starting strength gym
Page 2978 of 3017 FirstFirst ... 19782478287829282968297629772978297929802988 ... LastLast
Results 29,771 to 29,780 of 30161

Thread: COVID19 Factors We Should Consider/Current Events

  1. #29771
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    162

  2. #29772
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by George Christiansen View Post
    I'd say that this is about right. I don't think he means the literal ones though, but anyone with ambitions of conquering Russia.

    And I doubt he'd label anyone currently being called a nazi in the US or Europe as one.

    It's really easy to think everyone uses words, particularly political ones the same way, but I'd often find, when talking to Europeans, that we'd be talking past each other until we defined terms. Even more so with Arabs and Indians.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yngvi View Post
    The part of the Carlson-Putin interview that made a lot of people, including myself, uneasy was the comment Putin made about not stopping until de-Nazification had been completed.

    I believe Putin was referring to the actual Nazis who fought a war with Russia; Russia is paranoid about its borders being invaded by people from the west and that is their general understanding of the definition of the term, Nazis.
    All you need to do is listen to what Putin and Russian state also says about this mythical "Nazi problem" in the Baltic states, in Moldova, etc. This rhetoric isn't confined to the Russian border conflict with Ukraine. Look at how they treat their own domestic White identitarian political movements (spoiler: worse than they do to the rainbow flag revolutionaries). When Putin talks about the "De-Nazifying" Ukraine - that implies that the Kremlin should control the cultural life, the historical identity, of Ukraine. That's a very fucking omninous thing from where I'm standing

    Not attacking you two personally, but generally speaking, for the Right, all this really boils down to, as the saying goes, is "a sheep will find a wolf to eat him". Rather, the Right will find a way to be cucked one way or another. It used to be White men conquered the world. Now, it's "I hope someone more based will conquer us next!".

    Thats seems to sum up the reaction to Tucker's interview. Tucker himself is a seriously good TV-news host, social media influencer and entertainer, but he's not a serious journalist and that's why the Kremlin selected his outfit to interview Putin. They are very aware of the decline of discourse in the West hence why they declined interviews from other Western news organisations over the last 12 months. They knew Tucker would be friendly and non-confrontational, and now Tucker has a kind of martyr-like celebrity status among Western conservatives (who already distrust the Western establishment), the Russian state knew it would get high ratings and be widely watched.

    Even Tucker doesn't really repesent any concrete positions for the Right - aside from his very loud assertion that he would be "offended" if someone referred to his identity as part of a "White" collective group. All he does is (sometimes brilliantly and articulately) is beam back the outrage of the disenfranchised conservative political base, whether it's about the latest conspiracy theory, or a study of the Left's most recent ridiculous hypocrisy. It's a place for the politically homeless Rightwing to gather and worry on things because despite all their rights, and firearms, they feel impotent about things going on in their own country.

    The Left has the same problem. Biden has been found by the Justice Department to be unfit to be prosecuted because he's so old, forgetful and unaware of his own actions, that if it ever came to a trial he would would come across as a "sympathetic, well meaning elderly man with a poor memory who can't be held accountable for his own actions". The Dems haven't been able to come up with an alternative to him because they simply don't have anyone who appeals to their voter base.

    Aside from a few fashionable Silicone Valley liberal types, homosexuals and Jewish people - the issues of the Democrat candidate donors (50% of whom are Jewish) simply aren't held by the actual Democrat base. Blacks and Latinos don't care about Israel, gay rights, the environment, etc., and if Biden steps down the only thing which the massively unpopular Kamala Harris has going for her is that she's vaguely black-ish.

    Let it sink in: in a country of 340 million people, the choice you're going to get is between one elderly man who shouldn't be trusted to represent himself in a trial due to his mental incapacity and Donald Trump. Who no conservative voter with a brain, and a memory of at least 8 years, actually wants and everyone (including you guys here) only see as a "better the devil you know" protest candidate.

    Literally nobody else in the world looks at America's weird, byzantine, overly complex political process of choosing leadership with any sort of admiration. It drags on, and on, and on for months and is so cumbersome and expensive that by design it's impossible for any sort of grass roots representation to ever happen. Then, the result is not just imposed on the exhausted American people but it has real ramifications for everyone around the world.

    This is why I hear seemingly intelligent voices on the Right gravitating towards Putin and repeating the Kremlin's talking points, because, who else has a somewhat coherant story for you to believe? There is nobody coming to save you, and your own Empire hates you, so why not root for the opposing Empire who occasionally appears to reflect your own anti-woke, anti-Clownworld views back at you?

