Botond173
4mo ago
The reason is simple, Europe has picked a side in the American culture war, and it is the far left side.
That accusation is a bit rich, because the causation is the other way around. It's not like a bunch of Blue Tribers somehow appeared in Europe and decided to pick a side in the US culture war. What in fact happened is that the Global American / Globohomo Empire poured lots of money and influence into its causes in Europe (among other places) through non-profits and NGOs which in turn recruited, trained and indoctrinated, directly and indirectly, the local cadre of Blue culture warriors and their sympathizers in Europe, all of whom incidentally consume no cultural and ideological products other than that produced by the US Blue Tribe, and adopt their talking points accordingly.
Botond173
4mo ago
In what ways are Western European nations (to the extent that they still function as nations) fuckups wherein the Dutch somehow aren't?
Botond173
6mo ago
The Ukraine, on the other hand, also guaranteed its neutrality. It's supposedly an article in the treaty that established the Ukraine as an independent nation in 1991. Don't quote me on that though, I've only heard it from an acquaintance who claims to have read it.
Botond173
10mo ago
otherwise you sweep floors or fold boxes at the Gwangyang Steel Works until you die.
I know this is indeed the root of the problem, but if this is indeed the social reality, it's baffling how a society can end up with norms such as this.
Botond173
5mo ago
Carter was exactly the sort of politician normies say they want to see as a leader. It's rather sobering to observe how that all worked out for his legacy.
Botond173
7mo ago
@SSCReader argued the following in the context of a discussion here on the palpable divergence of political views between young men and women, especially young single men and young single women in the US and the West in general a few months ago (emphasis mine):
Lots of things are without historical precedent. It doesn't mean they are actually problems. It's a self correcting issue. Either through assortative mating, or in people who won't reach out across the aisle simply not having relationships while others will find their desires for companionship overcome their political biases, or they don't and simply don't pass on their genetics. There is nothing that needs to be done, a new balance will be found.
In light of the online gender war apparently gaining fresh momentum in the wake of Kamala's election defeat, with a bunch of leftist women declaring support for importing the South Korean 4B Movement to the US and proclaiming a sex strike, and commentators proclaiming toxic male voters to be the decisive electoral force behind Trump etc., and all of this being rather unlikely to just die down with the passing of time, I'm curious if he(?) still holds this view unironically and confidently. To be clear, when he says there's no need to do anything, I'm assuming he doesn't simply mean 'the government shouldn't intervene', I'm also assuming he wouldn't say that the media should try deradicalizing angry right-wing single men, or that moderate feminists should not sympathize with the 4B LARPers.
Right?
Botond173
9mo ago
I'd be more interested in knowing if they caught and ate any geese or not.
Botond173
26d ago
If one considers the same overall phenomenon from what I assume is women’s usual perspective, I’m sure one can’t help but roll the eyes at the recent discussion on Aella’s degeneracy, for example. Shaming and punishing e-thots can only work when alternative life paths are broadly accessible for average women.
The norm of enforced monogamy (heh) in the old days of Christian patriarchy (heh) basically functioned as a life insurance policy for women. Someone was surely going to marry each woman, with a few extreme exceptions, no matter how stupid, ugly or fat she was. The same path for heterosexual women today, on the other hand, is largely up to chance and luck, something that is pretty much optional – it may happen and may work out well, but there’s a significant probability that it won’t. Just listen to women’s usual complaint about men, which is usually that attractive men refuse to commit to an exclusive relationship. Of course we see the massive proliferation of e-thotting, sugar-mommying, gold-digging etc. when the social consensus is that a happy marriage is by and large off the table.
Botond173
7mo ago
Roughly half a year ago there was a discussion here on the cultural legacy and (then) recent renewed interest and negative portrayal of the Woodstock ’99 music festival in the mainstream media. I haven’t seen the two documentaries in question but I’ve heard commentaries on them, and they agreed that much of the sneering and hostility present in their narratives is actually directed at the nu-metal genre in general, and the antics of Fred Durst in particular. I was sort of surprised that nobody mentioned this in the discussion. Anyway, it certainly doesn’t surprise me that much that they’d contextualize the whole incident in that way, as nu-metal is generally seen as an embarrassing and pathetic cringefest which was a plague upon pop music at the turn of the Millennium, thankfully one that largely disappeared after a few years as quickly as it appeared. And it was roughly at the zenith of its popularity when this festival took place, which was dominated by nu-metal bands.
When I’ve heard these commentaries I started looking for more on Youtube as my interest was piqued. Back when the BBC Learning TV channel existed it ran a rather good one-hour documentary on the incident but unfortunately I wasn’t able to find it. (I saw one or two other short documentaries from the same period i.e. 2000/2001.) I do recall, however, finding some news report which featured a segment from an interview with Sheryl Crow, who also performed at the festival and had a rather bad experience. I saw this YT clip about two years ago and can’t find it again unfortunately. To paraphrase from memory, she argued that the reason she found the whole scandal repulsive was that the white male nu-metal fans who committed numerous acts of arson, vandalism, rape, harassment etc. were mostly from functioning middle-class homes in the suburbs, objectively privileged by global standards, yet were constantly angry and destructive and couldn’t even put it in words why. She basically accused them of toxic masculinity even though I don’t recall her using that exact expression, but I wasn’t surprised anyway because she came across as the average lipstick feminist.
