hanikrummihundursvin

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

The phrasing used here is running away from the problem. No utilitarian argument needs to confine itself to an either or of total Palestine or Israel victory. That's only done on the prerogative of the person making the argument.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

I don't know why you keep dunking on rationalists when most people here are not rationalists and don't claim to be.

I don't know why you reply to my comments when I do. I also don't know why people here rail against their outgroup when most of them are not here. Yet that's been happening forever... A strange observation.

But I don't think even rationalists would claim that "the side that suffers more" automatically carries greater moral legitimacy.

I didn't say they would. I said they stop employing reason in favor of moralism when their ingroup is at risk or when it is otherwise needed. The voice of centric reason only applies to the neutral observer when it suits him.

I do find it ironic that you speak of "transparent intentions," given that you speak with shuddering horror of Palestinians crushed beneath rubble and yet, I must admit I find myself having a very hard time believing that you really care overly much about Palestinian lives per se.

I don't feel the need to earmark a 6 year old with missing legs as anything in particular to feel revolted by the suffering on display. Are things different for you?

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

'Rationalism' always makes way for 'moralism' when the ingroup starts taking too much flak. The quantifiers and metricians who usually like to count things and make grandiose utilitarian arguments to figure out the best course of action suddenly just can't even. The conflict is just too messy, there are no simple answers here, and so on.

In simple utilitarian terms Palestinians obviously suffer more. The end. Taking up any position other than this collapses every other position 'rationalist' or 'progressive' people hold. As you are no longer rational or progressive. You're just another nazi taking up the cause of your people. 'The barbarians are at the gates and something must be done.' Except we have tied ourselves up a little too much in rationally disciplining the outgroup so now we have to cover our tracks somehow.

It reminds me of Sam Harris' Moral Landscape. An entire book written by a man in an effort to convey an 'ought' without using the word. We have a few people in a very similar spot here. To them 'jews and Israel > The rest'. But getting to that point would break their own perception of themselves so we get to play this game of words instead. Where, like Harris, if we space our very transparent intentions far enough apart from one another, using just enough words, we can proclaim that by the ordained will of science, morality or whatever else, Israel must survive above all else.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

All justice is "social justice". All politics is "identity politics". It's just a matter of who you care to ingroup and outgroup, how far into the future your mind can wander, and how good your brain is at pattern recognition.

No one who has been forced into a precarious situation settles for equal suffering and death. Everyone wants to live. What separates people is how daring and how prepared they are to do what must be done. And anyone who sits on a fence, safe and sound, warm and well fed, commenting on the situation like a disembodied brain pretending to be above it all is stupid. Walking their progeny from a good place to a bad one. You are going to have to fight. If not you then your descendants or theirs.

Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents made the point that what separates most people from right wing radicals is foresight. I feel this echo throughout a lot of western culture and politics. There seems to be a distinct lack of care or awareness of the future. Even with regards to the most salient 'future' driven contention of 'the left'; the environment. It is fraught with short sighted stupidity. The warming of the globe is not a bad thing for the globe. It's bad for the people living on it. Yet overpopulation is not seen as a problem. Immigration is great and so on.

There is no serious thought going on. No realism. No foresight. It's all short sighted nonsense that leaves an entire portion of the world incapable of understanding sacrifices for their future.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

That could all be true at the same time as every philosemite and zionist vote for Israel 20 times. Since there are very obviously a lot of philosemites and zionists clawing for every straw they can to bundle up in support of Israel in any manner they can. They are not tired of politics.

On top of that, Croatia won the popular vote with a not so gay song. If people were really tired of all the politics then they wouldn't vote for Israel, a country embroiled in a whole lot of politics. In fact, they wouldn't watch a whole lot of Eurovision to begin with. But if they did, they would probably vote for Croatia.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

Coordinated minority>Disorganized majority

You can vote more than once from the same number. Up to 20 times or something. Any geopolitically motivated adult can outdo a kid who votes once with the permission of mom and dad.

You could say the same for opponents of Israel, they all get 20 votes. But the difference is that they have no singular target to back. And they are still only changing the points on a ladder of 1-12. So even if they all vote for the same country, giving it 12 points, Israel can just run up behind them and claim 11.

Aside from all of that, I don't think winning will do Israel any propaganda favors, although it would be funny. So whilst a 'respectable' middle of the pack outcome might be on the cards for Israel, you never know with how unhinged and rabid philosemites/zionists are and how honest or not the Eurovision voting is counted and which way the minds of the jurors sway. The jurors might hope for a politically neutral result, but too many 6-7 pointers for Israel could make things interesting.

That being said, Eurovision is a purely news cycle driven thing. It doesn't matter in any sense outside of that.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

'Wow, a viewpoint or topic I don't agree with? This place is getting a bit too low brow for the likes of me'

You are equal to a Fox News viewer, believe it or not. You just come at it from a different direction.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

The rest of the 'Alt Right', which was then the TRS sphere and the odd adjacent social media person, did not remain loyal to Trump. The split came down to who could sustain without Trump and who could not. Which is why you ended up with a small vacuum on the 'far right' for guys like Fuentes to grow. Since they kept up the pretense of supporting Trump and being involved with mainstream GOP politics when the rest dropped it.

