A few thoughts about January 6, 2021

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
3,431
1,135
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
What is it with racist authoritarian police and vikings anyway?


Idiotic misaimed fandom at its finest that have little to no understanding of the Viking life and Norse mythos and used to excuse their pathetic survival of the fittest and racist ideology. This is especially true with Neo Nazis and skinheads.


  • Misaimed Fandom:
    • Unfortunately, due to the Nazi deification of all things blond and blue-eyed, a disproportionate number of the "fans" of Norse mythology you'll find these days are Wotanists, a neo-nazi white supremacist sect who wish to return the lighter-skinned "to their ancestral religion." How these nutters would react to the fact that Norse mythology is full of Inter Species Romance (such as the marriage between Njodr and Skadi, Loki being a Frost-Giant, Frey falling in Love at First Sight with a giantess), or what can be called the polymorphous perverse (Thor being a Wholesome Crossdresserand a fetching bride as Freya, Loki's fondness for coupling with animals).
      • For what it's worth, back then many of the aforementioned traits and deeds would probably have been looked down as being argr or ragr (a hard-to-translate word with the connotations of somebody being unmanly, weak, pathetic, and possibly homosexual (the latter attested by the even more inflammatory form rassragr or "arse-ragr"); a rather grave insult among the Norse people at that time), as mentioned by the gods themselves, such as Thor being concerned that the other gods will consider him ragr after putting on a bride's dress. The complex and often ambiguous nature of mythology or system of religious lore (especially one so fragmentarily preserved as the Norse one) naturally leads to one man's Values Dissonance being another man's Values Resonance, both now and probably then as well.
    • More to the point, the Norse Gods are described repeatedly in the original myths as vulnerable and mortal, they are afraid of Frost Giants, Trolls and others and rely greatly on powerful weapons and artifacts (such as Mjölnir) to feel safe, have to sacrifice eyes and limbs to achieve their ends (Odin sacrifices his eye, Tyr sacrifices his arm) and of course there's the fact that in the end, Everyone Dies. Founding an ideology of power and domination based on Gods who are mortal, vulnerable and self-destructive is missing the point.
      • Not really, nazism tends to glorify "glorious" defeats and death. Seeking Ragnarok actually fit them well.
    • The concept of Valhalla and Sessrumnir. People often talk about how they eat at Odin's table and are served mead by hot Action Girls. But when they are not eating they are fighting. Maiming each other dying and regenerating. Forever, or at least until Ragnarök. Drinking with Odin sounds more like making yourself numb with alcohol to deal with the horror. Or perhaps they liked the neverending fighting.
 

XsjadoBlayde

Toxic Winery of the Lasagna Queen
Apr 29, 2020
780
570
98
Britannialand
Idiotic misaimed fandom at its finest that have little to no understanding of the Viking life and Norse mythos and used to excuse their pathetic survival of the fittest and racist ideology. This is especially true with Neo Nazis and skinheads.

Oh wow, the 'blond haired, blue eyed' part totally didn't register on me. That's just... realigned some perspective. Wow.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
676
548
98
Country
United States
The weird thing about being weened in Rambo leads me to believe they just remember seeing the last hour or so of First Blood part II a few dozen times. Because if they remembered the climax, the proper one after the machine gun stops firing, of First Blood as clearly then they may feel more circumspect about how they go about showing their gratitude.
Or more to the point, it demonstrates the capacity of the politico-media complex to manipulate its own products, and those who consume them, to nefarious ends. Folks would do better pointing more specifically towards films like Red Dawn, which was actually crafted skillfully enough it could be parsed as a subversive critique of American exceptionalism yet few if any recognize those characteristics in it.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
2,283
1,153
118
Or more to the point, it demonstrates the capacity of the politico-media complex to manipulate its own products, and those who consume them, to nefarious ends. Folks would do better pointing more specifically towards films like Red Dawn, which was actually crafted skillfully enough it could be parsed as a subversive critique of American exceptionalism yet few if any recognize those characteristics in it.
Eh, I know I've seen a few thumbnails about Red Dawn being a propaganda film in the last few years, so it's out there. But John McHickson, who goes to bed each night masturbating to the war cry of "Wolverines!!" doesn't care about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
3,431
1,135
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Eh, I know I've seen a few thumbnails about Red Dawn being a propaganda film in the last few years, so it's out there. But John McHickson, who goes to bed each night masturbating to the war cry of "Wolverines!!" doesn't care about that.
Honestly, I've only seen Red Dawn about twice in my life. I can't even remember much other than the avenged me scene and of course...

