Ignoring the US for a moment, where else was there an agricultural sector that was more mechanized and advanced than the German in 1933?
Do you actually think that counted as backwards and low-tech back then in the European continent?
Yeah, the consensus(?) in this chain of comments appears to be bizarre.
It's true that the British and American land armies were fully mechanized in WW2, mainly because they were relatively small. The Wehrmacht, on the other hand, wasn't. And yes, the peasantry was something like a quarter of the whole German population. But to conclude from that it was a backwards low-tech economy to begin with is really far-fetched.
Am I to believe that the main reason the teenage pregnancy rate collapsed (supposedly) in the last 20 years (supposedly) is because over-the-counter morning-after pills became available? Really?
No, I think the OP is more correct in this case. The spectre of widespread local Arab opposition to Jewish immigration to Palestine and the resulting unrest coinciding with the coming new great war in Europe was rather obviously something the British wanted to avoid, orientalist sympathies or not.
"The German planning staffs had reckoned on capturing and thus having to feed up to two million prisoners within the first eight weeks of the war."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan#Starvation_in_other_German-occupied_territories
them just being kind of a backwards low-tech economy to begin with
Huh?
The concept behind Operation Barbarossa hinged on the assumption that the Red Army can be decisively defeated before the autumn rainy season - that is, in a matter of weeks. In that context, it doesn't matter much if the average Ukrainian, Cossack, Chechen, Kalmyk etc. can be won over for the National Socialist cause or not. In the Pacific, the situation was the same i.e. that the US Navy was to be defeated decisively in short order according to Japanese planning (such as it was) so that the Americans have no other option but to sue for peace, because the US population won't want to fight another big war. The sentiments of the average Vietnamese, Filipino, Malay etc. don't matter one iota in that context. (Was there even any meaningful combat in WW2 in Indochina anyway? Between the Japanese and the Allies, that is?)
There are so many easy wins to be had against progressivism, from defending the value of markets and pushing back against affirmative action to attacking the bizarre and incoherent ideologies of contemporary critical race theory and gender self-ID.
Haven't basic bitch normie-friendly Republicans been trying to do exactly this at least since the appearance of the Tea Party, over and over, appealing to supposedly present normie sentiments of civic nationalism and economic liberty?
Yes it was.
So you think that explains all of it? "Media and institutions"?
Are we going to pretend that this is something that has traditionally been done by sexually frustrated men, and not by other women?
When, if ever, is it appropriate to provide an apologetic defense of Nazi Germany?
When you're a Galician Waffen-SS veteran living in Canada, for example?
The "plan" was dropped after two days:
It's all a simple case of cause and effect. Back in the days of the patriarchy, traditional monogamous marriage basically functioned as a sort of life insurance policy for women and thus a social safety net. No matter how ugly, dumb or lazy you were as a woman, someone was going to marry you - this was pretty much assured. From then on, someone else was responsible for you. Now that the patriarchy is smashed and traditional marriage is dismantled, all this goes out the window. With abortion legalized and normalized, shotgun marriages disappeared and you can no longer use your fetus basically as a tool of blackmail to keep the man in the relationship. (I wonder how many people even thought this through when abortion was legalized?) All this means that you need to become economically self-reliant as a woman as a backup plan.
What the Christian Right wanted was for teenage girls not to engage in casual sex with the tacit approval of a permissive society and as a consequence not have babies out of wedlock. (They obviously had to coat their arguments with layers of bullshit in order to never draw attention to the fact that impoverished black girls from the Deep South were hugely overrepresented among those teen mothers, but whatever.) What they very obviously did not want was for venues of community life and social interaction to get eroded, social capital be destroyed and addiction to social media be normalized in a secular, atomized society to such an extent that teenagers don't even hang out together and as a consequence don't even have sex and, in turn, do not have babies out of wedlock. (Let's not pretend that the teenage birthrate is dropping mainly because teenagers have somehow just recently learned how to use contraception that has become fantastically effective. This is nonsense.)
This is a very crucial difference. I'm pretty sure you're also fully aware of all this yourself, but I think it bears mentioning here at least once.
He's talking about a specific subset of people who were able to take responsibility for themselves thanks to how their environment was structured, why are you responding like he meant all people earning a low wage?
The specific context of the hedonic lifestyle described by the OP is this: "The dorm is paid by his parents, as is his meal plan and so on. She can do whatever she wants with time not spent studying."
Compared to this, the "median non-college educated 19-year old in the United States, working a low wage job" is, of course, not hedonistic, because she (let's assume it's a woman) claims responsibility for herself and supports herself, and holds down a full-time job (we can assume).
Can you please explain what "policing women's sexual decisions" means in this context exactly?
I'm sure one can make the argument that inner city urban decay and the student debt bubble are the consequence of leftist policies from decades ago, fair enough. But I'm referring to the present. Again, to the extent that young people in the US are radicalized by leftist ideology, how much of that is explained by the current conditions of the student debt bubble and the healthcare system, for example?
I'd approach this from a different perspective. To the extent that economic leftist thought finds support in the US, how much of that is driven by
- the trainwreck that is the student debt bubble
- the peculiarities (so to speak) of the healthcare system
- the fatal consequences of multiple social policies that turned inner cities into wastelands
?
Amazon's Man in the High Castle was supposed to be anti-Nazi but it made Nazism look cool. They had supersonic jet travel, H-bombs, sick uniforms, big strong men marching in columns, enormous halls, the vigorous and manly Obergruppenfuhrer Smith. Lots of Nazis liked the show (or the 5 minute edits made of it), they skipped the boring bits about how eugenics was so bad and the angst of women and gays.
I'd say that was all a calculated ruse. They packed Season 1, especially the first part, with Nazi aesthetics in order to lure in the chuds, the dudebros, all the middle-class grillers that are at least sympathetic to the less cucky expressions of rightism. They did that to fool them and keep them watching, with them hoping that it'll stay that way, but in the later seasons, they were hit with the usual woke shit.
Brezhnev. Mao and Kim Il Sung counted as average-looking men in their respective societies, I'd say. And Castro was a handsome man, supposedly.
False equivalence. Galicia was never a nation, not even a sovereign entity as far as I know, and probably shouldn't be one either (but that's another matter). You can say Chechnya was never a part of Muscovy, and that'd be correct.
What I find rather telling is that two of the three federal ruling parties didn't even get enough votes to enter the Thuringian parliament.
But Europe includes the Mediterranean region, Poland, the Balkans etc. as well.
More options
Context Copy link