    The interview was disappointing. It showed that Tucker wouldn't press his points, and that Putin is actually completely tone-deaf about events. His presentation is confusing to everyone who isn't Russian. Even us, on the board, walked away from it scratching our heads and asking what exactly Putin meant by "Nazis", and so on. At the beginning he said "If you don't mind, let me take 30 seconds to give you a little historical background" and proceeded to give a 30-minute discourse on Russian history as Russians see it. He knew that Tucker would sit back, and let him go on, in a way that was almost irrelevant to what Westerners expected of this interview.

    So many of Putin historical opinions were simply wrong and laughably propaganda, but (and this is the big BUT) whatever you think of Putin, AT LEAST HE HAS A WORLD-VIEW. This is the draw for the disenfranchised White Western guy, and i'm sympathetic to him. Putin doesn't speak in sound-bytes. Whereas American politicians who claim to represent your political interests have absolutely nothing to say, about anything, and actually hate you - this man can go on a 30-minute monologue world-view, and it sounds coherent and intelligent.

    He said he doesn't regard this conflict as a war in the normal sense, and said it's more like a civil-war because Ukrainians and Russians are really the same people more or less. For people who aren't Russian, this is a bizarre way of looking at the world. You can talk about the Russian soul, in this Spengerian sense, and have all this interesting historical factoids - but if the Ukrainians don't want to be under the Russian sphere, it is objectively high-handed to say the least to invade a country (whose borders you mutually agreed upon, with referenda held, in 1991) and kill scores of people to bring about this unity which you assert is there, but which more than half of the people don't agree with.

    Russia's borders include Kaliningrad Oblast, which used to be Germany. Why is it Russian? The Russians moved people in. It includes Karelia, which was Finnish. The Chechens were brutally forced into becoming part of Russia. Look on an old map of the Swedish Empire and you'll see Saint Petersburg was part of Sweden. Look at an map of Mongolian Empire and you'll see Russia AND China was Mongolian. That is the nature of Empires. Their borders of expand and contract over time but Putin assigns an arbitrary year and declares "THAT is the real year", and makes a very silly argument which resonates with Russians, but noone else. It's just the same as Israel and the defence of their borders - they claim they have every right to secure them, but will never actually say where their borders are, and where they might be located in future.

    I need to make this point again. The Soviet leaders themselves are responsible for the borders of Ukraine. Putin explained this very well. It was the Soviet leaders who agreed to split apart and make the Republics independent - including Ukraine. You cannot compare the splitting-up of the Soviet Union with that of other countries that half been carved up, occupied and brought to heel by enemy forces in war. Yet, some commentators have tried to do that.

    This war isn't going to be settled in any happy way. In the same way that Jewish leaders and Zionists simply don't care about the rest of the world's views about Palestine, they believe they have a spiritual and historic right - and this mindset trumps everything else. Most Russians have a fundamentally different outlook to the rest of the world about how this should be. All I'm saying is Western men, men of European stock, are very mistaken in thinking they can somehow benefit from this situation, or it signals a recession of the Empire which they hate & should be celebrated.

    I'm looking forward to discovering more about Alexander Dugin's conversation with Tucker, and hear your comments about it. Here's one Dugin quote to mull over in the meantime:

    "Palestine is technically Israeli territory... The West recognizes both territorial unity and the right of peoples to secede when it benefits them and does not recognize them when they are not beneficial. There are no rules. In fact, we should treat the matter the same way (and indeed we do). What is favourable to us is right... In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is difficult - at least now - for Russia to choose one side. There are pros and cons in every configuration. Ties with the Palestinians are ancient and, of course, victims, but Israel's right flank also tries to pursue a neutrally friendly policy towards Russia and, in doing so, deviates from the wild and unequivocal Russo-phobia of the collective West".

    Basically, he admits his own narrative is a hodgepodge with "no rules". How do you think, then, he views your identity crisis, Western man?

  3. #29773
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,378

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Charles View Post
    For the audience, that evil man should brutally suffer an eternity in Hell. Please don’t ask me why as if it isn’t obvious, the question is why is he anyone’s hero?
    I am unfamiliar with Irving.
    I have read that many people consider him to be an extremely diligent and meticulous researcher with an uncompromising commitment to historical accuracy.

