Sapatus

Supreme courts are the mirage that keeps liberal democracies going, despite their shortcomings. In the end, they don't protect you but the regime they serve. (Reupload with better sound and voice-over). youtu.be/bDsbemwmTNQ

@eugyppius1 Agree, and the fact that Iran has still enough working air defence to prevent deep strikes with gravity bombs.

netanyahu baselessly declaring war aims met one day after the pars south strike and successful iranian hit on ras laffan has to mean something.

they’re going to try to back out and end it

@eugyppius1 Emphasis on "try" since Iran too has to agree on a ceasefire.

The AfD was facing a ban in 2024 and was able to evade that with the support of the Trump administration. The hope was that the Trump administration would shelter the party long enough to give the party time to establish themselves more and breaking into the ranks of the other parties. There was significant progress in that direction, but now pretty much all bets are of the table since the entire political system in Europe and in Germany in particular is facing a massive economic and ethnic crisis.

@Gundamritter @BdK_Berlin Das ist das Wiederkäuen von Motiven der Nachkriegszeit, die krampfhaft an den aktuellen Geschehnissen festgemacht werden sollen. Sie sind einfach nicht in der Lage, ihr Weltbild an die neue Situation anzupassen.

Zum hundersten Mal: Warum haben Libs so einen kontrafaktischen Narren an angeblichen Buchverboten in den USA gefressen? Bei uns in Deutschland werden nicht nur Bücher aus Schulbibliotheken entfernt, sondern ganze Bibliotheken wie die @BdK_Berlin aus dem Katalog gestrichen!!

Aktuell kommen die Häuser der 30er und 40er Jahrgänge auf den Markt und die sind meiner Erfahrung schwer bis gar nicht verkäuflich, wenn sie nicht in der Nähe der Ballungsräume liegen. Das Hauptproblem sind oft die Heizungen, weil weder Sanierung noch Betrieb wirtschaftlich sind. Du hast vollkommen Recht!

Hab mich gestern Abend mal hingesetzt und durchgerechnet was passiert wenn die Babyboomer ihre 4,8 Millionen Immobilien loswerden. Zwischen 2040 und 2050 soll das alles auf den Markt kommen. Was bedeutet das: Haus auf dem Land in Sachsen, Baujahr 1975, 120 Quadratmeter. Die Boomer-Eltern haben es damals für umgerechnet 80.000 Euro gebaut. Heute steht es bei 180.000 im Grundbuch. Klingt nach Gewinn. Bis man mal durchrechnet was es kostet das Ding auf heutigen Stand zu bringen: Neue Heizung 25.000, Dämmung 40.000, Dach 30.000, Fenster 15.000, Bäder 20.000. Macht 130.000 Euro Sanierung. Für ein Haus das in einer strukturschwachen Region steht wo die jungen seit 20 Jahren wegziehen. Wer soll das bitte kaufen? Die junge Familie die doppelt so lange spart wie ihre Eltern für die gleiche Immobilie? In einem Dorf wo der nächste Supermarkt 15km entfernt ist und die Schule gerade zugemacht hat? In München, Hamburg und Berlin wird sich nichts ändern. Da bleibt alles knapp und teuer. Aber auf dem Land in Sachsen, Thüringen, Saarland, Niedersachsen — da reden wir in 15 Jahren über Häuser die keiner mehr will. Und für viele Boomer war dieses Haus die Altersvorsorge. Die rechnen damit es für 180.000 zu verkaufen. Wenn es dann nur noch 90.000 bringt ist die Hälfte der Rente weg.

It will be interesting how this plays out in US (and Western) domestic politics since breaking up with Israel means breaking up with most of the old Western elites. This is essentially a generational reset of an entire system of values and class that allows for massive moves. I believe that the only thing that compares to that is the collapse of the old Western elites (the liberals in the classic sense and aristocrats) in the aftermath of the Great War.

