To_Mandalay
7mo ago
It isn't great when for your religoon
At first I thought this was a 'coomer' joke ("aaahhhh im religoooooning!") but on second glance I'm pretty sure it's just a typo.
To_Mandalay
7mo ago
Because Islam requires knowledge of Arabic and because the required pilgrimage is Mecca, the growth of Islam aids the growth of Arabs in a way that doesn’t apply to Protestant missionaries.
It empirically isn't doing much for the growth of the Arab population right now. Most Muslims are not Arabs.
The center of Protestant Christianity was never an area plagued by religious terrorism, although it has a history of political terrorism, because the center has been a singular church or a collection of hands-off church collectives.
Northwestern Europe was ravage by religious warfare for hundreds of years. A lot of people died over this. At that time, "political" and "religious" was not a very firm distinction.
Protestant Christianity is a faith-based religion that promotes orthodoxy about perhaps one dozen facets of faith
De jure yes, but de facto Protestantism was extremely orthorpraxic. Calvinists insist that good works do not purchase salvation but are instead a product of salvation, but in practice this is a purely semantic distinction. There's a reason 'puritanical' is shorthand for 'rigid scrupulosity.'
There are plainly substantial reasons why what happened to Christianity may not happen to Islam.
It's already happening. Even Saudi Arabia, the financial powerhouse behind the spread of Wahabbism, is liberalizing rapidly. The Iranian mullahs can't even keep their country from periodically exploding into anti-regime protests. MENA fertility rates have more than halved in the past half-century.
To_Mandalay
7mo ago
Unlike Christianity, there is a confluence of significant factors that lead to Islam retaining strict behavioral and cultural rules. Mosques and scholars are funded by wealthy Arabs who have a monetary, political, and genetic influence in the spread of the religion; imams have children, the more strict the imam the more children, and dynastic imam families are not uncommon; the center of the religion is the Middle East where there is a constant threat of violence if leaders stray far enough from orthodoxy; the practice of excluding women from decision-making means that feminine-coded tolerance is sidelined; the religion itself highly emphasizes the following of strict tradition and punishments for “innovation”.
This all describes Christianity a couple centuries ago. How did that turn out?
Ethiopia did have a pre-colonial writing system, but Europe didn't independently invent writing either so this isn't really a win for whites. Even Amerindians have Europeans beat on the "invent written language" score. Europeans did probably invent the wheel, though it was invented only one time (not counting its invention in the Americas; score another for the Maya), and spread from there. I don't know where the idea that it's some super basic, easy "bare minimum" invention came from, to the point that "they didn't even have the wheel!" is a ubiquitous dunk on blacks from your crowd.
Not sure about two story houses.
EDIT: Here's a meme I've seen thrown around pretty regularly which implies that pre-colonialism, blacks didn't have roads, farms, or houses so it seems like somebody on your side thinks SSA was stone age prior to European contact.
To_Mandalay
7mo ago
The "genetic pacification" hypothesis is such an article of faith among HBD-inclined internet RWers, that I expected it to be, if not accepted by the mainstream, at least a niche topic popular with hereditarian autodidacts, a la Ashkenazi IQ or something like that. So I was surprised to find that it appears to be based solely on this single paper, and that this single paper sucks.
The proposition that there was a huge sea-change in public, ecclesiastical, and official attitudes towards the death penalty in the high middle ages is supported by reference to a single work (La peine de mort by Carbasse), and two or three quotes from prominent theologians. Maybe it's true but the authors haven't done a very good job establishing that.
Later the authors acknowledge that A) they don't know how many of these condemned men procreated before their executions, B) they don't know how many were executed for non-violent offenses, C) they don't know how many murderers escaped detection. They just kind of say 'well our model is imperfect' and keep moving. The authors don't even attempt to quantify any of the aforementioned problems, despite the fact that any one could completely collapse the thesis if the numbers were wrong. Maybe the data for quantification doesn't exist, but in that case the authors shouldn't pretend this papers is anything but idle speculation.
The murder rate dropped all over Western Europe over the time period in question, but the 'execution rate' the authors use of 0.5 - 1% of the male population every generation appears to be based solely on England and Flanders. Was it the same in Germany and France, where the homicide rate also dropped precipitously? The Scandinavian countries? Did they even check? Does the data exist?
a comparable proportion [to those executed, died] through extrajudicial executions, i.e., deaths of offenders at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial.
The above appears to be a case of "I made it the fuck up," or at least the authors don't cite anything to back it up. Nevertheless, it's the justification for boosting the 0.5 - 1% of violent men removed per generation to 1 - 2%, which naturally is better for their conclusion.
They also assume that the heritability of violence was the same in the Middle Ages as it is today. I doubt it, though there's no way to know since no one was doing heritability estimates in 1300. But again, this is necessary for their argument to go through.