 
  • Like
Reactions: happyninja42

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
2,283
1,153
118
Honestly, I've only seen Red Dawn about twice in my life. I can't even remember much other than the avenged me scene and of course...

Yes daddy!! More! *fascistgasm*

Yeah I know I saw it a lot as a kid, as it was super popular back then. But I mostly saw it as "what my redneck friends probably want the future to look like"
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
676
548
98
Country
United States
Eh, I know I've seen a few thumbnails about Red Dawn being a propaganda film in the last few years, so it's out there. But John McHickson, who goes to bed each night masturbating to the war cry of "Wolverines!!" doesn't care about that.
More to the point, you should be asking who stands to profit most from this ridiculous behavior like that we saw on the 6th, and therefore has a vested financial interest in its perpetuation.

...and if you think it's the firearms industry, lol.



AT&T, one of the four media conglomerates that collectively control over 90% of all media consumed by Americans, reports more revenue quarterly than the entire firearms industry does in a year. One must wonder exactly how much of that is for-profit coverage of political unrest and violence through its news outlet holdings.
 
Last edited:

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
2,283
1,153
118
More to the point, you should be asking who stands to profit most from this ridiculous behavior like that we saw on the 6th, and therefore has a vested financial interest in its perpetuation.
Quite a number of groups could potentially profit from this kind of shit going on.

...and if you think it's the firearms industry, lol.



AT&T, one of the four media conglomerates that collectively control over 90% of all media consumed by Americans, reports more revenue quarterly than the entire firearms industry does in a year. One must wonder exactly how much of that is for-profit coverage of political unrest and violence through its news outlet holdings.
So the fact that AT&T could potentially earn more money from this, than the NRA, somehow means the NRA isn't also potentially profiting from this debacle? I mean it's not an all or nothing thing with this kind of shit. Also what are you implying anyway? That AT&T what? Intentionally fomented unrest in the already batshit crazy conservative alt-right, who have been chomping at the bit for decades to have a reason to shoot people in the street and have it be patriotic, for ratings? I mean you don't really need to blame Big Corp, when the fucking leaders of the party themselves are standing on stage, inciting their masses to riot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
824
648
98
Country
Sweden
They're the original white, manly men? And that's cool?

I don't know, I'm trying think like a stupid, white racist would.
This is, like many things, a bit complex but I'll try and keep it simple:
In the 19th century Nationalism was really cool. In Scandinavia Nationalism was really cool too but after Sweden had been messed up a lot by Russia, Denmark had been on the losing side of the Napoleonic Wars, Finland was an unwilling part of Russia and Norway had been passed from Denmark to Sweden like a ***** spoils of war (from Sweden playing the system and barely contributing to the winning side of the Napoleonic Wars) there wasn't really much to brag about. Sure, Sweden could brag about Gustavus Adolphus and Carolus XII and Denmark could go on and on about how they were totally cool in the middle ages, but at the same time there was a massive pan-Scandinavian sentiment in both countries. The solution to being both Pan-Scandinavian and Nationalistic (without having anything to be proud of except crippling poverty and poor agriculture) was to look a millennia back in history to the Vikings.

A lot of our understanding of Vikings up until the 1990's wasn't so much factual understanding of the Norse culture as much as it was very liberal interpretations (some would call it lies) of Norse culture to conjure up the image of fearless, muscular men who set off in rickety (yet masterfully crafted and engineered) ships over tempestuous seas to pillage, rape and plunder weaker nations. Men who embodied all the masculine ideals of the late-19th century by being strong, brave and full of initiative but also noble, righteous and pious. Men who made their own rules and did not bow to meek kings and women. Men who gladly gave their lives in battle, because battle was their lifeblood and to die violently was to secure a place in Valhalla. This interpretation of the Norse was catnip to 19th century "historians" and "philosophers" who could swing it to show that Scandinavian people were of unusually fine stock and had a legacy to uphold.