From the very start, Trump wanted a military operation with relatively limited objectives, one that would allow a quick declaration of victory and a swift conclusion. He did believe the conflict could end within days. He never linked the attack on Iran to other agendas such as his upcoming visit to China, which was originally scheduled for late March or early April. During the decision-making process, Israel exaggerated the feasibility of the operation to Trump. Trump bought into Israel’s advice, which overrode the assessments of the U.S. military and intelligence community. His subconscious and other considerations led him to bet on this course of action. (We don't go into other speculations, to the realm of conspiracy theories, though they look far less conspiratorial now.) Once the war began, however, things unfolded completely against Trump’s wishes, and by then it was too late. An immediate withdrawal from the U.S. 's end would have been seen as a major political defeat, because he has really failed to achieve his most stated goals; refusing to back down would lead to a global economic catastrophe that would also turn into his political failure. He has already suffered a political defeat, and is merely weighing which outcome is less catastrophic. Nevertheless, the trajectory of the Iran war is no longer determined by Trump’s will. Even if the U.S. unilaterally declares victory and withdraws from the battlefield, the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed. Iran will demand an end to the conflict on its own terms, once and for all. For Israel, Netanyahu knows full well that Israel has no way out. Since October 2023, it has exhausted all U.S. political support. Among younger Americans, anti-Israel sentiment has become a consensus across political spectrum. The U.S. will gradually decouple politically from Israel, and at least one thing is certain: no future U.S. president will ever go to war with Iran for Israel again. The U.S. wants a permanent withdrawal from the Middle East. Israel must therefore seize this opportunity and prevent the U.S. from extricating itself. Trump thus faces this reality: while he wants to pull the U.S. out, Israel aims to escalate and expand the war; Iran seeks a protracted, attritional asymmetric war to inflict economic and political disaster on the U.S., with the short-term goal of securing its own survival and the long-term goal of reshaping the Middle East order. What is the exit route for Trump? Only one option: accept reality, and a complete break with Netanyahu and Israel in respect of this war, acceptance of Iran’s terms, and inviting the leading nations of the BRICS to mediate in the process.

Thinking about the whole situation it now seems clear to me that the reason why nobody in the West wants to come to the US' aid is that everybody has recognised the futility of the US' attempts on the one hand, on the other hand everybody is fearing that their (personal and mostly imaginary) boogey man is coming home to settle the score while the US are distracted.

There's not really any daylight between the AfD and their criticism of Trump's request for naval support, and the position of Merz's government. From the Greens to the mainline CDU to AfD, the opposition is pretty unanimous.

@609ZE @eugyppius1 Those are usually fully embedded with anti-imperialist/global south narratives and thus support Iran (or at least oppose a Western intervention). This holds true for most of the hard left, quite frankly.

@eugyppius1 How about the antideutsch?

It's curious that the German mainstream press has fallen silent on this topic since the start of the war. It's understandable that the American press mostly views this through the lens of prices since the US is more or less able to subsists on domestic and near-shore supply (notwithstanding supply chain disruptions), but Europe is looking into the abyss.

We're heading for a really bad energy crisis, okay? Whatever you think about the war, that's what's happening. It's kind of weird how this isn't really talked about but what's unfolding right now is probably going to develop into a very serious and not easily untangled thing.

@Austrian_Fren @MartinSellner_ Feminismus ist ein (scheinbar) guter Deal für Männer mit hohem Status (ca. 10% der Männer) und attraktive (junge) Frauen (ca. 20%). Der Rest schaut in die Röhre.

@MartinSellner_ "Zugleich aber ist für Männer (...) die Befriedigung ihrer sexuellen Bedürfnisse in dieser Zeit ohne sozialen Reputationsverlust und soziale Bindung auch leichter möglich denn je." Ja ca. 5-10% der Männer. Ungezügelte Hypergamie bedeutet Abschaffung der Monogamie