Well this is just dead wrong.

Then why don't you reply to what is written? I still don't think you want to get immigration under control any more than someone in the 'Alt Right'. In fact, considering your second paragraph, bringing up the 'Alt Right' makes very little sense outside of the context of you trying to frame your views in a positive light with regards to "mainstream media morality".

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

I mean, all pathologizing talk about 'vibes' and 'direct self interest' should come with some self reflection. The 'Alt Right' hadn't cheered for Trump on immigration since he caved on the Government shutdown in 2018.

In reality, I’m just someone who actually wants to get immigration under control.

I don't think you want to get immigration under control any more than someone in the 'Alt Right'. What you do want is to appear like a concerned and reasonable person as judged by 'the respectable people' representing the mainstream media morality. The 'Alt Right' is a great strawman to stand next to when making such a case, but boy is it transparent when you step outside the mainstream bubble.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

I might be biased but I feel like support for the farthest right option available always means more than support for whatever else. AfD are the guys most vilified in media. The general sentiment being that if you are voting for them there's something wrong with you.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

???

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

There was a left-right divide in the US prior to the aforementioned introduction of jews and Catholics. What is being highlighted is that the introduction of Catholics and jews into the elite changed the split from what it was to a skewed one.

This effect is also clearly present when we look only at jewish elites. As the jewish elites skew leftward at a rate higher than the traditional elite does. By the same token there is little nativist sentiment to go around since the ingroup bias of right leaning jews leads them straight to Jerusalem, not West-Virgina.

Just to make it clear so that people don't get tangled in irrelevant argumentation; no one is saying every single catholic and every single jew is a lefty. We are talking about broad population groups and how their general elite composition skews the native elite composition when mixed together.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

America and the Soviet Union ruled Europe post war.

To this day mainstream American media holds hegemony in Europe. As was artfully demonstrated by a map of BLM protests worldwide.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

It's a hard pill to swallow but the Catholics that came and the influence they brought did little good for the trajectory of American culture as they decidedly helped move the elite 'leftward'.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

Actually, Christian observance in America reached a new high in the postwar era. The height of weekly church attendance in America was in the 1950s. America was less religiously observant in 1920 than in 1950, hard as that may be to believe.

I said nothing that contradicts that. I instead explain why this stopped being the case due to the demographic change in elites.

It’s just that American Christianity was never staunchly ethnonationalist, it existed alongside ethnic nationalism but it wasn’t of it. The same is true in the Islamic world today, you can have tribes with a strong sense of ethnic identity, but it’s not because of Islam, it just exists alongside it.

I don't understand what this means. Ethnonationalism is just an expression of ingroup bias. Any group based belief or ideology relies on ingroup bias. When you don't have ingroup bias you end up with contemporary 'Christianity' which is just a hedonistic gay progressive with AIDS calling themselves a bishop. You start worshipping the outsider and humiliating yourself for their validation and acceptance. Which is what the broad modern Christian movement is at this point.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 6mo ago

'Christianity' declined in America when elite institutions started getting filled up with Catholics and jews. This happened in the 1940's and by the 1960's the new 'elite' was throwing their weight around. The old WASP ideals were pushed aside. That's all there is to the story of modern America. 1,2

To highlight why this is the case and not the other way around: America was still very 'Christian' in the 1960's. The places that stopped being 'Christian' were the big 4. Academia, media, the courts and government. It just happens to be the case that 'being Christian' doesn't count for anything when you don't control these and you now have a newspaper, radio and TV in your living room streaming the latest in jewish psychological warfare into your home.

Religion and ethnocentrism go hand in hand since both are dogmatic and confident. Christians lose since they are no longer dogmatic and confident. You can weave whatever historical narrative you want in favor of Christendom and why its the best but it all funnels down to the same modern pit we now live in.

On the whole, the closest you get to confident dogmatism in Christians is when you find racist Christians like with 'Christian Identity'. The rest exists in various stages of failure. Be that bargaining with sinners or interpreting the word of god through a rainbow colored lens.

Christianity did three things very well: Formalize a calendar year with holidays, sanctify courtship for the lower classes and emphasize reading. The rest... not so great.(there might be more, lets be honest)

As an aside, I've always considered the typical universalist anglo sentiment to be a strain of death for the western world. Listening to any moral philosophy with a UK accent fills me with dread. It's like you're always one tear away from not having borders.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 7mo ago

It can affect US policies?

Context

The Bailey Podcast E036: White Right

hanikrummihundursvin 7mo ago

Had some trouble getting through the struggle session of TracingWoodgrains and Walt. Primarily because of how bad Walt's responses were.

No politically 'center' person called out how insane the anti-white politics are since they seem to lack to cognition to understand just what is going on. The principal 'center' response to anti-white hate is individual and verbal. The principal fuel for the fire that is ethnic tension is group based and emotional.

There are groups saying things where the direct implication is 'I hate you and want you to die'. They celebrate the suffering of your group and its demise. They believe firmly that when bad things happen to you it's a good thing, because you deserve bad things happening to you.