It was clear as early as the 1950's that this wasn't really how Norse culture was like but it is only in the last two decades or so that our understanding of Norse culture has really begun to shift into something much more nuanced (like what Brawlman posted). In neo-Nazi circles the old 19th century version is very strongly upheld however as it forms the basis for the Scandinavian form of nazism and neo-nazi adjacent groups like biker gangs like the idea of this ur-manly man, ready to fight and die at the drop of a hat and always sticking it to authority. So not only are Vikings strong white men, they also embody a very specific set of ideals that appeals to the kind of toxic white men that makes up a large part of the alt-right and the "outlaw"-subculture in the USA.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
2,283
1,153
118
This is, like many things, a bit complex but I'll try and keep it simple:
In the 19th century Nationalism was really cool. In Scandinavia Nationalism was really cool too but after Sweden had been messed up a lot by Russia, Denmark had been on the losing side of the Napoleonic Wars, Finland was an unwilling part of Russia and Norway had been passed from Denmark to Sweden like a ***** spoils of war (from Sweden playing the system and barely contributing to the winning side of the Napoleonic Wars) there wasn't really much to brag about. Sure, Sweden could brag about Gustavus Adolphus and Carolus XII and Denmark could go on and on about how they were totally cool in the middle ages, but at the same time there was a massive pan-Scandinavian sentiment in both countries. The solution to being both Pan-Scandinavian and Nationalistic (without having anything to be proud of except crippling poverty and poor agriculture) was to look a millennia back in history to the Vikings.

A lot of our understanding of Vikings up until the 1990's wasn't so much factual understanding of the Norse culture as much as it was very liberal interpretations (some would call it lies) of Norse culture to conjure up the image of fearless, muscular men who set off in rickety (yet masterfully crafted and engineered) ships over tempestuous seas to pillage, rape and plunder weaker nations. Men who embodied all the masculine ideals of the late-19th century by being strong, brave and full of initiative but also noble, righteous and pious. Men who made their own rules and did not bow to meek kings and women. Men who gladly gave their lives in battle, because battle was their lifeblood and to die violently was to secure a place in Valhalla. This interpretation of the Norse was catnip to 19th century "historians" and "philosophers" who could swing it to show that Scandinavian people were of unusually fine stock and had a legacy to uphold.

It was clear as early as the 1950's that this wasn't really how Norse culture was like but it is only in the last two decades or so that our understanding of Norse culture has really begun to shift into something much more nuanced (like what Brawlman posted). In neo-Nazi circles the old 19th century version is very strongly upheld however as it forms the basis for the Scandinavian form of nazism and neo-nazi adjacent groups like biker gangs like the idea of this ur-manly man, ready to fight and die at the drop of a hat and always sticking it to authority. So not only are Vikings strong white men, they also embody a very specific set of ideals that appeals to the kind of toxic white men that makes up a large part of the alt-right and the "outlaw"-subculture in the USA.
Yeah I don't think it's a coincidence, that the most popular facial hair look these days among white men, is at least what they use to depict Vikings, in shows like Vikings, and AC: Valhalla. I've lost count of the "bearded white dude" look I see all the time. Especially at work among my veteran clients. I inwardly cringe and laugh at the same time.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
676
548
98
Country
United States
Quite a number of groups could potentially profit from this kind of shit going on.
"Quite a number"...or, as the Forbes article points out, damn near every major sector of the contemporary US economy profiteers from it.

So the fact that AT&T could potentially earn more money from this, than the NRA, somehow means the NRA isn't also potentially profiting from this debacle?
I'm not talking about the NRA, fuck them. I'm talking about the firearms industry itself, and in the big scheme even the toolmakers are bit players in the overarching power structure. I want to make sure people have a proper sense of scale for the economic and political forces with vested interest in perpetual civil unrest.

Also what are you implying anyway?
I'm not implying a goddamn thing. I'm outright saying it.

That AT&T what? Intentionally fomented unrest in the already batshit crazy conservative alt-right, who have been chomping at the bit for decades to have a reason to shoot people in the street and have it be patriotic, for ratings?
No, not just AT&T, my statements are an indictment of the whole-ass politico-media complex. AT&T just happened to be the company I thought of first. But if you must have a "smoking gun", remember this?


Which corporation's logo is that in the bottom? Then GE-owned, now Comcast-owned, NBCUniversal, of which CNBC is sister network to liberal flagship outlet MSNBC. But do go on pretending the same sleazeball conglomerates aren't selling incendiary and polarizing confirmation bias to "both sides" of the political spectrum, stoking civil unrest for profit.

Or as outright said by Leslie Moonves, the then-CEO of CBS, "[Trump's profitability] may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS".