Das stimmt halt einfach nicht. Ein guter Teil aller Männer und Frauen haben heute ein Business-Mindset, was Beziehungen betrifft. Sie berechnen ja auch entsprechend Ihren eigenen Sexual Market Value. Das Ziel ist es, einen möglichst guten Schnitt zu machen. Also über Looksmaxxing, Reichtum, antrainiertes Charisma, Muskeln, Rundungen, etc einen Partner zu gewinnen, der einem möglichst viel Befriedigung verschafft. Sobald die Bilanz hier aber kippt und man eine bessere Chance sieht hat, steigt man um, wie bei einem Internet-Vertrag. Das ergibt auch in einem materialistischen und hedonistischen Mindset vollkommen Sinn. Das Problem ist: bei beiden Seiten entsteht so ein Misstrauen. Beziehung und Ehe als Vertragsverhältnis bedeutet, dass es jederzeit auflösbar ist. Die Familie lässt sich nicht verrechtlichen und in einen geschäftlichen Vertrag gießen. Die notwendige Stabilität, das gegenseitige Vertrauen und die Sicherheit, die man braucht, um Kinder in die Welt zu setzen und zu erziehen, funktioniert nur in einem vollkommen anderen Mindset. Eines in der Familie und familiären Pflichten als "Res extra commercium", außerhalb des profanen kalkulierenden Bereichs stehen. Es müssen absolute Werte sein, die auch Krisenphasen überdauern. Es mag sein, dass in der heutigen Gesellschaft aufgrund einer männerfeindlichen Grundstimmung eine weitere Benachteiligung von Männern in gewissen Bereichen besteht. Zugleich aber ist für Männer, die einen geringere Sehnsucht zum Kind und zur familiären Wärme haben, sowie über ein längeres biologische Zeitfenster verfügen die Befriedigung ihrer sexuellen Bedürfnisse in dieser Zeit ohne sozialen Reputationsverlust und soziale Bindung auch leichter möglich denn je. Gerade Frauen sind von ihrer Grundausstattung und Grundausrichtung weniger dazu in der Lage, in dieser Gesellschaftseinrichtung glücklich zu werden, da sie Familie und Kinder weniger gut substituieren können als Männer. Es ist auf jeden Fall ein sehr komplexes Thema, und wenn man Männern oder Frauen und nicht der Moderne die Schuld gibt, liegt man falsch.

@MartinSellner_ Es ist gut, dass @MartinSellner_ die Frauenfrage aufgreift, denn sie ist eine der großen Fragen unserer Zeit und eine politische Bewegung muss dafür eine Lösung anbieten.

Lass dich da nicht kirre machen. Ungeachtet wie man zur Ukraine steht, gibt es weder für Russland noch den Westen einen Grund, den Krieg auf Deutschland (oder auch nur auf Polen) zu erstrecken. Ich habe eher den Eindruck, dass der Ukraine die Mittel ausgehen werden und der Krieg damit endet, auch wenn es vielleicht nicht das Ergebnis ist, dass man sich als Freund der Ukraine wünschen mag.

@RealSapatus Die ganze Geschichte um Russland, dass die an der Ostgrenze scheiße bauen

Große Probleme mit Kriegsangst zurzeit wieder...

@nerdtechgasm @0xcoked They can certainly do some damage, but they have come close to the Iranian shoreline (and escape after the attack) and many interesting targets in Iran are far from the coast, including the capital.

@RealSapatus @0xcoked They do not have strategic ICBM capability, indeed. They are modified with VLS cells to fire cruise missiles, ~500km range. Enough to hit many cities near the coast.

Simple Game Theory analysis shows why the Israeli "Samson Option" is nonsense: 1) Israel doesn't have a true nuclear triad, they have garbage tier diesel submarines that barely work, are easily tracked, and cannot field a true second-strike capability. 2) Their ICBM silos are clustered together in extremely limited space, under constant surveillance by various states (including Iran), and the country lacks the strategic depth to field more hidden silos. Any activity there could be easily pre-empted and destroyed. This is the primary reason why Israel is so paranoid about Iran, as they know Iran has this capability. 3) ICBMs are most easily intercepted in their boost phase, and there's various countries in the region with SM-6 tier interceptors that could easily disrupt that, including Turkey and Egypt. 4) Air-force based nuke launches would be easily intercepted/dealt with and would have the most limited scope in range. 5) Majority of Israeli power players are stakeholders in massive foreign investments in diaspora, and so they never actually have "nothing to lose" which is the primary fantasy behind the Samson Option. They would also be deterred by those consequences. The entire point of the Samson Option is to generate an aura of unpredictability and wildness, which plays in favor of the unpredictable party for the purposes of negotiations and international flexing. It is also designed to intimidate Westerners (the main people obsessed with the Samson Option) into a feeling of helplessness and political capture. You ever see Iranians talk about it? No. Because they do not care. They have an Islamic martyr culture. And that's why it doesn't work on them and the Israelis don't even bother.

