@Stefferi's banner p

Stefferi

Chief Suomiposter

9 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 20:29:13 UTC

https://alakasa.substack.com/

Verified Email

				

User ID: 137

Stefferi

Chief Suomiposter

9 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 20:29:13 UTC

					
				

				

				

				

				

					

User ID: 137

Verified Email

And, of course, there was a lot of open and hidden American electoral interference to European electoral politics during the Cold War. A lot of political forces in Europe basically ran entirely or mostly on American cash.

Sweden and Finland implicitly (often stated explicitly, even) work together as a team. Finland provides the land force, Sweden provides the navy and the air force.

If this was a Finnish forum you could probably start a flamewar lasting hundreds of posts on the topic of "the degree of Finnish participation in the siege of Leningrad".

and was not helped during the war by any foreign country in any way

Well, not quite true...

There's a longstanding historical debate on whether the possibility of Anglo-French intervention in Winter War was the decisive factor in Soviets deciding to acquiesce to peace, but that debate is beyond my pay grade, insofar as giving a definite answer goes.

I think that the best way to see it is like: Trump likes tariffs. In the ideal Trumpworld, there's basically a high tariff against most every country, with lower and nonexistent tariff rates being a special favor for pliant loyalists, not the basic starting point. He can't implement this right now in its entirety, since it would still be bit too harsh a hit on economy, but he can start implementing it against those whose negotiating position isn't particularly good, ie. weaker neighboring countries much more dependent on US than US is on them.

More to the point, why would Russia ally with a country that has indicated willingness to do 180-degree turns in foreign policy and abandon previous allies at will due to local power shifts?

My image, as someone who had followed Ukrainian politics close enough to not have a particularly positive image of Zelensky before the invasion, is that when he was woken up and told that the Russians had started a full-scale invasion instead of a more limited op that they had probably been expecting, he probably freaked out a bit and then finally went "Ahh, shit, I have to 100 % commit to an image of a great wartime leader now, don't I?" and then did exactly that. Since he's an actor he found this relatively easy, and obviously when you act as something long enough there's less and less difference to being one, though it still doesn't make him a master tactician when he's committed to some military course of action instead of what the generals are suggesting.

Starmer and the others have been quite clear that any potential coalition of the willing sending troops would send the troops to be a tripwire after a cease-fire. I don't think anyone is really expecting, in the current situation for Article 5 to result to US intervention if Europe was to send troops right now, int he middle of war.

If Kolomoyskyi has an outsized influence in Ukraine, why did this happen?

In 2020, he was indicted in the United States on charges related to large-scale bank fraud. In 2021, the U.S. banned Kolomoyskyi and his family from entering the country, accusing him of corruption and being a threat to the Ukrainian public's faith in democratic institutions. Zelenskyy reportedly stripped Kolomoyskyi of his Ukrainian citizenship in 2022. Later that same year, those of Kolomoyskyi's assets deemed to be of strategic value to the state in light of the Russian invasion were nationalised. These included Ukraine's largest gasoline companies. In 2023, Kolomoyskyi was arrested by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) on charges of money laundering and fraud, and placed under pre-trial arrest.

This is literally the third paragraph of the Wikipedia Kolomoyskyi page where your other quotes are from - don't you think it's more than a bit mendacious to not include this detail when discussing Kolomoyskyi's supposed influence?

Do you generally believe that "an invading, occupying army commits atrocities" is by definition so improbable that it warrants a basic assumption that such claims are propaganda?

I don't think they ever claimed it was just Bucha where atrocities happened/happen, just that Bucha was the most notable example. eg. see this or this, for example.

No one in Europe is massively raising defense spending, activating the draft, getting nuclear weapons, or calling for a pan-Europian army.

Many countries in Europe have, in fact, hiked up defense spending massively, not only compared to 2021 but also compared to 2014, in other words the boost started already after Crimea. At least most of the EU countries in the chart now have defence spending that surpasses the 2% NATO guideline. Numerous politicians have called for a pan-European army throughout the years.

Stan was presented as a voice of reason in the South Park Goobacks episode.

Okay, this may be a stupid question, but wouldn't the simplest solution be announcing that the Administrator of DOGE is... Donald Trump? Is there something preventing the President from also holding other administratorial posts?

How many others just saw this post in the comments feed and went "Wait, why would Neil Gaiman be moderating Warren Ellis fan forums?" before clicking it?

Yes, especially within the context of the book, the chapter is indeed an act of self-flagellation over having held views of the described sort in his youth. I'm not sure what sort of a further retraction than what was described you're looking for here.

This really sounds like nitpicking and goalpost moving, setting up specific standards on the spot that he apparently should have passed for it to be a real retraction.

Kendi's clear message in this chapter is that his youthful views are bad and it's bad to hold views like this. He could have very well chosen not to include a chapter on the book on why anti-white racism is bad, and yet he chose to include this. Furthermore, to my knowledge, it was only after this book that people even started to pay attention to what he said in 2003, so he was almost certainly the one doing the most to even publicize the fact that he had held these views in the first place - why would you manufacture plausible deniability to something you are promoting yourself?

