hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
hanikrummihundursvin
17hr ago
Yeah if you make up novel definitions no one else shares you can try to claim to win the argument a priori.
Basing the interests of a nation on the nationals that live there and what benefits them? Novel indeed.
Iran is one of America’s greatest geopolitical enemies and has been for decades. They take Americans hostage, bomb American bases, attack neutral ships and fund terrorist networks throughout the Middle East.
Not a single one of those examples can stand under any scrutiny. Unless you define every nation that isn't a puppet to America as a geopolitical enemy. Which is coincidentally what zionists are wont to do.
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
I'm adding the context you perpetually leave out to maintain your rhetoric. If America is winning a war that is of no benefit to anyone but zionists then I don't fully subscribe to the notion that 'America' is winning given the nature of the conflict.
Following that: when you narrowly define 'America' as just being a measuring stick for whether zionism is better or worse off, then you can say just about anything regardless of what is actually of benefit to American people.
America’s leverage is growing This is bad news for everyone but America
How has the 25 year middle East adventure benefited Americans? Let's clarify some things. America in your context is just US foreign policy as dictated by zionists. No American person living an American life sees benefit from any of this. This is just money out of their pocket. The ZOG of America has more leverage in the middle east now. That's the actual extent of your definition of victory. In other areas, that operate on non-zionist assumptions, America is worse off along with the rest of the world.
You can just say America is winning and you wish they lost because you’re on Iran’s side. That’s more respectable than whatever this is.
That would be the opposite of what I am saying though. Beyond that I would not give a penny for what you think is respectable given your glee in cheerleading for this war.
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
Trump lost. Iran lost. America lost. The world lost.
Iran is suffering an acute economic crisis and is further away from acquiring nukes than it was before the war. But since there was never any demonstrable threat of Iran nuking anyone, this is a moot point. All we get is an economic crisis for 90 million people.
Iran's leverage over the Strait of Hormuz is shrinking. But given the strait was open before the US attacked, this is a moot point.
Iran's military strength is waning. But since they were not a threat to anyone before the war outside of zionist expansion plans, this is a moot point.
Trade in the Gulf and across the global economy is continuing almost uninterrupted if we discount the disruptions in trade in the Gulf and global effects like fuel rationing in Asia and increased fuel prices globally.
America's leverage in the Middle East is growing, not shrinking. Which is bad news for the world considering the disastrous results of US interventions in the middle East and the complete failure of their foreign policy in the region. Which include but are not limited to the collapse of multiple countries, the refugee crisis in Europe, the formation of ISIS and the promulgation of global terror the likes the world had not seen since 9/11.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
If the UAE already sent/released 3bn, like is alleged in the article, I'd consider it safe to presume that they intend to follow through with the rest.
And given that Iran kept blowing stuff up, I think it's highly likely that Iran never got to smell it at all.
I'm not sure on the timeline here. According to the article Iran has not attacked the UAE since May 4th. Talks allegedly began in June. The only attacks my google and AI can find are the recent strikes from last week on ships belonging to Abu Dhabi National Oil Company in the SoH. Maybe that's enough for the UAE to pull the cord, but maybe not, as the focus of this deal might be to guarantee that Iran will not strike the mainland.
If we were trying to tighten our language down to be more accurate then the UAE intends to release up to 10-20bn Iranian assets to Iran in deal designed to 'ease regional tensions'. 3bn has already been released, according to sources. They also intend to 'revive economic ties'.
Whilst that might not be as sensational as 'paid 10-20 billion' I'd argue it's undeniably on that side of the equation.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
Summary:
Two sources say at least $10 billion to be unlocked under deal
First $3 billion tranche already sent, sources say
Deal includes revived economic ties, source says
UAE official says Gulf state aims to ease regional tensions
Iran sought similar pact with two other Gulf states, source says
Sources can say a lot of things, but they do seem to be saying the thing. Is the issue here with the word 'paid' rather than 'released'?
Two regional sources told Reuters the UAE had agreed to release a total of $10 billion, more than $3 billion of which had already been delivered.