That's true for diesel subs used to attack enemy ships (that's the purpose the German subs Israel got gifted were designed for, and a German sub did manage to pull this off in a manoeuvre against an American carrier), but the main issue is that they are not as good as carriers for large missiles to attack land-based targets. They most likely don't have the range to strike deep into the Iranian hinterland and have to get close to the protected and monitored Iranian shore in the first place. Nuclear powered subs are technically easier to detect due to their size and the heat produced by the reactor, but they can attack any target from virtually anywhere in the world.

@0xcoked Do not be so certain. In many naval exercises, Americans failed to detect diesel electric subs sneaking pass the escort ships to be within range to sink the carrier. Iran has at least 4 subs, possibly 6 functional, each can launch many cruise missiles with nuclear warhead.

Lindau is a mayor railway hub connecting Munich to Zurich and other major cities. The connection to Munich received major upgrades last year and a new train station on the mainland was build to improve capacity, which caused the station on the island to loose most connections. Saying that the Lindau area alone warrants such traffic is like asserting that Atlanta airport has such capacity alone to serve Atlanta. Cities of this size in the German hinterland that not happen to sit right next to a major railway don't have a railway connection or see much fewer trains.

@the_transit_guy There are a lot of other factors such as terrain, population along the existing routes & size of the cities nearby. Keep in mind that the US has a lower density than Germany. One option that should be looked at in the US is more frequent inner city bus services.

The island of Lindau, Germany (pop. 3,000), sees 115 train departures per day. The entire state of Texas and all of its cities combined, by comparison, sees 56 daily Amtrak departures.

Look, again, the point is that the US has the resources to survive comfortably without traiding outside of the Western Hemisphere. And you have said nothing to disprove that point besides that higher oil prices will certainly impact the economy and lower overall output. This is true but again there is a difference between lower output that lowers the standard of living and starvation and freezing to death. It will hurt Americans if oil reaches $ 150 a barrel when reduced to domestic production but this is no magic number that causes all economic activity to cease and people laying flat to die. The US economy has weathered periods with oil prices at $ 100 a barrel in the past (at which point shale oil production kicked in) and would do so in the future.

@RealSapatus @eugyppius1 Japan's economy got fucked in the 80s, and Germany's economy had Ostpolitik and heavy state subsidies to thank for its survival: without them, it would have deindustrialized too - which it is slowly doing now, now that state bankruptcy is nearing and Russian oil is gone.

This completely right, the US empire can absorb incredible damage, that's one reason it's so prone to recklessness & bad decisions: There are no consequences for the permanent imperial staff (altho the turbulence from fuckups absolutely can destroy politicians & their movements)

@SloboMiloAlt @eugyppius1 This was not caused by the oil crises but by the fact that the US allowed foreigen nations to flood its market without demanding equal access. Germany and Japan, despite having faced the same crises, were able to keep their industries.

@RealSapatus @eugyppius1 Result was mass deindustrialization as real economy contracted, and the remaining low energy-input economy of office jobs and business management was not big enough for the losers to upskill and get into. Result was Rust Belt, the opioid epidemic, flood of suicides, etc.

Yes, but it is still far fetched to say that this will cause the US economy to lose it's status as a first world economy. Even with $ 150 dollar a barrel, Americans would still pay prices that many European nations charge already due to massive taxation on fossil fuels. As with the first oil crisis, where prices quadrupled, people adopted to it in the long run, choosing alternatives that consumed no oil etc. Again, the argument is not that the US would fare better when on her own, but the argument is that the US would survive quite comfortably if on her own.

@RealSapatus @eugyppius1 $150/barrel will have ripple effects throughout the entire economy. Price of oil dictates the price of commuting to work, and the price of transporting goods - especially food to grocery stores. This means rocketing costs for everything, including industry.

There is a difference between losing some economic advantages if access to global markets is cut compared to literally starving and freezing to death like all other major empires except Russia. And yes, even if oil prices would rise to a level of $ 100 or $ 150 per barrel to reflect the higher cost of domestic shale oil extraction, the US economy would take a hit but surely retain its status as a first world economy.

@RealSapatus @eugyppius1 That is to say... sure, it can, but the domestic price of oil will be such that it cannot run a First World economy on it anymore.