BY THE FALL of 2003, Clarence had graduated and I decided to share my ideas with the world. I began my public writing career on race with a column in FAMU’s student newspaper, The Famuan. On September 9, 2003, I wrote a piece counseling Black people to stop hating Whites for being themselves. Really, I was counseling myself. “I certainly understand blacks who have been wrapped up in a tornado of hate because they could not escape the encircling winds of truth about the destructive hand of the white man.” Wrapped in this tornado, I could not escape the fallacious idea that “Europeans are simply a different breed of human,” as I wrote, drawing on ideas in The Isis Papers. White people “make up only 10 percent of the world’s population” and they “have recessive genes. Therefore they’re facing extinction.” That’s why they are trying to “destroy my people,” I concluded. “Europeans are trying to survive and I can’t hate them for that.”

He calls it a "fallacious idea" right there.

More to the point, though, it's best read within the context of the entire book which, as said, is Kendi using examples of his own life as examples of fallacious ideas in general in the process of confession and self-contrition.

Whether one considers the pre-Crimea events in Ukraine as a coup, a revolution or something else, they were, in the main, internal events within Ukraine, not war. The Russian invasion of Crimea, on the other hand, was a clear act of aggression by one state against another (and, counter to the Russian narrative of bloodless takeover, there were several clashes between Russian and Ukrainian troops), meaning that is when fighting between the states, i.e. war, started.

Russia started the war in 2014 by invading Crimea. This should be a question of little doubt.

Expanding NATO for what? No one is going to face nuclear Armageddon to defend Joensuu, Finland.

Come on now, I no longer hate my old hometown that much...

Would US be facing nuclear Armageddon to defend Alaska?

In case anyone's interested, I have little experience with pesäpallo (often shortened to pesis here), as we had to play the "national sport" a plenty in school and it burned out much of interest in me. Pesis has also traditionally been a rural sport, though recently my hometown (the nr. 2 city in Finland) has spouted a major top-tier team, so I might catch a game next summer if I have time. However, everyone who has experience both with pesis and baseball basically says that Tahko's changes are so large that they are two completely different games with different strategies and tactics and flow of game.

Also, if you're used to pesis, American baseball comes off just as strange when you first experience it as the other way around. I spent quite a bit of time as a child trying to figure out what the hell they were supposed to be doing in the Peanuts strips where they play baseball.

I'm in the position of having just learned to really love soccer last year, and it's specifically the positional jockeying, the passing patterns etc. that make it so fascinating.

But, as said earlier, there is already a version of soccer with a smaller field, more goals and generally more "action" - futsal. It's a growing sport that's becoming more popular by year, there's no need for making major changes to actual soccer when you have futsal!

There's a short summary of the book's chapter, including chapter 10 that discusses the anti-white racism part, here

I'm sometimes convinced I'm the only person to have actually read this book or DiAngelo's White Fragility. The latter is complete empty-headed twaddle mixed with obvious bait for grifting (ie. not-so-subtle promotion of DiAngelo's course on this), the former, while not high lit, is at least interesting in the sense of being built around Kendi's personal narrative and continuous course of absolving himself of his past racism/sexism/homophobia etc. through the act of confession and self-contrition.

Kendi has a different race in mind:

I don’t hate white folk because I’m a Christian. How can you hate a group of people for being who they are? Similarly, how can you hate a turtle because it won’t keep up? That would be like parents hating their children because they are different. All of our children aren’t the same. Europeans are completely different from Asians who are completely different from Hispanics and so on and so forth. Europeans are simply a different breed of human. They are socialized to be aggressive people. They are taught to live by the credo, “survival of the fittest.” They are raised to be racist.

Caucasians make up only 10 percent of the world’s population and that small percentage of people have recessive genes. Therefore they’re facing extinction. Whites have tried to level the playing field with the AIDS virus and cloning, but they know these deterrents will only get them so far. This is where the murder, psychological brainwashing and deception comes into play. -- Ibram Kendi [as Ibram Rogers]: The Famuan. Sept 9, 2003

The similarity is quite remarkable. Whites for Kendi, like Jews for Hitler, are a race of (1) genetically disposed (2) deceivers and (3) capitalist (4) exploiters. They just can't help it.

It must be pointed out that Kendi's statements here are beyond the pale even for most woke pundits, and few of them would follow as far in Hitler's ideological footsteps as Kendi does. It must also be pointed out, however, that Kendi's comments were well known for years, and he was seldom if ever denounced for them by the woke left -- so, while unusual, these statements were not particularly unwelcome.

Well, there is at least one book by the woke left denouncing those statements - "How to Be an Antiracist" by Ibram X. Kendi, where Kendi spends an entire chapter self-flagellating about these statements and his other similar youthful views and uses it as an example on how, in the course of being an antiracist, one should not be an anti-white racist, either.