Then there's this bizarre section
Eisner’s control theory is vulnerable to another line of criticism. In societies of Western European origin since the mid-20th century, external and internal controls on behavior have weakened, while “bad boys” have become more positively portrayed in popular culture. This cultural change seems to have caused a modest rise in violence among young men of European background, but nothing comparable to what existed a millennium ago (Eisner, 2001; Spierenburg, 2008, pp. 3–4). If strong external and internal controls had alone caused the pacification of social relations, what is to prevent a return to the earlier, less peaceful state once they have been relaxed? This prospect is evoked by Muchembled (2008, p. 8) in his history of violence in European societies. It also comes up repeatedly in works of modern fiction from Lord of the Flies to A Clockwork Orange, whose characters revert to barbarism when freed from the restraints of civilization. In reality, this reversion to barbarism has not happened.
The argument seems to be "We think 'bad boys' are cool now, but murder rates haven't exploded! Could this be because the murder genes were bred out of us????" Sure, why not?
All of the above is besides the point, since we have much firmer historical evidence from much more recent times that very high homicide rates among large populations can collapse quickly enough to rule out genetic explanations. The 19th century Mediterranean littoral, in particular, suffered from homicide rates equal to those of the most crime-ridden American cities today. Southern Italy had homicide rates of 30/100k, Corsica about the same, in Greece this was even higher, up to 50-60/100k. Spain had a homicide rate of about 10/100k in the mid-19th century. By the early 1900s, Mediterranean homicide rates had fallen several times over, down to the 1-3/100k range. Anglo-American homicide rates in the American west were also several times higher than those back east, despite the same genetic stock. I don't have the sources on any of these on hand, but I can go find them if anyone wants. The whole idea of 'genetic pacification,' is entirely superfluous, when there is good evidence that environmental factors are sufficient to produce manyfold reductions in murder rates in much shorter periods of time than the entirety of the middle ages.
This kind of stuff is why, despite being too dumb and lazy (for genetic reasons, surely) to understand the dense statistics that underpin much of the HBD cinematic universe*, I'm pretty skeptical of the whole thing.
*This paper being an exception, where it's so bad it's obvious even to me.
To_Mandalay
7mo ago
I can't think of any reasonable way to draw the lines which would lump Richard Hanania in with Ben Shapiro or Candace Owens. They're almost polar opposites.
To_Mandalay
7mo ago
Okay, but it's undeniable (and why would they want to deny it anyway?) that the fitness 'aesthetic' is a very integral part of a certain type of online right-wing politics and fitness influencers/youtubers/etc. tend to lean right.
To_Mandalay
7mo ago
It's silly for right-wingers to be like "can you BELIEVE these insane leftists saying fitness is a gateway to the far-right?" when "fitness is a gateway to the far-right" is the whole schtick of guys like BAP, and I say this as someone who lifts weights 3-4 times a week. On that note, I haven't noticed myself turning into any sort of right-winger as I get stronger. But for me it's not a hobby, it's a chore that I do purely out of vanity, not because I enjoy the activity itself at all.
To_Mandalay
8mo ago
I meant "left"
I think it's strange that people accuse Hanania of shifting his views to avoid cancellation. His views are still much more extreme and controversial than are acceptable to pretty much anybody left-of-center. In any case, what would the cancellation of Richard Hanania consist of? It's not like he's an actor or a politician or somebody. His public-facing activity consists of posting on twitter. Musk owns twitter now, and you can be a full-on Nazi on there now, let alone whatever Hanania is. The most parsimonious explanation for Hanania's shift is that his views actually changed.
On another note, I wrote the above before actually clicking the link and seeing who this guy was. Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time lmao. I'll never forget his racist cover of "On The Open Road" from A Goofy Movie ("the left are the real racists, to Mexicans they lie/'cause family values cross the Rio Grande! (¡Hola!)/you'll still get on a hate list, let's go to NPI/stop burying your heads into the sand!") 2016 really was a hell of a ride.
Unfortunately Walt was a terrible singer.
EDIT: Also the "Be Prepared" parody where Scar is an Elder of Zion and the hyenas are blacks and browns ("Be prepared for the end of the white man!/Be prepared for his daughters and wealth!")
EDIT 2: now that I've actually read it, extremely funny that the primary impetus for Walt's ceasing to identify as a WN was that he moved to the midwest, and got so annoyed that midwesterners refused to be as based and redpilled as he expected that he decided they were a race of servile undermen.
To_Mandalay
8mo ago
Well BAP at least is (23&Me results and everything), Martin tends to get really defensive around the Jews/Israel but yeah RW twitter is generally just a huge welter of "you're jewish" accusations and counteraccusations so I'm not 100%. My favorite is the absolute refusal of a large number of users to accept that self-declared mass immigration advocate and Klaus Schwab enjoyer Richard Hanania could possibly be a gentile.
To_Mandalay
8mo ago
I think so, but Groypers call everybody who disagrees with them Jewish, so it's kind of hard to tell sometimes.
