Botond173
1mo ago
So I read the "The Metapolitics..." article that is linked and while I can agree with its arguments largely, I found this part:
But when a white person has kids with a black person the kids will almost always see themselves as black. This isn’t “the cultural legacy of the One Drop Rule,” it’s the obvious fact that black people have much more dominant genes than everyone else.
...which strikes me as kind of pseudo-scientific nonsense.
The obvious reason those kids will see themselves as black is that the Spanish/Hispanic (and, I guess, French/Francophone) cultural sphere, unlike the North American Anglo-Saxon one, includes the concepts of mestizo and mulatto, and accordingly lacks the legal concept of the white race as the separate and dominant racial group, which originates from Virginia in the late 17th Century, as far as I know. It has everything to do with the cultural legacy of the One Drop Rule. Those kids, if born in Britain, France or Spain etc., will not see themselves as nonwhite, because their societies lack the concept of whiteness as an identity.
Botond173
4mo ago
You're right, it's pretty much dead, partially as a result of suppression by the mainstream.
Another aspect is that most of the PUA material the curious are familiar with was written before smartphone use became common among Western women, before Instagram, Facebook, TikTok etc. even existed, and as such, it is by now largely useless.
But I'd say the main factor responsible for the decline of PU Artistry is the combined effect of stringent laws around "enthusiastic consent", the #MeToo and #KillAllMen campaigns, plus (and I don't care how offensive this sounds) the general decline in the human quality of Western women, due to the spread of radfem views, the opioid epidemic, rising rates of alcoholism and prescription pill addiction, the normalization of fat acceptance and mental illness etc. In other words, the overall risk of engaging in PUA is rapidly rising, whereas the potential return on your investment is ever more marginal. Social reality cannot be ignored.
Botond173
4mo ago
I'm glad that some posters mentioned Romney in all of this. The unbelievable leftist smear campaign against him in the 2012 campaign season, which was clearly motivated by nothing else but the sense of urgency to prevent the nation's first glorious African-American leader from going down in history as a one-term disappointment, was an obvious wake-up call to many otherwise moderate rightists, and convinced them that, unlike in 2008 and 2012, the GOP should actually try running a candidate who stands a chance and isn't a cuck. This had an obvious galvanizing effect on dissident right-wing politics, I think.
Botond173
26d ago
Yeah...lol. The current narrative, as far as I can tell, is that the next target of the orcs is Moldova of all places, because reasons.
In last week’s thread Cirrus addressed the gerontocracy that is due to characterize the upcoming presidential elections (and characterized the two latest ones) in the US, and drew obvious parallels with the late history of the USSR. This reminded me of a comment by phoneosaur on the old subreddit 4 years ago, which I found fascinating enough in order to save it. Either way, this generated a bunch of replies last week, but I think some relevant points were not made.
First I’d bring up the following argument from the old comment:
My hunch is that the "establishment" in each era resorted to increasingly elderly candidates because the pipeline of ideologically reliable young people stopped flowing. The establishment become reluctant to hand power to a new generation when that generation has ceased believing in the legitimacy of the power structure.
Cirrus mentions something that might first read like the opposite, but pretty much seems to point out the same problem:
I don’t think it’s a stretch to compare those Accords with modern-day Wokism currently afflicting Western European culture. The older generation of leaders will roll their eyes. But they signed on to it. The next batch of younger idealist leaders—the Gorbachevs of our future—will take Wokism seriously to the detriment of our national integrity.
I think both of them are definitely onto something, so I’d draw a different parallel to illustrate what I think is going on. In the USSR, what Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko all had in common was that they lived through Stalin’s terror as youths, and the Great Patriotic War as young adults. They had multiple common points of reference, which all made them politically cautious. They remembered the horrors of the past, and had understanding of the limitations and problems of the regime they served. Sure, they repeated the usual platitudes about the final victory of socialism, the supremacy of Marxist-Leninist thought, proletarian solidarity etc., but they didn’t take most of this seriously, and were wary of appointing younger cadres – after all, they, not sharing the common understanding and experience of the elders, not being humbled by terrible past events, and potentially being real believers or, alternatively, heretics, may end up enacting reforms that destroy the system, doing things that just don’t work out, being naïve idiots, or hotheaded, or just selling everything out to the enemy. This is just speculation on my part, admittedly – anyway, we know that the gerontocratic party leadership did eventually appoint a younger reformer of “merely” 54 years of age, when the economic and social crisis of the system became obvious.