    Would you share with us what makes you so sure this is an evil man?
    On what basis have you concluded he didn't have good intentions?
    Maybe incompetence led him to produce research you don't approve?
    We know you have been unwilling to attribute the extreme misconduct of our "elites" to malicious intent; You must have voluminous evidence of the most indisputable kind if you believe Irving to be evil?

  4. #29774
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golftdibrad View Post
    Another amazing find / post by the bad cat. You should go read the whole thing but here is the meat:

    mathiness instills confidence - by el gato malo

    Explains why so may of my former Lib Art friends would retort my fact based assessments on covid with
    "bUt YoUr JuSt An EnGiNeEr NoT aN eXpErT"
    This is very similar to what we observe with complexity selling so well in the fitness industry. Maleducated people just assume that the more complicated something seems, the more likely it is to be true. Such people are truly incapable of being reasoned with. And considering that this is most of the population, it just highlights how insane a political system based on universal franchise really is.

    Also, bravo on the well formatted post.

  5. #29775
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    South of France
    Posts
    3,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Jackson View Post
    but if the Ukrainians don't want to be under the Russian sphere, it is objectively high-handed to say the least to invade a country (whose borders you mutually agreed upon, with referenda held, in 1991) and kill scores of people to bring about this unity which you assert is there, but which more than half of the people don't agree with.
    Shouldn't that apply to Russians living in the Eastern oblasts and Crimea too?
    I remember it did for Albanians living in Kosovo, which back then was part of Serbia (you can't just ignore a precedent like that).
    And if this self determination principle applies, where does it stops?

    A superb post, by the way, thanks for taking the time.

    IPB

  6. #29776
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Garage of GainzZz
    Posts
    3,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Jackson View Post
    All you need to do is listen to what Putin and Russian state also says about this mythical "Nazi problem" in the Baltic states, in Moldova, etc. This rhetoric isn't confined to the Russian border conflict with Ukraine. Look at how they treat their own domestic White identitarian political movements (spoiler: worse than they do to the rainbow flag revolutionaries). When Putin talks about the "De-Nazifying" Ukraine - that implies that the Kremlin should control the cultural life, the historical identity, of Ukraine. That's a very fucking omninous thing from where I'm standing

    Not attacking you two personally, but generally speaking, for the Right, all this really boils down to, as the saying goes, is "a sheep will find a wolf to eat him". Rather, the Right will find a way to be cucked one way or another. It used to be White men conquered the world. Now, it's "I hope someone more based will conquer us next!".

    Thats seems to sum up the reaction to Tucker's interview. Tucker himself is a seriously good TV-news host, social media influencer and entertainer, but he's not a serious journalist and that's why the Kremlin selected his outfit to interview Putin. They are very aware of the decline of discourse in the West hence why they declined interviews from other Western news organisations over the last 12 months. They knew Tucker would be friendly and non-confrontational, and now Tucker has a kind of martyr-like celebrity status among Western conservatives (who already distrust the Western establishment), the Russian state knew it would get high ratings and be widely watched.

    Even Tucker doesn't really repesent any concrete positions for the Right - aside from his very loud assertion that he would be "offended" if someone referred to his identity as part of a "White" collective group. All he does is (sometimes brilliantly and articulately) is beam back the outrage of the disenfranchised conservative political base, whether it's about the latest conspiracy theory, or a study of the Left's most recent ridiculous hypocrisy. It's a place for the politically homeless Rightwing to gather and worry on things because despite all their rights, and firearms, they feel impotent about things going on in their own country.

    The Left has the same problem. Biden has been found by the Justice Department to be unfit to be prosecuted because he's so old, forgetful and unaware of his own actions, that if it ever came to a trial he would would come across as a "sympathetic, well meaning elderly man with a poor memory who can't be held accountable for his own actions". The Dems haven't been able to come up with an alternative to him because they simply don't have anyone who appeals to their voter base.

    Aside from a few fashionable Silicone Valley liberal types, homosexuals and Jewish people - the issues of the Democrat candidate donors (50% of whom are Jewish) simply aren't held by the actual Democrat base. Blacks and Latinos don't care about Israel, gay rights, the environment, etc., and if Biden steps down the only thing which the massively unpopular Kamala Harris has going for her is that she's vaguely black-ish.