I mean you don't really need to blame Big Corp, when the fucking leaders of the party themselves are standing on stage, inciting their masses to riot.
Exactly what level of doublethink does it take to spew that without asking yourself who provides that stage to begin with?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Houseman

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,921
2,075
118
Yeah I don't think it's a coincidence, that the most popular facial hair look these days among white men, is at least what they use to depict Vikings, in shows like Vikings, and AC: Valhalla. I've lost count of the "bearded white dude" look I see all the time. Especially at work among my veteran clients. I inwardly cringe and laugh at the same time.
I have a short beard (~1cm). It combines the advantages of not needing to shave frequently to continue looking neat, and not needing any time and effort with beard oil and other advanced maintenance to look neat: trim every fortnight or so and done. It is a godsend to men who can't be arsed grooming.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
2,283
1,153
118
I have a short beard (~1cm). It combines the advantages of not needing to shave frequently to continue looking neat, and not needing any time and effort with beard oil and other advanced maintenance to look neat: trim every fortnight or so and done. It is a godsend to men who can't be arsed grooming.
I'm not really talking about those lengths of beards, it's more the "im trying to Lumberjack Chic" kind of thing. The longer, usually blonde, type of beard, that pretty much every modern day "viking" depicted in media, is sporting. The male PC in Valhalla is a perfect example. Basically any dude in the show Vikings. THAT is the beard I see everywhere, on all these dudebros, usually sporting things like Punisher tattoos in the color scheme of the american flag, or american flag tattoos in the scheme of made from actual bullets. Just, gun worshiping fuckwits. I mean I have facial hair, though I'm usually sporting a very short goatee, like your length at most. Though I'm lazy so it tends to get longer before I shave it off.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
322
276
68
Country
United Kingdom
I feel like this about covers it. Like, you can disagree with me on some minutia, and some people may be exceptions to the rule, but I believe you'll agree that "Antifascists" are not about to take up American flags to push back on fascists.
Well, yes, for extremely obvious reasons.

Fascists love American flags. They put American flags on everything. Even when they use outright Nazi symbolism they'll often change it up to incorporate American flags. That's because fascists are nationalists. Trying to use nationalist symbols to oppose fascism does not work because you are not expressing any kind of opposition to the people you are opposing.

On top of that, the national symbols of the US in particular do not represent some oppositional point to fascism. The US, historically, has a very close relationship with fascism. It has fostered fascist regimes all over the world. The US is also a right-wing, authoritarian country where militarized police can break into your house at night and kill you with impunity, where the security services have gotten away with legally raping children in the name of intelligence gathering, where incredibly biased drug laws are used to facilitate mass-incarceration of poor black populations to use as forced labour. The fascists are not misguided in their use of the American flag. They are not misunderstanding what that flag represents, they believe that the authentic meaning of the flag aligns with their beliefs, and they are in many ways correct.

How would they know where to deliver that to or set up to serve food?
Twitter.

I find it funny really as companies were only allowed to keep going under Hitler as long as they were deemed to be working in favour of the state. If they weren't he'd happily have people willing to do his bidding installed. You can argue Hitler rose due to Capitalism but his government operations were closer to the CCP in terms of how they worked with or saw companies.
The economy of Nazi Germany was sufficiently different from either a capitalist or socialist economy to warrant its own classification. It was entirely focused on developing the capacity to wage war. Beyond that, the Nazis really did not care very much about the economy.

The Nazi economy did have some features of a planned economy. Indivivdual companies were incorporated into government bureaucracy through economic groups, for example, but control over the economy still ultimately lay with companies themselves. They cooperated with the government because it was immensely beneficial to do so, not because they were forced to do so. It's also worth noting that a modern war economy requires state oversight and management. Thus, we see in Germany that as the war escalated the government took a greater degree of control over the economy, but the same is true in the UK, for example.

You could argue that the Nazi economy is like the economy of China, but only in the sense that China is also a capitalist economy under an authoritarian nationalist govenrment. Fortunately, the overarching goal of the two economies is, for now at least, very different.

I also can't see why people would find communism like in Russia to be all that appealing where people were seen as disposable bodies where in Wars they'd happily shoot any of their own found retreating regardless of what was happening.
Again, this is a case where mythology has kind of outstripped reality. The USSR did use blocking units (special units whose job was to shoot those trying to retreat) for about 3 months of 1942, and only in conjunction with penal battalions (special punishment units for soldiers who had already been court-marshalled). The number of people they killed is miniscule in proportion to the size of the armies on the eastern front. Blocking units were ultimately phased out because they were seen as a waste of manpower. The reasons for all this are very simple, the red army was, at the time, nearing collapse. A huge proportion of the Soviet Union, including much of its population and most of its arable land and industry, was under German occupation, and subject to horrendous war crimes. Giving more ground was becoming increasingly dangerous, both for the people living there and for the Soviet Union's chances of surviving the war which, let's be real, was a war of extermination against the people of eastern Europe.