In the US, the people in the highest political positions are mostly Boomers who lived through the political upheaval of the Johnson and Nixon years and the pre-1973 era of prosperity as young adults. (The Senate’s median age is above 65 years, and has been steadily rising for a while.) For them, these years, the good times, are basically a point of reference as a period of normalcy, and they remember the activities of revolutionary leftist movement as something to be avoided. And they are probably nostalgic for the Reagan/Clinton years. They will, of course, repeat platitudes about civil rights, restorative justice, empowering minorities, the future being female and whatnot, but they won’t tolerate anything that directly disturbs the peace of middle-class suburban normalcy, and won’t give power to true believers of social revolution. After all, they don’t want to rock the boat.
This reminds me of a different observation I’ve seen here from a Gen X-er (I can’t find the comment), namely that X-er voters are reluctant to vote fellow X-ers into political power, because there’s too high a chance that they’ll turn out to be dangerous radicals and true believers. So this isn’t a sentiment limited to just Boomers, probably.
All in all, it seems that in periods of political and economic uncertainty and stagnation, the elderly can remain in power easily, because people will want to stick with the Devil they know, and not risk future upheaval and collapse by giving power to politicians that are untried and untested.
Botond173
2mo ago
Nobody is lining up to tell you the low time preference alternative is how you get girls, money, family, respect, etc. Everyone can plainly see that is not allowed to work anymore. They're all telling you you should do the hard work and be happy to be a loser on top of it, you uppity bastard.
I'd argue that liberal leftists usually couldn't even give useful dating/relationship/lifestyle advice to single heterosexual men even if they wanted to, which the mostly don't, or it's something they don't consider relevant/necessary.
Botond173
3mo ago
Is there a specific name and definition for the culture war tactic of accusation mirroring i.e. when you appropriate one of the usual accusations your main political rivals are throwing at you (or some different near-group) all the time and throw it back at them, or at someone in your outgroup in general, even though you've never believed in the validity of the accusation at all? I'm thinking of something similar to the DR3 ('Democrats are the real racists') narrative, or when Republicans are accused of milking the government for subsidies etc. I'm asking because I'm seeing a current example, namely in the context of the ongoing Hungarian presidential pardon scandal, where liberal leftist influencers have pretty much reinvented the Pizzagate conspiracy theory - which is something they otherwise write off and ridicule as right-wing tinfoil hat nonsense, as they are themselves acculturated in US liberal online circles - and are hurling it at the government, pushing the narrative that a pedophile ring is ruling the entire country from the shadows with an iron fist.
Botond173
8mo ago
Am I wrong and maybe sort of paranoid, or is there a concentrated and obvious effort in the Western public discourse by Zelensky's foreign supporters to retcon (if that's the correct expression) their own past narrative about the Russian military and Ukraine's prospects? My memory isn't that great and I can't be arsed to start digging up social media rubbish from months ago, but I distinctly remember the narrative of Atlanticist culture warriors, which was practically flooding both legacy media and social media for months, especially after the much-publicised counteroffensives in the Kharkov and Kherson regions. It was basically all the same: the orcs are looting local stores because they have no food, they have no vests and other basic infantry equipment, they have no ammunition nor warm uniforms for the winter, abandoning their vehicles and fleeing en masse, freezing to death, Putler has run out of guided missiles, tanks, artillery shells, aircraft etc., the Moskal never had an effective military antd their shitty state was always a paper tiger etc. To reiterate, I distinctly remember countless Twitter/Facebook/Substack posts, YT videos etc. pushing this.
And then, in the last few months, when, according to this narrative, the glorious great counteroffensive should have already brought about a decisive victory, these same people are stating, as if they were all seasoned military historians, with a straight face that duh, of course it's terribly difficult to break through prepared defensive lines and fortifications (even those put together by the fucking orcs, it seems), of course it'd be vitally important to have air superiority (even agains dumbass orcs, I guess, that are even capable of losing a cruiser against people without a navy), of course combat drones have, like, completely revolutionised modern warfare (as if that weren't clear as day to anyone involvind in planning the counteroffensive), of course it's just all so damn hard!