Two other sources with knowledge of the arrangement put the total funds involved at $20 billion, adding that the move had been agreed in return for a halt to Iranian attacks on the UAE. One of the sources with knowledge of the arrangement also said a first tranche of $3 billion had already been made available.
hanikrummihundursvin
5d ago
My presumption would be that around half the electorate are generally in favor of the shitlib worldview, including immigration. Within that half you typically have two types. An ideologically unaware person that cries at refugee propaganda on TV, and an ideological leftist of some stripe. Spain usually has more of the latter than the average European country.
The right wing half is generally similarly split. The type that says they are opposed to immigration or whatever but can't formulate a coherent reason for why since they otherwise buy into the shitlib worldview without being aware, and the ideologically right wing type. It's rare for the latter to exceed 20% of the electorate or strike out on their own.
In a multi-party system like is common in Europe, a 37% approval rating is not that bad actually.
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
It genuinely feels like incompetence. Not just on behalf of the administration but the entire right wing.
The conception on the right has been that the government does stuff that's bad, the private sector does stuff that's good, and the civilians are just honest spectators whose souls move at the mercy of the government and the whims of the free market, preferably also under the guidance of our lord and savior Jesus Christ.
The left wing, to use these general terms, has in the meantime tried to integrate all of these things in a single ideological package. The markets, the government, the public perception of reality. It's all constantly being synchronized. You get a single ideological block with its own moral narratives, ingroup/outgroup distinctions and everything else. Which turns into a complete worldview. Call it 'Cultural Marxism', call it 'woke', call it 'the post war consensus' or the liberal moral order. Whatever it is, whatever permutation you come across, it's unapologetic, ruthless and consistently self serving. It knows exactly who is friend and who is enemy. What is right, what is wrong.
There is no such force on the right. The closest we've gotten to synchronization is Musk buying twitter, and Musk and Trump being friends. But that alliance was fragile at best since there is no shared worldview between them. 'Free market good' isn't a worldview. 'Government spending bad' isn't one either. In fact it's at best quaint and at worst stupid when your actual ideological enemies are using the 'free market' to push their worldview. Or using the government to fund and protect their foot soldiers.
The right doesn't know friend from foe. It doesn't know what's right and wrong, good or bad. Right wing media figures sometimes brag that the only active and engaging political and philosophical discourse happening in modernity happens on the right. Claiming that the left has become too insular and self absorbed to afford meaningful discourse. And that might be true, but that's also why the left can win and the right seemingly only lose. And no, calling your activist groups 'feds' isn't a worldview either.
There's no racist dragnet trying to identity non-white scammers, because over half the right thinks racism is evil. So instead of getting a clear and concise picture on the ground from coherent right wing activists or media about all the ways the world is wrong according to a dogmatic right wing worldview, we have to rely on the perfect storm of aspergers and autism to incidentally uncover the racist reality of the Somalian scam economy. Meanwhile, the entire left mobilizes without effort to proclaim that incidental racism is racism nonetheless. And that everyone involved is an evil racist. Except the scammers, of course. Peace be upon them.
The right has no ethos. And despite the smugness from the right, it's a land of those the left kicked out.
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
I don't know. Do you put much weight on the feelings of Spanish voters in general? Or only when they can be leveraged towards the rhetorical interests of Israel in some way?
Not to make this sound too antagonistic, I've just been coming across these 2016-era ethnonationalist arguments in favor of Israel from unexpected directions. And I'm having a hard time reconciling just how far removed they are from what has been argued continuously by such people for over a decade. Not to say this applies to you in any direct way, just that you happen to fit a pattern in my brain at the moment, pending clarification.
For me it's either a universal principle, or at the very least a principle that applies to both Europeans and jews, or something else is going on that I want no part of until it's openly explained.
All that aside, I don't think the left wing in Europe has ever cared for populism beyond it being a vessel to take power. They use that power to oppose Israel on pretty consistent grounds to what they advocate at home. In that context I don't understand the question you are asking. I'm not too clued in on Spanish elections, but my ignorant assumption would be that they are democratic, fair and the the current government won.
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
Spain is not shooting these people or bombing their homes and has been working to naturalize millions of immigrants. Doing exactly what they say Israel should do.
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
I guess I could take that into consideration when I read your posts.
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
I still like it and it didn't cost me anything.