It reminds me of a TED talk, where the feminist geneticist lecturer or whatever is talking about the Y chromosome. She gets asked by a man about the Y chromosome disappearing. She laughs it off and says that whilst some women celebrate it, men have nothing to worry about since it won't disappear in at least 4 million years if trends continue.

I felt an emotional response to that question and answer. I realized I don't like the idea of men going extinct. I never thought about it but the idea that a grouping I am made a part of by others is doing poorly makes me feel bad. The idea that there are people out there who celebrate this makes me feel worse. It makes me feel like I have an enemy.

Now please realize that the feminist geneticist did not answer the actual contention of the topic at hand. There are women out there, credentialed academics, holding positions of power, that hate my group so much they celebrate its ultimate demise. Me being told that, actually, extinction will not happen to you personally but rather in 4 million years, is not an answer relevant to the emotional turbulence the theory invokes. Since that turbulence is driven by the fact that there exist people today who are gleeful over the idea that 'bad' things happen to my group. However long in the future that badness will be.

Centrist critique of anti-whiteness takes issue with the expression. Alt-Right critique takes issue with the emotion.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 7mo ago

Considered by who?

The American prosecution, along with the aforementioned people and organizations that did, as demonstrated earlier.

Not the inmates or the guards, who never claimed Dachau to have been a "death camp" if by "death camp" we mean a camp where people were systematically murdered in gas chambers.

I never insinuated that they did, nor did I comment on it, as they were not exactly representative of the views of those who prosecuted them.

And once more, no Dachau guard was ever executed on the basis of later repudiated gas chamber allegations.

I agree they were not executed on specific counts, but I don't believe the way you phrase things now is accurate. Considering the fervor shown by the prosecution, the element of intentional mass killings by gas was obviously there, even if it was not brought up as a specific charge. Had the assumption of the prosecution been that there were no mass killings through gas or any large scale demonstrably intentional killings, as was the case in Dachau, I'd expect some form of differentiation between Dachau and alleged death camps. That was not the case, as demonstrated by the verbiage of the British prosecutor.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 7mo ago

So, your claim is that the gas chamber at Dachau was not designed to execute humans, but merely to delouse.

That was not my claim.

There's contention within holocaust history as to what the intended use was. Some say delousing, others say killing. What no one disagrees on is the fact that it did not kill anyone.

Why the Germans would build a fake decontamination chamber with fake shower heads that doesn't exist on any drawings instead of building the actual decontamination chamber they designed as part of their new crematorium is beyond my knowledge.

As far as such mysteries go I prefer to stay on the safe side and err against believing people who flat out lie about executions taking place. No matter how fancy their uniform is.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 7mo ago

What was said:

Mods should do the bare minimum of being respectful in accordance with the rules.

What Amadan reads:

If you were under the impression that our rules of civility and discourse require anyone (including the mods) to be sympathetic to Nazis, you should have been disabused of that long ago. You are allowed to be a Nazi here. And people (including mods) are allowed to say they don't like Nazis.

I don't think your inability to grasp criticism makes you a 'cringe reddit mod'. The ban reason for SecureSignals is what was being referred to:

Jew-posting with a boner so hard that the fig leaf fell.

To contrast with an actual reason that's not snarky and antagonistic: 'Single issue posting'.

Yes, when mods do stuff like this instead of what's right they are acting like 'cringe reddit mods'

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 7mo ago

Alternative theory to what? The idea that there exists some supernatural synchronicity between a population estimate and the amount of jews killed in the holocaust? That's not a theory, that's just you employing circular reasoning to ignore revisionist arguments.

4 million people did not die at Auschwitz. No one needed to prove where they all went to correct that assessment. The fine folks at the holocaust museums did not need to consult a population estimate from the 1920's before they could say that, no, 1.9 million people did not die in Majdanek, contrary to what Soviet prosecutors maintained during the Nuremburg trials. It was more like 68k. No one knows where those guys went...

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 7mo ago

Bro, tell this to the mainstream holocaust historians, not me.

There is, like you correctly act out, evidence that is irrefutable in any other context. Evidence you would take as true if it were about any other holocaust event. Yet I can tell you with all my heart that not a single mainstream holocaust historian believes in that 'crap' you call evidence. The fine men of the 7th Army were gullible at best.

Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed. The gas chamber in Dachau was never entirely finished or put “into operation.” Hundreds of thousands of prisoners who perished in Dachau and other concentration camps in the Old Reich were victims, above all, of catastrophic hygienic and provisioning conditions: according to official SS statistics, during the twelve months from July 1942 through June 1943 alone, 110,812 persons died of disease and hunger in all of the concentration camps of the Reich.

-Martin Broszat

Look at Wikipedia. Dachau is a 'concentration camp', not a 'death camp'.

Context

hanikrummihundursvin 7mo ago

That wide latitude doesn't mean pretending that each and every viewpoint in treated as exactly equal and morally neutral, and if you would like to read that as "The mod team is not particularly sympathetic to Nazis," you're right.

I read little more than what you write.

Context