As a dissident rightist, my view is that all this gaslighting has the obvious purpose of preparing the masses for the next narrative down the line, namely that it all could have actually worked out well, if not for the evil appeasers, wreckers, saboteurs, demagogues, opportunists, deplorables and toxic shitheads who've sadly infiltrated important positions in the political affairs of NATO member nations, and prevented all efforts to give all the resources and equipment necessary for the final and total Ukrainian victory. And this is just a variant of the narrative pushed by the Kiev government to their people, namely that, in a nutshell, "NATO promised to help/intervene, but betrayed us, especially in the end".
So I think I understand why this narrative is being pushed, and how it makes sense, from their own point of view. But still, the brazenness of it all is still a bit surprising. Is my observation correct, or should I not believe my own eyes and ears?
Botond173
21d ago
To emphasize the point, men in their cohort who enter the workforce had their mandatory military service counted as work experience and so enter at a higher pay level.
Well, there's a rather self-evident political option to remedy this.
Buying a house is a precondition to marrying under Korean social norms.
Is there any society where owning a house/apartment is not generally considered necessary before marriage?
Botond173
7mo ago
But in every other state in the world where slavery used to be practiced, it was dismantled without civil war. I'd say that puts Brown's legacy into question rather strongly.
Botond173
8mo ago
He barely won in 2016.
At this point I really don't understand why people keep making this argument. Yes, technically you're right. On the other hand, he barely won against Hillary fucking Clinton! Surely we can notice the significance of that!
Botond173
5d ago
I, for one, would love to hear from Atlanticists and Putinists as well what they think the endgame is here. No, really. Like, what?
Botond173
3mo ago
The latest discussion in the Culture War thread about the drug-addicted criminal homeless (in Seattle) made me notice that the ongoing opioid crisis appears to be a uniquely US phenomenon. At least that's my own perception. I have never seen news reports on the growing problem of fatal fentanyl overdoses in, say, Western Europe or Asia, for example. Am I right about this? Are there factors that make US society uniquely vulnerable to such trends?
Botond173
7mo ago
The average 18 year old boy in modern secular France (for example) isn’t going to wait until marriage to have sex.
So in reality, the girl usually has to put out if she wants a relationship [that may lead to marriage]
Hold up. These are completely different scenarios. Why did you just move the goalposts?
Botond173
9mo ago
I find implausible and frankly preposterous the notion that the authority of the federal government and the Church in Canada over local aborigines resulted in an increase of average child mortality among that population. The idea that the average aborigine child had a higher chance of surviving into adulthood before the evil colonizers showed up is simply ludicrous.
I find it a bit odd that while John Hajnal has a (concise but detailed) Wikipedia entry, but the Hajnal Line as a concept, in fact, does not, and instead redirects to an entry seemingly arbitrarily entitled "Western European marriage pattern", which appears to have been put together by leftist activists. This applies even more to the entry on Werner Conze, which it links to.
I also find it very odd that Hajnal has no entries in either German, Hungarian or Hebrew on Wikipedia, even though he was the son of Hungarian Jews who moved to Weimar Germany.
On a related note, I find it odd that nuptiality as such has no Wikipedia entry at all, and only has a very short and imprecise entry in online dictionaries. I'm no scholar, but as far as I know, the scientific definition of nuptiality as a concept in demographic studies is the rate of fertile women within a population. As such, the nuptiality rate and its projected change is absolutely crucial to the demographic future of any society.
Botond173
3mo ago
I have to wonder: is there a city anywhere in the world where the (violently) criminal homeless are suppressed effectively and ruthlessly?
Botond173
9mo ago
Why is it stated as self-evident even by supposed ideological dissidents like Hanania that romantically unsuccessful men are the only men holding so-called misogynistic views? I've never seen any evidence of this anywhere, and there are very obvious examples to the contrary.
Botond173
7d ago
-
Before the Sexual Revolution became the new norm*, it was not standard practice to hit on girls outside your social circle as a single man. In fact, the unstated consensus was that your relatives or friends will introduce you to some girl in their social circle, thereby vetting you for her sake, and sort of vetting her as well, although that wasn't seen as equally important, I think. This is how rank-and-file people paired up.
-
Mandatory military service, hard physical labor, service in the Boy Scouts, boarding school, time spent in all-male environments in general were all social norms throughout the West for large numbers of men. This had the aggregate effect of toughening men up to a degree, which served to at least partially offset/balance the effects of hypergyny / female hypergamy on the mating market.
-
There was social consensus that masculinity is an ideal and is clearly defined. This wasn't undermined by any social institution. Boys were expected to assume this role, with sticks and carrots put in place accordingly.