I read the entire thing and felt it captured the sentiment around the famous photo better than elsewhere I looked. Where the focus is usually on how 'sad', 'scary' or 'ominous' the photo is, when in reality it wasn't necessarily like that. To me it was defiant.
Tyler is only twenty-four. Rene is twenty-one. Ages when most people are still figuring out who they are, let alone how to survive a lifetime together. Yet here they are, bound by something stronger than romance alone—shared trauma, shared loyalty, shared survival.
It circulates online, often without context. Some see only shock. Others see inspiration. But if you look closely, you see something deeper: a moment where two people stood together in honesty. No pretending. No filters. Just truth.
I didn't clock it as AI, even though it sounded generic at times. But even if it is I like this specific post and don't see the fact that it was written by AI as being disrespectful at all. And I stand by wanting people to read it. (Not to comment on the practice of maintaining a website that writes AI eulogies.)
I'm partial to that line of argumentation. That within a modern western society the standards of living are so high and what's being asked for sacrifice is generally so little that it's basically a no brainer to earnestly participate. I think most people recognize this and earnestly participate. But on the flipside you are still getting lumps. So what's the deal there?
The following explanation, that a society with such high standards of living carries with it a variety of easily accessible vices that can demoralize people into lumps, effectively contradicts the premise of the first argument; that the standard of living in western societies is 'high'. This is compounded by the short timespan you have to succeed. Fall to the vices or miss certain milestones and suddenly homeownership and a family are a real challenge to attain.
From the perspective of a rational lump, either the vices in society are so good that being a gambling goonsimping lump is just the maximally beneficial state of being and working to rise above such an existence or sacrifice anything for it is either contradictory or simply a waste. Or, society is filled with pitfalls and vices that are functionally psychological landmines that trap you and/or rape your brain and prevent you from attaining real happiness. In which case the standard of living in a western society for people susceptible to such things is low and not worth sacrificing for.
So either the lumps are playing out a winning strategy by being maximally individualistic and hedonistic to their preference, or the game is rigged, society is garbage and the lumps are correctly opting out of earnest participation and are instead doing the minimal amount of sacrifice possible.
Or the worst case scenario is correct. Society is working as intended, trying to mind rape you into being incapacitated or enslaved for incomprehensible reasons, no one is fighting against this and the only act of self determination left is to choose which slave socket you jack yourself into or how you are going to kill yourself.
And a history teacher stuck dragging lumps through the pages is not, in a sense, a lump himself?
It's hard for men of delusional ego to reach those who have been demoralized or are at the very least exposed to representations, real or fake, of what 'winning' at life is actually like. Which looks less like a middleaged, underpaid academy teacher who views the world through a lens of struggle, duty and sacrifice whilst growing ever fatter in his chair every day with a sexually disinterested ugly wife who believes she settled for him, and more like the frictionless luxury advertised on social media by hot people in Miami.
We're just watching the Gervais Principle on a societal scale where lumps are losers. Tied together through classroom/media established hierarchy rather than an office one.
No one has really managed to piece together the exact chain of causality that molds some of our young folk into lumps. But it's obviously there. Most likely not defined by a single link but a thousand. And if ones younger self spent enough time scrolling on the phone alongside a lump one would probably get there as well.
Tyler Ziegel is one such link. A young man permanently disfigured in a pointless war fighting for interests completely alien to him. That no one to this day can positively articulate. He then suffers through the indignity of begging the failing state he represented in uniform for his pay. Before succumbing to alcohol, drugs and complete despondence. You might only see Tyler once in your scrolling career, but he will stay in your brain forever. His weight impacting every decision you make regarding useless wars in the middle east and some peoples willingness to send you there.
No one except the sociopaths can look Tyler in the eye and tell him he made a good choice for himself, that it was worth it. But only because that's good for the sociopath. If anyone who actually cared for Tyler could send him a message before he deployed it would be to tell him not to. He would have been better off "goonsimping" on his phone.
The clueless might argue that sacrifices are necessary for society, which is undoubtedly true in some sense. But the clueless genuinely cannot fathom why a lump would refuse to sacrifice for a system that doesn't meet his requirements. Pontificating on why is futile. Such is simply the nature of the clueless. He can only balk in indignance at the very premise that the sacrifice has to be worth it for the individual lump. 'That's not how sacrifice works', the clueless says. 'You're not allowed to question the cause. That defeats the purpose of it!'
But modern America is not built on the premise of sacrifice, but luxurious individuality. That's the American dream. The sociopaths get this, the lumps get this, the clueless don't.
hanikrummihundursvin
11d ago
Men with rifles also took down machine guns. That didn't invalidate the use case for machine guns or the fact they changed warfare, even if they were very heavy and tended to overheat. So I don't see the relevance of the select scenarios where Ukrainians and Russians can fly props and shoot down slow moving drones. Or that there are operational issues with drones in many conditions. That can all be true and drones are still a force that revolutionizes the battlefield in a way that reduces the role of small arms.
An unreliable 1000 dollar drone is an option one can choose multiple times before it stops being cost effective. And that's assuming the tech remains static, which it wont.
It might be more complicated than rock paper scissors but that's not really saying anything. The typical American ideation of a group of armed men resisting the US government relied on a set of priors that drones all but eliminate.
The US lost in the middle east for a variety of reasons. The drones were not one of them and they undeniably moved the battlefield in America's favor. If Afghan and hypothetical US resistance fighters were of the same caliber one might make the argument you're making. But I'm not sure where you intend to find Americans who have the guts and ideological firmament to resist like the Taliban did outside of Amish communities. But in that case the victory condition is largely neither guns or drones.
Am I misunderstanding you or is the claim that you can reliably shoot down drones with rifles? Because that's not the feeling I get from watching drone strike vids at all. To get around linking that soul devouring crap, here's a YouTuber talking to a guy about drones. This video shows more how hard they are to shoot.
It's also hard to imagine a rebel force contesting the US Air Force for air superiority via prop planes.
What people generally refer to regarding drones are FPV drones. The kind that are extremely hard to shoot down. Couple a few of those together with an ISR drone with thermals and any 'Red Dawn' wargames go out the window.
hanikrummihundursvin
12d ago
Guns have been obsolete in America for a long time since 'the people' are not willing to use them when it risks their convenient lives.
hanikrummihundursvin
13d ago
As someone who's not up on the MKC lore, his post reads very normal. Sneering against the rapey politicians on both sides doesn't seem like a very one sided application of boo outgroup. Unless we are modding based on personal vendettas and perceived ulterior motives of the poster.
It seems more like you believe MKC is gaining something in a low brow game of oneupmanship by posting this, and you don't want that. Which similarly feels like a low brow application of mod powers.
To top it all of there is a genuine avenue into discussing the perceived slight MKC is making against his alleged 'outgroup':
Some comments I've been seeing however suggest that Republican candidates are simply held to lower moral standards nowadays by their respective sides and it won't impact him too much despite the severity. I guess time will tell.
Isn't this exactly then kind of 'nuance' you say is missing in your post below? Pontifications on the moral landscape of America and such feel like a very typical Motte sort of thing. Here's the perfect springboard to rehash that stuff.
hanikrummihundursvin
15d ago
Of course those 4chan-esque subs were always dubious if not outright illegal, so it was clear that as reddit grew into the mainstream, something had to be done about them. The problem is that the admins overcorrected and instead of just banning some of the worst offenders like /r/Jailbait or /r/CoonTown they ended up banning almost everything that violated lefist sensibilities.
It's especially predictable that this would happen when, to this day, people put racist jokes and child pornography in the same basket. When the metric for where you draw the line is your emotional perturbance upon seeing something, and not an object level thing, like age, then this is the logical conclusion.
As soon as you move the line, you forget where the line used to be. That's a fact leftists rely on, and centrists never manage to wrap their head around. Whilst the right wingers reminisce about the line as it was 10 years ago, having forgotten where it was before that.
hanikrummihundursvin
15d ago
South Africa also included a lot of things Israel is doing, hence why both are apartheid.
The international law that is being violated when Israel has been occupying a people for 60 years is clearly one of the bad ones. People obviously don't refer to it as a benign thing. The fact that you think that many other people imagine that violations of international law regarding a conflict zone are of zero moral weight is, pardon the term, delusional. Especially considering how known and unpopular Israel is in this conflict.
