pm_me_passion
אֲנָשִׁים נֹשְׂאֵי מָגֵן וְחֶרֶב וְדֹרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּלְמוּדֵי מִלְחָמָה
No bio...
User ID: 464
His South Korean example points at the opposite of what he’s trying to get at. If a SK family had the resources to devote to another child, by his own logic they would because the child’s rank reflects on the mother, and more so if there are more kids. The bottleneck is thus resources, not culture.
There’s a lot of variables that go into fertility rates, but they’re not really that complex. Age of marriage, rate of marriage, and economic factors are obviously the most significant ones in western societies outside of some edge cases (Amish etc.). It’s not rocket surgery. The graphs this guy shows are not evidence one way or another because they don’t actually reflect the modal family’s economic status, and this should be obvious with a little thought.
Why does an enemy nation that launched a multiple-front war on us via proxy get to keep its “sovereignty”? Why even after launching ballistic missiles from its own territory? The only thing keeping them safe is the limited capacity of the IDF to wage any kind of real war on them, but that’s not a moral argument.
Anyone here familiar with the situation in Bangladesh? Most of the news reports I’ve seen seem pretty trash, and I don’t trust them anyway. I’ve seen some videos of Muslims trashing Hindu temples, but lack context.
Everything you’re describing is:
-
A result of one side participating in civic institutions with the express goal of changing it from within, i.e “the long march through the institutions”. A communist in 1950’s America would have said the same thing as you, about not being allowed to ruse in the ranks. Now look at how their ideology has spread to the upper echelons of your society. Zoomed out, this is proof against your claims
-
Not an actual hard cap on any person rising through the ranks, just a difficulty. Again, see how the Marxists did it.
-
Because of 1 and 2, reversible in the long term. It requires actual work, sacrifice and ideological commitment but over the long term you can get there. Like I said, though, you won’t get there by lying down.
For that instance specifically, and with the benefit of hindsight, I’d tell them to join for the arms and training.
In this instance, what exactly is keeping your tribe from rising in the ranks of institutions? Especially given that you already were there. Is it some analogue of the patriarchy or institutional racism?
Jews were a minority barred from participating in the public institutions of Nazi Germany, so it’s not a good parallel to the natives majorities who are willingly giving up their places and power. If Jews could e.g. join the SS, I would absolutely think it was a good idea for them to join en-mass and change it from within.
Did they benefit because they threatened not to go to war and gained their rights before enlisting, or because they did actually go to war?
It benefits you to be hegemon, and it benefits your camp to be in the institutions of hegemony. It doesn’t matter if the fighting happens in Taiwan, Korea, or the Department of Education
I point out that you won't be doing well in a world where the US takes a major loss.
I don’t want you to lose. I want the part of American culture that’s aligned with my values to participate in America’s institutions. I want you to flourish, but you won’t get there by lying down! You need to pick yourself up and rediscover civic duty!
China
China is no friend of ours, I agree.
That stuff works in a disciplined, united society where men are actually moved if they get a white feather. It doesn't work today, especially amongst young people from Western Europe and its offshoots where nationalism has been all but stamped out and individualism is the order of the day. Nobody is going to get blown up by a drone so that Taiwan can have gay pride parades, only a small fraction truly believe.
That’s a bad thing, that you shouldn’t accept. If native Americans / Brits don’t participate, either someone else will or your entire nation will suffer. That is my point.
China is far away. The biggest effects will be political and economic.
Those effects are terrible! Besides the fact that I don’t believe there will be a hot war between the US and China, and that I don’t think you’ll lose if there is one, if you do lose a hot war to China the implications are huge. I’m not sure if you know how rich the US is today thanks to your world hegemony, which implies how far you could sink. Don’t downplay it, there are only bad outcomes that can come from a free society losing to the world’s biggest fascist state.
Edit, forgot to answer this:
Assuming that you're Israeli
Correct. I used to think the pfp gave it up, but I guess Shabbat candles aren’t as obvious reference as I thought.
Where is the part where you, your children and your culture flourish? You won’t get there by losing a war to China, of all things.
Is that supposed to be a counter example? If so, please explain who threatened non-participation and gained something for it.
By who?
By the same mechanisms that makes native populations generally law abiding as is. Social shaming, an internal drive to be pro-social, and a few resistors being made example of.
Ukraine
Ukraine is a losing position for the natives. The men are dying, the women are fleeing and marrying foreigners. Their culture is suffering greatly. Their only hope is that they won’t let in migrants post-war, so that they may slowly rebuild. Otherwise they may forever lose their civilization.
We are set to lose and lose badly
Another lose condition for your culture, then. I didn’t intend to catasrophize like this, but obviously literally losing to a foreign power is a lose condition.
The intended win condition should have been “natives threaten non-participation and earn concessions from the elites”, and I intended to show that it’s unrealistic and empirically isn’t happening.
Who is going to fight for them and why?
This is not the position of strength you imagine it to be. In fact, threatening non-participation is a lose-lose-lose position for anyone not absolutely and forever essential - which is almost everyone.
Imagine that young natives don’t join up the fight, but young immigrants do. Now you have immigrants taking over your armed forces from the bottom. Whichever amount of immigrants die in war is replaced by more immigration. Natives lose.
Now imagine that neither natives nor immigrants join. The natives will be forcibly drafted, since they obviously won’t organize as a community to resist a draft. The immigrants will organize and not be drafted. Natives die off in war and their relative numbers further decline. As draftees they are ejected back at the end of the war, worse off than before. Natives lose again.
If only natives join up and immigrants don’t, then the threat is seen for the bluff that it was and the natives earn nothing but death at the front lines. Natives lose.
I think there’s a great benefit in having someone like that around. It’s like the various shades of anti-semites, or actual fascists or whatever other normie-repellent ideologues hang around here but you don’t get to meet elsewhere. It’s good to know what other people truly think, unburdened (ha!) by social stigma. Hell, it’s half the reason I’m here.
My impression was that Hamas leaders were mostly staying in Qatar, where Israel would be very unwilling to try an assassination attempt.
Your impression is correct. Haniyeh being in Iran presented an opportunity, since Iran is already an enemy state.
I’m confused, what’s wrong with Novorossiysk, and how did invading areas of Ukraine that don’t border the black sea at all is related to that?
While we’re at sea access though, why not invade Turkey to secure access to the Mediterranean? Or maybe invade Spain to secure access from there to the Atlantic?
Phoenix is a strong example because on its own it provides between hundreds to thousands of individual cases of central-example assassinations, which refutes any claim that similar Israeli actions could ever be unique. It’s also an example that you couldn’t possibly blame the Jews for. The specific perpetrators, official policy, subsequent public outrage or cessation of it don’t matter one way or another since my point isn’t “America bad”, it’s “assassinations aren’t uniquely Israeli”. Once again, the existence of the Order of Assassins should have been sufficient and obvious as well.
Do note that the only one doing any denial here is you. You’ve also ignored all other examples, I assume because they’re simply undeniable.
Because your denial is so weak, you appeal to a single CIA operation which was mostly executed by the South Vietnamese themselves;
No, that one single example is so strong that it is simply sufficient, all on its own, to refute your claim. Nothing else is needed, despite your denials. If you feel otherwise, we can go into all the other CIA assassinations - both failed and successful - and tally those up. Castro alone is like 8 times.
You are just playing dumb. You don't understand the difference between a firefight among insurgents and an occupying force, and car-bombing a Palestinian political writer? Or sending a mail-bomb to factory workers?
As I said, simply count how many instances in the list are the former and how many are the latter. I’ll grant you a few tens of the latter. Most of that list, and especially from 2000 onwards, is basically just some militant getting airstriked.
Ah, quibbling over definitions is always a fun time.
I contend that CIA-led ops going to a person's home in their village and killing them there, many times a civilian "infrastructure" and not even a soldier, is a central example of "assassination". This is without going into the kidnapping and torture even. In a few short years the US managed to do just that enough times that it will take Israel centuries to catch up, which means that whatever Israel does is hardly "unique".
On the other hand, if that doesn't count as "assassination" and neither does counter-insurgency or targeted killings, then what are you left with from the Israeli list? All the PLO members are just combatants hiding in other countries, everyone killed in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, Judea and Samaria count as either counter-insurgency, seek and destroy or out-right combat - which is most of that list by the way - and now you're left with... what? a few tens of people at best? I'll raise you all the CIA attempts at Castro & other actual world leaders and call it even?
Now compare that to the Russian list, and I'd say "unique" goes right out the window.
Russia and the US are just easy modern-day examples, though. The most obvious refutation, as I hinted at earlier, are the original Assassins with hundreds of central-example stab-in-the-back killings of political leaders under their belts. I'm sure they would've done more if they had predator drones.
This is the video itself. It's very boring, and I think intentionally not talking about policy and instead is being very vague. I skipped around and it's mostly normal democrat talking points. Healthcare, abortion, protecting democracy, first woman president, MAGA republicans are evil racists who will do mean things (Mayor Pete literally just says "bad things").
Also, first speaker is in favor of an arms embargo on Israel (that's new!). He's also not White. I'm not a fan of this man.
Items 2 and 4 in the US list encompasses thousands of individuals. Vietnam alone includes more individual assassinations than the entire rest of the list. The US has assassinated so many people, you can't even get an accurate number or a list of names. That the Israeli list is so exhaustive is evidence against your claim.
Honestly, just the word "assassination" with its history is evidence against your claim.
Nah, launching a war of aggression and invading unprovoked, causing suffering and death to millions, is bad. Gulags are bad, communism is evil, and exporting it all over the world to the point that we still haven't recovered is even worse. What would Korea look like today if it weren't for the USSR, for example?
Quite a few Israelis have Russian ancestry and ran away to Israel due to persecution. Not all of them, but there's generally a reason why they're not in Russia anymore.
Russia as the USSR has backed, and is still backing today, Israel's enemies. There had been a short period around Israel's founding when the USSR did help us, which it should be credited for. That, however, was the USSR 70+ years ago rather than today's Russia.
But honestly, Israel is a small blip on the map of the world, we don't actually matter. A better approach would have been to talk about the USSR's role in defeating the Nazis - to which the obvious response should be that one evil fighting another is just the nature of evil, that doesn't turn it good.
Well, I'm just n=1, but my family (wife and a bunch of kids) and I spent a good while in Utah and found it easy to integrate - adjusting a bit for the cultural differences between Israelis and Americans in general. My wife still keeps in touch with a couple of our Mormon ex-neighbors. They left a great impression on me - very polite, generally nice, and industrious. Ex-Mormons gave me the same impression, only they'd go for a coffee break with me.
There are also a couple of small Jewish communities in Utah, but I find American Jews to be a bit weird, so we had a harder time integrating with the local congregation.
Yes, that’s the point. I only have terrible things to say about white men who are complicit in this, so I’ll hold my tongue.
Empirically that’s incorrect, since Korean families with 2 or even 3 kids do exist - they’re usually more well off than others. There’s a limit to how much resources you can pour into a single kid, and also not all Koreans will actually torture their kids like that.
I agree that helicoptering money on all parents will simply raise prices for everything, and tutoring specifically. I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. My point is that the bottleneck for a specific family is still economic, even when the example is taken at face value.
More options
Context Copy link