-
Feminists will happily complain that patriarchal societies enact slut-shaming, which is more or less true. What is left unsaid is that there existed the parallel practice of cad-shaming. Both single men and single women lived under the surveillance and control of their social circle to a degree.
"Eligible" in this context means "eligible for marriage or at least long-term commitment" i.e. "to be considered as a future husband". Which means a couple of things: not addicted to any substance, not a gambler, not a domestic abuser, not a rake, not a violent thug etc.
*So sometime between 1970-1980, depending on social circumstances. That was the cutoff point, I think.
Anatoly Karlin supposedly concluded from the available data that German average IQ has been dropping since the early 1990s. (Don't quote me on this, as this is second-hand information I have.) I'd also make the unrelated guess that the decline in German average genotypic IQ has begun much earlier.
Anyway, based on this I'd argue that another factor is to be taken into account, namely that lower-IQ German natives likely have a higher birthrate than higher-IQ ones, and that this difference has also been increasing.
To be fair to German society, this is a trend affecting pretty much the entire developed world, and nobody has ever managed to find a solution to it, not even in Singapore.
Botond173
2mo ago
Honest question:
let's suppose you're an average internet user who was either too young to comprehend what Gamergate was when it was happening, or you're just unaware of it all for any other reason, you just weren't following it etc. You fire up your browser and start looking up information.
Is there any realistic chance that you'll find any description, interpretation or commentary that is not written by the ideological allies and sympathizers of Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu?
Botond173
4mo ago
A couple of months ago @2rafa made the following observation:
MeToo represents an organic rebellion by a lot of women against the excesses of the sexual revolution, whether they consciously realise it or not (and most, as you suggest, do not). Is it often misguided, does it often harm innocents, does it broadly fail to present viable alternatives, is it still trapped inside liberal ideology? Of course - it represents a dynamic rage, it is largely impotent, those supporting it have little understanding of the real material causes of their suffering.
Young women raised in a climate of total sexual liberalism are rebelling with the only words they have, in the only way they can. They’re not going to become “trad” overnight, they have no understanding of what that is, they were raised without religion, they are surrounded by a media environment that means they don’t have any real understanding of what reversing it would mean. Still, they know the present situation is untenable.
This got stuck in my mind, as it reminded me of that memorable scene from the original Conan movie ("Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it."). Still, it appears to me the issue isn't that the women pushing the #MeToo message (although this whole trend appears to be pretty much over) don't have the words to express their dynamic rage, it's that they're terrified of being branded as losers by other women. What is the implication here, after all? It's that what these women actually want to shout out is "I was duped into have crappy sex multiple times even though I didn't even want it". Or, in other words, "it's unfair that we women have to pretend that men are free to have technically consensual casual sex with us without offering anything in exchange". I'm reminded of laws in many Western countries, I guess most of them still officially on the books, specifically punishing false promises of marriage made for the purpose of sex. I guess these women would prefer some sort of this law to still be enforced.
In other words, while modern Western society claims to empower women and girls in various ways, it seems to actually disempower them completely in a crucial aspect.
Am I correct about this?
Botond173
7mo ago
That is their “plan”, pretty much. Or that there will be a glorious campaign of liberation ending in Crimea, and Putler will capitulate because he’s actually a paper tiger. Or that he’ll be couped by a second Gorbachev/Yeltsin who will do the same. Or that he’ll not actually be replaced by anyone, and instead there’ll be another Time of Troubles and the Russian state will disintegrate, and there won’t be any negative repercussions because it’s not like the collapse of a state with thousands of nuclear warheads would result in that. I’m not being flippant. That’s the “plan”, as expressed by their own words and narratives.
Do you apply this to women as well?
EDIT: based on 2rafa's past comments about gender differences and the Red Pill that I've read here and on the old subreddit, I'm not convinced that she actually thinks that marrying young and having 3-4 children* is the recipe for fulfilment and happiness for young single women. On the other hand, I can totally see why she'd give that advice to this online community here, which is mostly composed of men. In other words, I can understand why she'd argue that this is sound advice for single men who want to fulfill their male sexual imperative in a way that benefits them long-term.
*Just to point out one thing: having three or more healthy children as a woman implies in the context of current society that you enter a long-term relationship with your future husband at 18-20 years of age and have your first child 2-4 years later, when you're convinced that the relationship is stable enough. Who would actually even give teenage girls such advice openly these days?
More options
Context Copy link