To_Mandalay
8mo ago
The Jewish RW e-celebs (BAP, russiancosmist, FbF, etc.) also tend to go in the hardest on the hardcore hatred of blacks and browns, presumably to take a little heat off of themselves since they know a huge portion of their audience is Jew-hating wignats.
I can barely think of any women with any capability to be interesting.
It doesn't sound like you like women that much beyond wanting to fuck them.
I've always liked hanging out with girls, even (or especially, since it can get weird otherwise) ones I'm not sexually attracted to. I'm not really bothered by the dearth of female CEOS or substack pundits.
To_Mandalay
8mo ago
The men I know who seem to hate women, very obviously genuinely love women--but are angry that they have been denied access to women, by whatever means and for whatever reason.
It's not impossible to hate someone you want to fuck. My experience is that a minority of men do in fact hate women, insofar as they have visceral contempt for the interests, behaviors, habits, and mannerisms of women, and if you zapped these men with a ray that made them gay or asexual they would never interact with another woman again if they could help it. My experience is also that women are much freer with casual "men suck" and "I hate men" talk but women who actually walk the walk and really seem to hate men on a gut level are rarer than the reverse.
To_Mandalay
8mo ago
In what universe was a "combined Anglo-Franco-German force fighting a total war for national survival with the cooperation of all the anticommunist CEE governments" ever going to exist? Where did I even imply that? Of course that's ridiculous! And its' not what I meant.
Because the whole genesis of the question is VinoVeritas belief that Hitler was cool because he fought the bolsheviks, and that without Hitler the Red Army might have marched to the English Channel. But without Hitler causing WWII in the first place, a Soviet invasion of Europe would have faced an Anglo-Franco-German (and everybody else in Europe) alliance, with no aid from the US or anyone else, and been completely screwed.
To_Mandalay
8mo ago
So did the Red Chinese but I wouldn't give them props for that.
To_Mandalay
8mo ago
It's interesting because we have a much better example of reactionary "we don't do globalism here"autarky from the 1940s - Franco, who carefully avoided entanglement in either WWII or the postwar international order. That didn't work either, but he failed with more grace and less bloodshed than Hitler.
It's darkly funny that the first thing Franco did after (according to Franco) preventing a communist revolution in Iberia was implement a disastrous, ideologically motivated economic policy, causing a massive famine which killed hundreds of thousands of people and miring Spain in dire poverty for two decades. It's like that Spongebob meme where they're celebrating while the city burns in the background, "we did it, Hitler, we saved Spain from bolshevism!"
To_Mandalay
8mo ago
No, because Stalin, bad as he was, was not as bad as Hitler. If Germany had not attacked the USSR, chances of the Red Army taking even half of Europe (let alone all of it) are basically zero. He did attack Soviet Russia, which in a roundabout way, led to Soviet domination over half of the continent, which they never would have achieved otherwise, and yet was still a preferable outcome to Nazi domination over the entire continent. Hitler did far more damage to Poland in four years than the Soviets did in forty.
To_Mandalay
8mo ago
In real life, the Soviets only reached even as far as Berlin because of copious American and British assistance. Without that, they might have at best fought the Germans back to Barbarossa start-lines. On their own, they barely beat Finland. The Red Army marching all the way to the Atlantic is ridiculous. "If it wasn't for us, the communists would have taken over!" was a useful bugbear for everybody from Hitler to Mussolini to Franco but Bolshevik conquest of Europe was always a fantasy.
To_Mandalay
8mo ago
Maybe the Bolsheviks would've won in Spain and then later pushed through all of Europe to the Atlantic.
You think if the Republicans had won in Spain this would somehow have led to the Red Army conquering all of Europe Command and Conquer style?
To_Mandalay
8mo ago
Churchill was not prime minister when England and France declared war on Germany.
To_Mandalay
8mo ago
"Ancient aliens" was never really left-wing, and it isn't popular with leftists now. The idea of precursor races who taught man secret knowledge and left their crumbling monumental works behind* comes out of the fin-de-siécle welter of new spirituality, Blavatsky, Steiner, Liebenfels, etc. which was in turn tied up with the Völksich nationalist movements of the day.
*Really it goes back to stuff like the Watchers in Hebrew myth and the Golden Age of the Greeks but that's it's modern permutation.
This place is right-wing twitter (insert "always has been" meme) but verbose and you're not allowed to call stuff gay or retarded. Accept that and you'll have more fun.
EDIT: Come on guys, you know it's true. Don't shoot the messenger.
They didn't have suicide belts yet but angry mobs of Catholics/Protestants going around attacking each other and destroying buildings for religious reasons were extremely common during the Wars of Religion.
Catholicism is even more legalistic than Protestantism and it isn't doing much better. So is your argument that Islam is just far enough on the hyper-legalism spectrum that it will manage to endure?
More options
Context Copy link