I don't see why 'unjust' would be more descriptive than 'apartheid' or 'illegal occupation'. In fact it sounds exactly the opposite. The other two are more descriptive in what exactly is being done that is unjust.
Well, it is for me.
Then you're just wrong.
hanikrummihundursvin
15d ago
I'm not a big fan of this shoot. That being said, if someone is resisting so persistently and they do have a knife then I think the theoretical line to justify the shoot has been crossed.
What makes this look bad is that the guy seemed incapacitated right before the shooting. Almost as if the officer was using the opportunity given by the taser to pull out his gun and shoot. So the officer could plausibly have done something different to save that mans life. But at the same time I think it's a hard sell to tell anyone to get in a wrestling match with someone armed with a knife.
So all in all, knife accounted for, I'm not sure the cops could have done much to make themselves look good given they seemed incapable of apprehending the suspect without risking their lives to an extent which would, in my view, be hard to justify. Maybe if they had collectively been in better shape?
hanikrummihundursvin
15d ago
Right, I should add judges and lawyers.
"in the interests of justice"
I don't know to what extent one is allowed to fed-post anymore, it's been a while. But... Why do Americans have guns?
The same thought occurs when the British folk are getting wrangled through their activist court system. But they don't have guns or if they do they certainly lack the bravado of the online American that would like to maintain that things like grooming gangs could never happen on his watch. Despite very similar things already being a thing, like Aurora Avenue in Seattle.
But even then, how on earth can these judges get away with this stuff? The injustice is just off the charts
hanikrummihundursvin
16d ago
You claim that there is a public will that exists independent of the liberal moral order. When we look at time periods before that moral order was established people were more in favor of segregation than not. Forget about mass immigration of brown people, such a thing was just unthinkable.
The US under the 1924 Immigration Act, which lasted until Hart-Celler, was just as much an ethnostate as modern Azerbaijan is in practice. Even more explicitly so when accounting for Jim Crow laws. It's not until after the Liberal Moral Order starts asserting itself that you get the 'will of the people' you allude to.
The Hart-Celler act was presented as a minimal update of sorts. One of the first big lies of the LMO. To quote LBJ:
"The days of unlimited immigration are past."
And to further the point of Dual Morality as exemplified by some jewish people, Emanuel Celler fought his entire life to expand immigration into America. Despite being an ideological zionist.
The LMO is not a coincidental thing that dropped from the sky. It was an ideological push that modulated the views of the public through distortion of fact and outright lies. The people who pushed it had views and opinions. Many of the ones who were jewish had separate opinions for the US and for Israel.
You keep saying every country should have the right, but if you don't deal with the actual moral premise that precludes that. To highlight this:
If it is a given that White America does not benefit from the majority of the black population in America, would you consider it amoral and perfectly within White America's right to distance themselves from the broader portion of the black population just like Israel distances itself from the Palestinian one? Proportionally, discounting Oct.7, around 600 white Americans are killed compared to 20-30 Israelis by Palestinians annually. Assuming the US white population is roughly 20 times the size of Israel, living with black Americans is roughly as deadly as the current state of the Israel Palestine conflict is for Israelis.
What should the broader European and white American world feel like? Is your assessment of the current state of affairs that it is good for them? The endless immigration, constant self flagellation, and everything else that the LMO dictates. Do you feel that the current state of affairs should continue or should white Americans feel differently? Should they not take the maximal self benefitting position, as you prescribe to the Israeli's, and do you support them even if they started engaging in the same tactics Israel engages in regarding how they've been handling the Palestinians.
And please, don't dip into the LMO again when answering these.
They take hostages only to return them. Bomb army bases during wartime, sometimes giving a warning beforehand, attack neutral shipping as a last ditch defense deterrent and fund militia groups region wide as a response to decades of proxy wars and terror campaigns being waged against them and the entire Middle East. Principally by the US and Israel at the behest of zionists.
There is no ground for calling them an enemy of America unless you define America as an arm of zionism. As the continued actions the the US in the region are not in any way representative of the interests of American people and only make sense in the context of zionist ideology.
More options
Context Copy link