    Let it sink in: in a country of 340 million people, the choice you're going to get is between one elderly man who shouldn't be trusted to represent himself in a trial due to his mental incapacity and Donald Trump. Who no conservative voter with a brain, and a memory of at least 8 years, actually wants and everyone (including you guys here) only see as a "better the devil you know" protest candidate.

    Literally nobody else in the world looks at America's weird, byzantine, overly complex political process of choosing leadership with any sort of admiration. It drags on, and on, and on for months and is so cumbersome and expensive that by design it's impossible for any sort of grass roots representation to ever happen. Then, the result is not just imposed on the exhausted American people but it has real ramifications for everyone around the world.

    This is why I hear seemingly intelligent voices on the Right gravitating towards Putin and repeating the Kremlin's talking points, because, who else has a somewhat coherant story for you to believe? There is nobody coming to save you, and your own Empire hates you, so why not root for the opposing Empire who occasionally appears to reflect your own anti-woke, anti-Clownworld views back at you?

    The interview was disappointing. It showed that Tucker wouldn't press his points, and that Putin is actually completely tone-deaf about events. His presentation is confusing to everyone who isn't Russian. Even us, on the board, walked away from it scratching our heads and asking what exactly Putin meant by "Nazis", and so on. At the beginning he said "If you don't mind, let me take 30 seconds to give you a little historical background" and proceeded to give a 30-minute discourse on Russian history as Russians see it. He knew that Tucker would sit back, and let him go on, in a way that was almost irrelevant to what Westerners expected of this interview.

    So many of Putin historical opinions were simply wrong and laughably propaganda, but (and this is the big BUT) whatever you think of Putin, AT LEAST HE HAS A WORLD-VIEW. This is the draw for the disenfranchised White Western guy, and i'm sympathetic to him. Putin doesn't speak in sound-bytes. Whereas American politicians who claim to represent your political interests have absolutely nothing to say, about anything, and actually hate you - this man can go on a 30-minute monologue world-view, and it sounds coherent and intelligent.

    He said he doesn't regard this conflict as a war in the normal sense, and said it's more like a civil-war because Ukrainians and Russians are really the same people more or less. For people who aren't Russian, this is a bizarre way of looking at the world. You can talk about the Russian soul, in this Spengerian sense, and have all this interesting historical factoids - but if the Ukrainians don't want to be under the Russian sphere, it is objectively high-handed to say the least to invade a country (whose borders you mutually agreed upon, with referenda held, in 1991) and kill scores of people to bring about this unity which you assert is there, but which more than half of the people don't agree with.

    Russia's borders include Kaliningrad Oblast, which used to be Germany. Why is it Russian? The Russians moved people in. It includes Karelia, which was Finnish. The Chechens were brutally forced into becoming part of Russia. Look on an old map of the Swedish Empire and you'll see Saint Petersburg was part of Sweden. Look at an map of Mongolian Empire and you'll see Russia AND China was Mongolian. That is the nature of Empires. Their borders of expand and contract over time but Putin assigns an arbitrary year and declares "THAT is the real year", and makes a very silly argument which resonates with Russians, but noone else. It's just the same as Israel and the defence of their borders - they claim they have every right to secure them, but will never actually say where their borders are, and where they might be located in future.

    I need to make this point again. The Soviet leaders themselves are responsible for the borders of Ukraine. Putin explained this very well. It was the Soviet leaders who agreed to split apart and make the Republics independent - including Ukraine. You cannot compare the splitting-up of the Soviet Union with that of other countries that half been carved up, occupied and brought to heel by enemy forces in war. Yet, some commentators have tried to do that.

    This war isn't going to be settled in any happy way. In the same way that Jewish leaders and Zionists simply don't care about the rest of the world's views about Palestine, they believe they have a spiritual and historic right - and this mindset trumps everything else. Most Russians have a fundamentally different outlook to the rest of the world about how this should be. All I'm saying is Western men, men of European stock, are very mistaken in thinking they can somehow benefit from this situation, or it signals a recession of the Empire which they hate & should be celebrated.

    I'm looking forward to discovering more about Alexander Dugin's conversation with Tucker, and hear your comments about it. Here's one Dugin quote to mull over in the meantime:

    "Palestine is technically Israeli territory... The West recognizes both territorial unity and the right of peoples to secede when it benefits them and does not recognize them when they are not beneficial. There are no rules. In fact, we should treat the matter the same way (and indeed we do). What is favourable to us is right... In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is difficult - at least now - for Russia to choose one side. There are pros and cons in every configuration. Ties with the Palestinians are ancient and, of course, victims, but Israel's right flank also tries to pursue a neutrally friendly policy towards Russia and, in doing so, deviates from the wild and unequivocal Russo-phobia of the collective West".

    Basically, he admits his own narrative is a hodgepodge with "no rules". How do you think, then, he views your identity crisis, Western man?
    I might be able to pick at some frayed edges here and there if I had the time and were on a desktop computer, but this is really good, Matt.

    This was two Boomers talking to each other, using the frames of the post-Nuremberg liberal order. These men are both liberals, full stop. They may have some feeling about “culture,” Putin much more so in that idiosyncratic Russian way, but give up the field by accepting the established rules of the game.

    As for The Ukraine, it was never about The Ukraine, anyway.

  7. #29777
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Posts
    3,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yngvi View Post
    I am unfamiliar with Irving.
    I have read that many people consider him to be an extremely diligent and meticulous researcher with an uncompromising commitment to historical accuracy.

    Would you share with us what makes you so sure this is an evil man?
    On what basis have you concluded he didn't have good intentions?
    Maybe incompetence led him to produce research you don't approve?
    We know you have been unwilling to attribute the extreme misconduct of our "elites" to malicious intent; You must have voluminous evidence of the most indisputable kind if you believe Irving to be evil?
    Many people consider Fauci to be an honest and brilliant scientist. That, however, is irrelevant.

    My ONLY claim of good intent was with respect to political correctness. That the origins 5-6 decades ago, while well intended, resulted, predictably, as the most dangerous political ideology of the current era.

    I believe there are plenty of things throughout past and current history that were/are born of malicious intent.

  8. #29778
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anticausal View Post
    This is very similar to what we observe with complexity selling so well in the fitness industry. Maleducated people just assume that the more complicated something seems, the more likely it is to be true. Such people are truly incapable of being reasoned with. And considering that this is most of the population, it just highlights how insane a political system based on universal franchise really is.
    Somebody recently said that with a monarchy you occasionally get lucky, but in a democracy the most effective liar always wins.

  9. #29779
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Lakeland, FL
    Posts
    3,114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yngvi View Post
    I am unfamiliar with Irving.
    I have read that many people consider him to be an extremely diligent and meticulous researcher with an uncompromising commitment to historical accuracy.
    Seems to odd to me that one can go from being almost universally seen as such and suddenly be seen as a hate filled loon simply for questioning the most holy of holy globalist narratives.

    I watched a couple of his lectures years ago and he certainly seems fair and diligent and he was correct on the few points that I had any ability to confirm myself.

    I tend to think the people who actually suffer for their beliefs (I believe he did jail time over not buying into the official, completely pulled out of the powers that be asses numbers on the number of Jews killed during WWII) are at least honestly wrong vs deserving of hell for their conclusions.

    And, while it's not an ultimate metric of someone's character, having all the "right" people hate you is a good reason to at least get the benefit of doubt.

  10. #29780
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,350

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by George Christiansen View Post
    completely pulled out of the powers that be asses numbers on the number of Jews killed during WWII
    It doesn't seem to be quite that arbitrary. The six million number seems to have some kind of mystical significance in Jewish tradition. It pops up in newspapers prior to the start of WWII many times, and then coincidentally becomes part of the Clown World Catechisms after the 1960s diaspora-led cultural revolution.

    six-million.jpg

    (Higher resolution image here.)

    For those who find this cobbled together screen-shot dubious (I did too, the first time I saw it), I looked up a handful on the New York Time's archive to verify for myself (back when it was still free to do so) and they are legit. You can no longer get to the full articles without a subscription, but here is one where the 6 million was right in the title of the article (4th row, 1st column in the screenshot image above):

    $1,000,000,000 FUND TO REBUILD JEWRY; Six Million Souls Will Need Help to Resume Normal Life When War Is Ended.

    Like I said not too long ago, once a political taboo is nullified, it is usually remarkably easy to discredit what the taboo was meant to protect. That's why the taboo is there, and why men who question the underlying proposition must have their lives destroyed. Without such penalties, no one would take the underlying proposition seriously at all. It is also why someone reliably shows up to remind everyone of the social penalties whenever the underlying proposition is being questioned.

    Wasn't this thread in the 9 millions a few days ago? It says 11.2 million right now. Over 2 million in just a few days? Very strange, if true.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •