BANNED USER: /comment/267343 plus history
>Unban in 78d 09h 04m
hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Banned by: @netstack
hanikrummihundursvin
9mo ago
This just sounds like excuse making for a respectable 'grey' position. In any other case we'd be able to recognize that there are plenty of people with strong beliefs that fail in living up to their beliefs every single day of their lives. Be that not going to church, drinking alcohol or any other example you prefer. And we could all recognize that this failure does not need to, in any way, deter these people from pushing their beliefs on society. Be that legislatively or otherwise. But because the red tribe correctly sees the likes of Omar as obvious 'enemies', we, the respectables, have to distance ourselves from that in some way.
I only say this because the excuses in use here are so poor I can't see what else it could be. As an illustrative example, a nationalist in Poland could say 'I'm Polish first, Christian second' and we could all recognize that the ethnic and the religious, whilst often closely related, are not the same and no one would feel the need to question his anti-abortion pro-Christian social policies in Poland just because he said this. Yet somehow, in the case of Omar, we act not just as if her saying this is meaningful, we drag red tribe terminology like 'radical Islam' into our writing and purposefully distance ourselves from it.
hanikrummihundursvin
9mo ago
I don't understand how this can even be a question. Isn't Canada offering these humane and progressive 'treatments' out like candy? What does the BBC reporting look like on that front?
Trying to not lose sight of the point you're making because of history not gelling with it in all instances, as many are squabbling about below:
Looking at the changes technological progress had on the world as gradual, it allowed more and more people to be informed of and worry about things like abolition and whatever else instead of being starved and homeless fending off the barbarians, as an overdramatic example. In that sense it's undoubtably true that technology is a necessary factor to facilitate whatever social change. I am assuming that's the gist of what you are saying?
On the other hand I don't believe you can tie technology as a cause for why some policy or opinion reigned over another. Technology can only serve to free the mind towards whatever can dominate it when the last immediate threat is taken care of. To say what dominates when, where and why might certainly be a product of technology in some sense, but calling it that makes the term so broad it becomes most everything. Why not enslave more rather than less? Technology can't answer that question.
However, if we look at the history of the world as the genetic expression of those who utilize technology to free their will unto their environment, we have more tools at our disposal to pontificate on the when, where and why.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
And not for us, thank heavens.
Very few antisemitic alt rightists ever affirmed higher Ashkenazi intelligence.
Every single one of them did that I know of. And I was neck deep in this stuff. I am still to encounter anyone in that sphere who thinks ashkenazi jews anything other than high IQ.
If they didn’t explicitly deny it they ignored it or took the view that nepotism / in-group loyalty still explained the vast majority or all overrepresentation.
Like I went over in my comment:
it was very rare to see any refutation of jewish IQ being high. Most parroting the 115 IQ myth. The primary argument, much like the nazis of old, being that these smart jews were taking up positions of power in white societies and using it to the detriment of whites and the benefit of jews.
Jews being smart and jews being overrepresented due to nepotism is not a mutually exclusive thing. In fact it makes a lot of sense for nepotism to work better than it otherwise would when you are the group you prefer has a high IQ. Since then the nepotism is more functional and less obvious.
And I would reject that criticism of the theory is recent - the most infamous deboonking of overrepresentation being meritocratic (Unz’ Myth of American Meritocracy) was published in 2012.
Unz did not dispute jewish IQ to any relevant extent. Making the assumption that it's 109. He just posited that jews are overrepresented even when accounting for IQ.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
That's such a poor strawman I feel it manages to light itself on fire.
At some point, we're going to get bigger studies, and what then ?
Then we have the results of those bigger studies? What then? Seriously what even is this comment?
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
There's a long running tradition of certain anti-semitic right-wing types trying to discredit Ashkenazi IQ scores.
It's fairly recent and I find your post to exude the kind of 'boo outgroup' pathologism you imply is afflicting others.
The OG Nazis didn't like IQ tests yet found jews to be intelligent but bad people. Early neo-nazism copied most of that.