It's also in absolutely no way exceptional. Hitler himself intentionally sacrificed huge numbers of German soldiers on the eastern front by issuing suicidal no-retreat orders.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
2,112
168
68
Country
United Kingdom
Not that simple as there are plenty of fake AntiFa accounts about some who got in quite deep


The economy of Nazi Germany was sufficiently different from either a capitalist or socialist economy to warrant its own classification. It was entirely focused on developing the capacity to wage war. Beyond that, the Nazis really did not care very much about the economy.
Economies in almost any country differ vastly when at War vs at Peace. I mean look at things like War Bonds etc to get more money in.

The Nazi economy did have some features of a planned economy. Indivivdual companies were incorporated into government bureaucracy through economic groups, for example, but control over the economy still ultimately lay with companies themselves. They cooperated with the government because it was immensely beneficial to do so, not because they were forced to do so. It's also worth noting that a modern war economy requires state oversight and management. Thus, we see in Germany that as the war escalated the government took a greater degree of control over the economy, but the same is true in the UK, for example.

You could argue that the Nazi economy is like the economy of China, but only in the sense that China is also a capitalist economy under an authoritarian nationalist govenrment. Fortunately, the overarching goal of the two economies is, for now at least, very different.
This is it was a lot more about who was deemed to be faithful to the party and those deemed not faithful were ones taken over.

I dunno China might seem very China centric but they really have been playing on the world stage quite a bit in a number of different ways.


Again, this is a case where mythology has kind of outstripped reality. The USSR did use blocking units (special units whose job was to shoot those trying to retreat) for about 3 months of 1942, and only in conjunction with penal battalions (special punishment units for soldiers who had already been court-marshalled). The number of people they killed is miniscule in proportion to the size of the armies on the eastern front. Blocking units were ultimately phased out because they were seen as a waste of manpower. The reasons for all this are very simple, the red army was, at the time, nearing collapse. A huge proportion of the Soviet Union, including much of its population and most of its arable land and industry, was under German occupation, and subject to horrendous war crimes. Giving more ground was becoming increasingly dangerous, both for the people living there and for the Soviet Union's chances of surviving the war which, let's be real, was a war of extermination against the people of eastern Europe.

It's also in absolutely no way exceptional. Hitler himself intentionally sacrificed huge numbers of German soldiers on the eastern front by issuing suicidal no-retreat orders.
Neither come off great here should likely be the take away. One worse than the other but the other still bad.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
676
548
98
Country
United States
The economy of Nazi Germany was sufficiently different from either a capitalist or socialist economy to warrant its own classification. It was entirely focused on developing the capacity to wage war. Beyond that, the Nazis really did not care very much about the economy.

The Nazi economy did have some features of a planned economy. Indivivdual companies were incorporated into government bureaucracy through economic groups, for example, but control over the economy still ultimately lay with companies themselves. They cooperated with the government because it was immensely beneficial to do so, not because they were forced to do so...
The Nazis cared immensely about the economy, and Nazi Germany was absolutely a planned economy. The very notion held by "popular" belief the Nazis lacked clear and precise economic goals nor policy is utterly laughable, and ex post facto bullshit cooked up after the war to demonize the effectiveness of Nazi economic policy held together by the duct tape and chewing gum of doublethink.

If you're looking at the state and the state's role in it alone, you're missing the key piece of the puzzle. It wasn't about the state and never was about the state, it was about the Nazi party. Much as the German state itself was, the German economy was entirely subsumed by and subordinate to the Nazi party and the party's welfare. Privatization was a consequence of party loyalty, status within the party of owners and board members, and expedience for the Nazi party; likewise, nationalization, regulation, protectionism, market exclusionism, and mandatory participation in "economic groups".

There was no symbiosis nor presumption of symbiosis, because in order for symbiosis to happen there must be two separate and distinct entities to form a symbiotic relationship to begin with.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,147
430
88
The Nazis cared immensely about the economy, and Nazi Germany was absolutely a planned economy. The very notion held by "popular" belief the Nazis lacked clear and precise economic goals nor policy is utterly laughable
That doesn't contradict the assertion that the Nazis were interested in the economy to facilitate the war/s and nothing else, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera