung didn't mean ancestry (he makes it clear his argument sidesteps actual miscegenation) and neither do I. Trump isn't Western nor even white, sorry, this is just obvious.
I don't think Western Civilization has some special claim to inhibited behavior and a disdain for bling.
It very much does, it's one of the more obvious WEIRD traits. Culture of dignity, meritocracy, deferred gratification etc. Bourdieu called that Habitus. Trump-Loomer-Levin belong to the breed of people who shout Allahu Akbar before exploding, even if their religion is different.
What about you talking about? Western Civilization is now against "weird theologically motivated wars"? -- since when?
Approximately since the Peace of Westphalia. It's evolved and secularized a fair bit since the Crusades; and even those had nothing to do with your "Judeo-Christian Civilization", but rather with the opposite.
You should also stop believing every news article you read about how the Americans are doing this to bring about the end world or whatever, that's almost a disqualifying level of credulity, by the way.)
Do you understand that I consider your attempts to sanity-wash your culture as an entirely disqualifying level of gaslighting? I don't need news articles, I can make my own conclusions from what your savage tribal champions utter.
Seeing as I'm not interested in getting gaslit, there's no point to debate this. You're a self-interested tribalist and so you feel entitled to European gratitude irrespective of the balance of payment or current behavior. Well, until they establish military deterrence against your aggression, this is rational behavior.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3mo ago
Is the argument here that Jews are not part of Western Civilization?
Israel is obviously not part of the Western civilization, it's an older and completely distinct tradition, and as the demographic share of secular Ashkenazim in Israel is reduced, so the authentic Israeli culture comes more to the fore. And the American doctrine of Judeo-Christianity is laughably stupid retconning. Levin is an hysterical Israeli Firster who's shedding his assimilation, if it ever existed. Just look at how the guy posts.
But even before this recent obsession with Israel, many Europeans had remarked that the US is culturally not a white or Western society, though they differed in specifics. Consider Jung:
“The emotional way an American expresses himself, especially the way he laughs, can best be studied in the illustrated supplements of the American papers: the inimitable Teddy Roosevelt laugh is found in its primordial form in the American Negro. The peculiar walk with loose joints, or the swinging of the hips so frequently observed in Americans, also comes from the Negro. American music draws its main inspiration from the Negro, and so does the dance. The expression of religious feeling, the revival meetings, the Holy Rollers and other abnormalities are strongly influenced by the Negro, and the famous American naïveté, in its charming as well as its more unpleasant form,,,,” … “… for a wide-awake person, the primitive contents may often prove to be a source of renewal. The American unconscious is highly interesting, because it contains more varied elements and has a higher tension, owing to the melting-pot and the transplantation to a primitive soil, which caused a break in the traditional background of the Europeans who became Americans. On the other hand, Americans are in a way more highly civilized than Europeans, and on the other hand their wellspring of life energy reaches greater depths. The American unconscious contains an immense number of possibilities.”[34]
Hopefully you can notice this in your own manner.
Trump praised Mark Levin on social media
It's not so much that he praised him, it's that it was a weird hagiography one could expect from a Muslim or Jewish person, prompted by a personal request for backup in a petty online spat. And generally Trump is very clearly a representative of Middle Eastern culture, what with his extended family nepotism, corruption, bling, low-inhibition behavior, and yes, Israeli ties. To an extent that he represents America, being a legitimately elected populist president, this just means America is not part of Western civilization either.
Now I advance the argument that Bestern Civilization is better than the Third world, and better than Iran, so I support our moral claims against theirs etc. etc. etc. etc.
Fair enough. It's just that, not being your kin, the Western Civilization doesn't owe you shit. Worse, you're engaged in zero sum competition against it, trying to annex its lands, steal its markets, offload consequences of your tribal conflicts on it, rope it into your weird theologically motivated wars etc etc. You're not providing enough value to justify further tolerance of this behavior from an alien society.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3mo ago
Western Civilization is better than the Third World and America is better than Iran
But is the United States part of the Western Civilization? To me it looks like you're some mix of Middle Eastern (at the top) and South American (at the bottom) culture. Is Laura Loomer and Mark Levin, your two spiritual pillars as we now learn, "Western Civilization"? No, they're hysterical Levantines. Consider whom you've chosen as your representatives for a bona fide "Western Civilization" society, France: Charles Kushner. What is Charles famous for? Among all else, for hiring a prostitute to seduce his brother in law, for purposes of blackmail/retaliation. How did that play out long term? Kushner's son in your "administration" got the prosecutor Chris Christie fired from Trump team, claiming that Christie should've let the rabbis handle the matter. This is a primitive, clannish, theocratic society.
Sure, you have some trappings of the West, true (like "Senate", "Capitol hill" etc), you have "elections" to reinforce the legitimacy of this primitive system. But it's like Arabs when they were translating Aristotle. Stewardship of alien ideas. You also have advanced Western technology. But is that "Civilization"? Is China «Western Civilization» too, then?
And your notion of the Western Civilization is impoverished, it's just «Judaism with some shit on top». Nothing about the Greco-Roman world or Renaissance, science and rational thought. At this point, you are about as far from the West per se as Iran is.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3mo ago
To be clear this is capeshit. China does not depend on Iranian oil (it just exploits the sanctions-driven discount) and in fact keeps getting Iranian oil even now. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan depend enormously on the oil from the Strait of Hormuz and unlike China have NO domestic fossil fuel production; this all can turn out tragic for them. Accordingly Chinese indexes are stable and other East Asians are in shit. And removing THAAD launchers from Korea to reinforce the Middle East underscores how little attention has been given to the Chinese angle in this conflict.
Trying to frame this obviously Israeli war as part of some 4D chess strategy to "police" China is cope. Israel is not at war with China, therefore neither is the US. Indeed, Trump is even calling on PLAN to assist in reopening the Strait.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3mo ago
The worst crime of the Gulf Arabs is their gullibility. They invested in those vanity projects (The Line being its ultimate symbol), basically redistributing the oil windfall back to the West. This is deserving of much mockery.
But on the merits, they've exceeded every standard I could expect from them. They maintain stable, rich nations. They are trying. They are buying world class AI experts hoping to get some high value-add economy going, building datacenters, constructing attractive (not to you yeah, I get it) cities on worthless patches of the desert, despite negligible culture of sophisticated urban life. Their royalty has some real assabiyah and is concerned about its legitimacy among the native masses – more so than the elites of the West. This time they are doing it without the cheat code of Persians carrying their intellectual jobs. I respect all people who struggle against the odds. It would be quite sad if they failed.
Low human capital is unaesthetic. Ethics has an aesthetic dimension as well. What is the point of your tedious nitpicking? Are you too goybrained at this point to get what I call aesthetics here?
thanks btw, I'll be returning to this post. One note for now:
Fracking is genuinely technically sophisticated, but I just can't get excited about a new fossil extraction trick.
Chinese "New three" (solar panels, EVs, batteries) exports now produce like >$200B annual revenue., en route to 300. This is uncomfortably close to American fossil exports. I find one of these strategies of revolutionizing energy more compelling, technically and business-wise, and a good hint about the rest of the trajectory.
More options
Context Copy link