As far as groups who actively believe in HBD and IQ stuff go, during the 'Alt-Right' era, if you can call it that, it was very rare to see any refutation of jewish IQ being high. Most parroting the 115 IQ myth. The primary argument, much like the nazis of old, being that these smart jews were taking up positions of power in white societies and using it to the detriment of whites and the benefit of jews.
The only big contradicting instance to that narrative was old newspaper clippings being posted relating to a jewish SAT cheating thing, but to what end that was brought up wasn't exactly clear. The big narrative described above came first. Why bother to undermine that?
The article by Vox is one of the only ones I can find that takes direct issue with the whole jewish IQ thing. And even then Vox was always a kind of outsider with his own thing going on.
There has, however, been a lot of recent discussion on this topic, now that the 'Alt-Right' era is over and some of its bulkier narratives can be discarded. And, maybe, just maybe, because the topic is relevant, interesting, and a big thorn in the side of many a current right wing star like Jordan Peterson. Who are trying to juggle justifications of jewish power and group interest whilst simultaneously preaching individualism to whites of European ancestry.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
The fact that there are members of my ingroup who are better than me is only a problem if they don't see me as a part of their ingroup. That's one of the fundamental reasons why many white identitarians invoke implicit and explicit pleas for racial loyalty and lament acts of racial disloyalty, as is the case with past critiques of 'the middle class' or the now white liberal 'elites'.
If you are asking why you should ingroup one group over another it's a simple matter of making friends with people who don't hate you. It would certainly be much harder to specifically ingroup whites over someone else were it not for the high amount of animosity directed towards whites by the other relevant racial groups.
All in all I find your skepticism very odd. Almost like it assumes that HBD came before ingroup bias in whites could even exist. When in reality whites who like themselves and other whites gravitated to the facts found as demonstrable proof of the thing they already knew. Or that HBD became a beacon of truth for many whites who otherwise would not have felt the need to group up with other whites were it not for the relentless blood libel and verbalized hatred directed against them.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
The starting point was you saying that people who aren't white nationalists don't "care about white people", and that the reasons for this are sufficiently obvious that even people with drastically different beliefs about the world wouldn't disagree with white nationalism otherwise.
That's not the starting point. Here's what I wrote:
Most people are not "white nationalist" because the term is actively marginalized. Most people, in fact, don't like to label themselves as anything at all. They just have their beliefs and opinions and look for the best representation for those beliefs and opinions they can find. Sure, you can care about white people and not associate with some label, but to actually care about white people you have to act like a 'white nationalist', for a lack of a better term, in some form. Ingroup bias expresses itself very uniformly.
How you can so drastically misrepresent this is beyond me.
You're now talking about how allowing even highly selective non-white immigration could result in intermarriage that results in...
Not could, does.
the white population ending up with some fraction of a percent of east-asian ancestry? I'm not seeing how this is harmful, and I certainly don't think it is so self-evidently harmful that even people who disagree with you realize it is harmful.
The white population, at a specific point in time, will end up with that fraction of a percent assuming the conditions previously discussed. Does the immigration then stop? No, it just stays the same and that fraction of a percent, that used to not be there but now is, will continue to grow because of it.
Meanwhile, on a timeframe like that there are far more important factors to focus on.
There very well might be but regardless of that, the existence of things more or less important does not change the fact that a constant drip of one ethnic group into another is a compounding problem.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
That depends on birth rates, intermarriage rates, and the actual rate of immigration from different nations and races. Non-hispanic whites and asians currently have the same birth rate, which presumably means east-asians specifically are even lower.
It actually doesn't. Unless you are proposing an immigration policy of a % based immigrant population and zero intermarriage rates, the constant stream of foreign DNA into the native population will change it.
Lets define, for the sake of argument, the current white population to be 100% white from now on. Lets take that population and say that only asians are allowed to live with it as a 5% of the total population... Any white making a family with an asian is a white not making a family with another white. That's a minus. Every child of theirs that makes a family with a white is another minus. The effect of every single mix raced person is compounding.
As you correctly point out, hapas can look very European. An asian/European quadroon certainly doesn't carry as much visual baggage as a white/black quadroon. But how do you count those people? Are they white now? Does that mean we can bring in more immigrants to maintain our 5%?
Unless you envision a world where the white population can grow endlessly, the presence of a constant stream of foreign DNA will inevitably change the white population.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
And a lot of them are not.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
I asked for policies that could maintain white populations. A constant stream of immigration is a constant dilution of the population that has to suffer it. That's not maintaining white populations but slowly eroding them.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
But they are not breeding more, just like every other population group that's dealing with modernity right now. So people who actually care would seek solutions in the real world, rather than fiddling with rhetorical sneering to excuse their lack of care, like you are doing.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
My answer to that would be 'motivated reasoning'.
Most arguments aren't 'real', for a lack of a better term. They're just stepping stones to get to the promised land, which any actual believer already knows is real. The whole game of 'arguments' is to help the unbelievers, or yourself in days of need, to that place. In other words, arguments are traced back from the thing you already know is true.
I'm not saying there aren't vegans who are vegans for some reason other than the animal suffering, and that those guys aren't making data driven arguments in some sense that's disconnect from the moral impetus driving many vegans, but, in my experience, those are not the vegans we are talking about in the OP.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
If what you meant to say was “advocate for white people”, “donate to white nationalist organizations”, or “advocate against affirmative action”, you could have said that.
That's not what I meant to say. There are certainly a lot of people in the world that do not care about white people.
From my perspective it seems like you chose a deliberately milquetoast word to make people seem crazy for not liking white nationalists.
I am at a loss for what to do for you, if that's the case.
To maybe rephrase what was being said; Vegans care about animals. I know they do because they don't eat animals as an act of protest against the practice of farming and killing animals for food. I might 'care' about animals in some way. I certainly don't like the idea of torturous factory farming. But how much do I care? I certainly am still eating animal meat and produce. Judging by action, I certainly do not care as much as a some type of vegan.
In a sense you can say you care about something if you feel like you do. But that, to me, feels like we are just debasing the word 'care' to a point where it is meaningless. For example, if you told me you cared a lot about your dog, but acted indifferent to it at best and barely walked it to a point where it was obviously having issues, I'd conclude you are either lying or that your words don't mean very much, or that you are stupid to a point where you don't understand that you need to walk your dog, and that this needed explaining to you.
In any case, I don't think people are "crazy" for neglecting their dogs. I would, however, feel justified in concluding that their own description of themselves as caring about their dog is inaccurate at best.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
White nationalism doesn't just mean "pro-white", it is generally defined by its advocates as including a desire for the existence of white ethnostates.
If you have some way of maintaining white populations without borders or segregation laws I'd be interested to hear about it. Would be a new theory in a now rather dead school of thought called White Nationalism 2.0
You are defining "care" to mean "form an ethnostate excluding non-whites". That's a pretty extreme form of "care". That's so extreme I will reject it as a good definition. There are valid ways to "care" without being a white nationalist.
Which one of these 'ways' does not, in some form, effectively exclude immigration and enforce some sort of segregation to maintain a white population? I am curious considering the state of Texas, which has recently gone majority hispanic.
We'll thrive just fine next to Mexicans and Asian immigrants.
At risk of sounding to snarky, that's like, your opinion, man.
This appears to be the very falsest of dichotomies.
You fit the description of someone who says they care whilst they don't, rather well.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
I feel like your sentence needs a little of defining before it holds any relevance.
If I say I care about X, but I wont lift a finger to help X, do I actually care?
If I say I care about X, but refuse to acknowledge that X can ever be at risk or in need of help, and constantly browbeat anyone who acts like there might be risk or need of help, do I care?
Most people are not "white nationalist" because the term is actively marginalized. Most people, in fact, don't like to label themselves as anything at all. They just have their beliefs and opinions and look for the best representation for those beliefs and opinions they can find. Sure, you can care about white people and not associate with some label, but to actually care about white people you have to act like a 'white nationalist', for a lack of a better term, in some form. Ingroup bias expresses itself very uniformly.
As a side note, it's very easy to make up bad faith arguments for what constitutes to 'care'. On that front I think we have a good example from a recent Tucker Carlson interview where he bites into Ben Shapiro a bit.
(A more relevant clip from the interview.)
Does Ben Shapiro care about Israel? Obviously he does. Does he care about America? Well... To an extent he has to, right? He lives there, after all. And he gets animated over various political things over there. Saying he does not care is kind of stupid. But that's also not really the point. Ben Shapiro obviously cares more about Israel than America. Same can be said for many voices in American politics who were happy to tell the world that the Oct. 7 event was equivalent to 10 9/11's. The numbers here, given we know the rough deathtoll of both, can only represent the emotional weight placed on the events by those who make such claims. Why else make a low brow comparison like that.
The point being made here is that you can care about a lot of things. Giving yourself an excuse to say you care is easy. But its how you prioritize things that allows us to see what you 'really' care about out of all the things you say and act like you care about.
hanikrummihundursvin
10mo ago
At risk of repeating what's been said downthread, your entire disposition towards the topic betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on. Veganism isn't based on some argument. Either you care enough about animal suffering to do something about it or you don't. Factory farming is, in a lot of places, a torture farm. If you care a lot about animal suffering there is no "argument". There's just a fundamental factual truth about the nature of harvesting animals for food and from there on all else follows. Same is true for 'white nationalism'. Either you care about white people, their bio-diversity, history and continued existence or you don't.
You are not asking for an argument, you are asking for a bonk on the head that makes you see the world in a different light. For some that's videos on Facebook and documentaries, real world experiences or socialization. Whatever it is, you're not dealing with arguments and I think it would behoove you and people who talk like you to stop pretending you are a machine that digests paragraphs and sorts out the fact and logic. You're not.
There has been a distinct and focus driven propaganda effort to marginalize certain peoples concept of an ingroup in the western world. More specifically, any concrete group like a nation or any concrete narrative of a shared suffering and hardship that has eventually been overcome together is, for certain groups, not allowed. The success of this propaganda leads to the conditions you describe.
You can't be angry at immigrants because there is no such thing. There can't be any immigrants since you don't exist. They are people, you are people. They live here now, you live here now. Without any sense of being you can't own anything. In clear terms: There is no you that can demand recompense without asserting, in some form, that you are owed more than the others. The quick and predictable reply to any of your supremacist assertions is the established fact that the Chinese real estate mogul that's lending out apartments for Indian workers is no less a human being than you are. Let alone the poor that are paying rent. You would have to be completely heartless as an individual to stand on your own two feet and maintain that your personal life is worth more than theirs on no greater grounds than because you feel that it is. (This is the base framing of every right winger in mainstream media since that's what they actually are when they buy into the propaganda)
If people had a sense of self and a coherent group identity they could demand, on the grounds of their common ownership of the land, that things change in their favor. Not as individuals but as a people. But if you reject that, you have nothing.
Most people in the west accept and regurgitate propaganda that is premised on the notion that they don't exist as an ingroup but rather an outgroup. At best they can defend themselves by appealing to the nihilistic universalism of money and 'common sense'. (As if it should make any sense to a Chinese person to privilege a bunch of Canadians from Europe. No, you pay rent. No rent, no house. That's common sense.)
I hope this makes enough sense to illustrate why I don't care about Canadians and their plight. I pity them, sure. I share a lot of their problems. But I can at least humble myself and recognize that the liberal humanist ideology I held as a young adult is deeply flawed. I was never a good person just because I felt I was selflessly tossing away notions of being a part of a coherent and exclusive group. I, in fact, wasn't being selfless at all. I simply otherized my ingroup and sense of self.
Canadians will be 'good people' with healthcare that tells them to kill themselves when the constant pressure of the cost of living finally breaks their back. And they will kill themselves, alone, isolated and suffering, because that's what a good Canadian would do in a world where we there is no such thing as a good Canadian. If you want to live, stop being a good Canadian.
hanikrummihundursvin
11mo ago
'Democracies' can carry out a variety of policies that go directly against the voting public if they properly dance to the tune of mass media. To put it another way, whilst the election cycle is fast, the news cycle is even faster.
To that end, for any big project like ethnic cleansing of millions of people, you need very low time preference on a group level. A strong belief in something concrete and anti-fragile like a population group is very conducive to finishing big projects whilst riding the lows and highs of mass media and the election cycle.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
AFAICT 'yes' outspent 'no' by orders of magnitude. Another nail in the coffin for those who think that you can just buy any election.
I'd be very tentative with this. 'Yes' might not have bought this election in particular but the fact there's money being thrown at it means they can continue bargaining. Who knows, maybe one day, unbeknownst to most, this particular issue might go on sale and if one side happens to have money in the pocket it's an easy buy.
I think this is a problem with the right in general where they don't have a positive affirmational stance to rally behind. Instead they lean on the implicit racism of the public. With how hands off the right is with cultural institutions it's just a waiting game until the Overton Window shifts far enough along that the publics implicit racism doesn't cut it. Or, of course, the demographics shift in such a way that the Abbo rallying cry gets carried along in a coalition of ascendent minority groups.
No one would say that anime is an American artistic medium just because many of the earliest anime artists were inspired by Disney.
Thank god no one said that.
If you want to claim there's literally zero musical difference between Dizzee Rascal and Snoop Dogg, well, I don't know what to tell you.
No one is saying that and you are being a little shit throwing these irrelevant arguments at me. There are 'differences' between American rappers in the US that dwarf whatever differences there are between most UK and US rappers. That doesn't change the fact that 'British rap' is completely derivative of US rap. From being a thug to singing a sob song about being black and oppressed.
Maybe instead of bringing up a bunch of irrelevant things that would make your point if they were similar to what is actually being talked about you should look at the thing actually being talked about and recognize just how derivative black 'British rap' is from US rap.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Isn't that the most salient critique against someone like Bibi? Putting short term political goals and victories over the long term goals for Israel?
Maybe try find a more opportune time to kill your enemy than when the entire world is feeling sorry for them. Reflexively raising your hand in anger is a poor look. Especially when it ends up impotently flailing around killing civilians. Hard to call that a success.
Sadly, for the 'Third Side', it finds itself falling into the very same trap it laments the 'good' side falling into.
Steve Sailer isn't a racist. He's just correct about the wrong things. Calling him a racist is just an appeal to the mercy of the 'good' side.
The 'good' really want to replace Cpt. Sully with Cpt. Shaniqua. Sailer is not wrong or racist for pointing this out.
The 'good' dress up their efforts that pervert the meritocratic process and discriminate against the more qualified to lift up brown people to a level they don't deserve by using pretty looking brown ladies in advertisements. Sailer correctly points this out and mocks it. He is not racist for doing so unless, of course, you presuppose the browns to be better than they actually are. Which makes you not just racist but also wrong.
The 'Third Side', spearheaded by the likes of TracingWoodgrains, can't handle this. I don't know why. Though I'd theorize oversocialization, social status and the trauma of watching Civil Rights propaganda took their toll on them like it did everyone else. In any case, if I had to read 5 paragraphs of excuses and 'well actually' every time a racist had been proven right before I could allow myself to acknowledge it, I'd start thinking inward as to why I'm doing this to myself. Because this entire rigamarole is absurd. It would take less effort to get through the cognitive dissonance of a 15 year old.
I can accept liars who just ignore these things or tow the party line to not lose their jobs. At least they know what they are. But the 'Third Side' is not that. It genuinely believes it's honest and standing up for truth. When in reality truth rests with the likes of Sailer. There's nothing 'more right' about not mocking the perverted and shameful nature of modern DEI. There's no respectability in claiming that, whilst the Emperor might not have any clothes, it might be because he was sleepwalking, and not because he is vain and has poor judgement. It's just groveling at the feet of those with power.
More options
Context Copy link