Leaving the subject of the festival aside, I wonder how nu-metal will be viewed in the context of the culture war. It appears to me that as a phenomenon it was a canary in a coalmine, providing an outlet for the angst of the young white (mostly) male members of a social class that was turning into the precariat under a system of late-stage capitalism, whose average quality of life was about to start collapsing. (Rising rates of mortality, alcoholism, illegitimacy, fatherlessness, unemployment, opioid addiction, prescription pill abuse etc.)
Botond173
10mo ago
Every day on my drive home I pass a large banner advertising temp tags from Virginia. This is an illegal service, intended to circumvent the costs of registering a car and getting insurance in Maryland, or at least getting around having a suspended license, or no license.
Is this also happening because car insurance is cheaper or more loosely regulated in Virginia? Or is there something else also at play here?
Botond173
5mo ago
Since the victory of Donald Trump in the 2024 US Presidential election, there is speculation that the worst of wokeness might now be behind us. History suggests otherwise. Tyrannical ideologies often endure political setbacks, even seemingly crippling setbacks, only to later reemerge with renewed strength.
I'm rather sure that Trump's victory last year is by far not the first setback of wokeness in the US, and arguably not the biggest either. I recall reading the argument from Walt Bismarck and maybe other rightist bloggers as well that the period between Nixon's reelection and the LA riots of 1992 can be interpreted as two decades of racial detente, for example.
Botond173
6mo ago
Seven months ago I posted the following thesis (if we can call it that) here:
The online proliferation of the man vs bear in the woods meme, plus similar earlier social media phenomena with a feminist message are, in reality, generalized and simplified expressions of women's overall frustration and latent anger directed at the loss of manhood initiation rituals that characterizes modern post-patriarchal atomized societies; namely, the current social reality is that adolescent boys and young single men are no longer vetted by fathers, elders, brothers, uncles and other pre-vetted eligible men before they are, in effect, released into their wider social circle from the family environment, which makes it rather difficult and risky for single women to separate eligible men from ineligible men.
Regarding the part I now bolded for the current discussion I’ll say that I did have some rather vague awareness of the “Are we dating the same guy” Facebook group back when I posted the comment, meaning that I was aware that they exist and are mostly feminist in their social orientation, but that was it. Well, a couple of days ago I unexpectedly came across a reddit thread that was rather interesting from a culture war perspective where the original poster accused the local AWDTSG group of committing defamation, slander and violation of privacy. I would link the URL but I can’t, as the entire thread was nuked after entire comment chains were purged and the OP deleted his profile (probably as a result of getting doxxed by feminists). The Facebook group in question was also scrubbed from Google somehow i.e. some setting was changed so that it doesn’t show up in Google results anymore, or something like that, plus its admins made their profiles private.
Anyway, as the thread piqued my interest I later found out that there’s an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to this phenomenon and now I’d like to make some observations.
-
The name itself is already curious. It makes it all seem innocent and well-meaning, light-hearted. Just a bunch of average women helping each other out and also having a bit of fun and enjoying a sense of community in the process. Of course, the reality is that these groups should rather be named “Did I just fall for a bigamist/fraudster/liar/rapist/harasser/creep” because these are the real sentiments the female members are expressing.
-
Also I just love how the name absolutely reinforces the Red Pill thesis on unscrupulous alpha males practicing plate-spinning / building soft harems in a social milieu of unrestrained hypergamy (hypergyny, to be more precise). I’m rather certain we’ll never see a “Are we dating the same girl” online men’s group anywhere.
-
The name also entails that the members share the expectation of strict monogamous living as the default social arrangement. This is also somewhat comical, as I’m sure that if asked, nearly all of them would swear up and down that they support sexual autonomy, ‘alternative lifestyles’, sexual freedom, polyamory etc.
-
I’ve seen people argue that such groups regularly violate GDPR regulations. In other words, sharing non-public personal information such as employment data, photos, screenshots of personal messages, photos/screenshots of documents etc. in Facebook groups is technically against the law. I doubt that I’m qualified to comment on the legal aspect of all of this, but I do find such arguments plausible. What I do not doubt though is that were there men’s online groups doing the same to women’s personal information, I’m 100% sure they would swiftly invite a huge media scandal, widespread condemnation, legal action and the attention of the authorities.
-
The consensus between female members and women that are sympathetic to them is “just be a decent man, and you won’t get accused by the group” i.e. “women never lie”. Which is just pure gold. I’m sure they don’t even hear themselves or just don’t care, which is more likely. “Just be a decent comrade and the Cheka won’t arrest you”, “good citizens have nothing to fear from the police” etc. It’s a story as old as time.
-
One usual story that gets posted in such groups is “I was duped by a man who was actually married with kids”. Alternatively, “I was duped by a man who was a violent creep”. My initial response is: do you actually need the assistance of a Facebook group of anonymous posters to realize that? Did you not see the warning signs? Also, just the logistics involved in all of this make me wonder. If you’re an asshole guy who just wants to heartlessly use up some gullible woman as a fuckbuddy/FWB, how do you even keep your marriage, wife and kids a secret? How does this even work i.e. how many men are there who can plausibly make it work? If you’re a family man, most of the time you have outside the workplace will usually be taken up by your family.
-
Just to state the obvious: if these women are so afraid, so certain that a hostile male-centric society enables their victimization routinely etc., why don’t they try finding male partners through people they trust? By their own accord, they are all normal, decent women with lives, not isolated loser incel creeps living in basements – surely they have friends, colleagues, relatives they can trust?!
Botond173
11mo ago
I’m wondering to what extent the German Wehrmacht is, or at least was present in British and American cultural memory as a worthy enemy in battle, unlike the Japanese and the Italians, in a similar way how, I suppose, Confederates were seen as worthy enemies in the Northern US after the Civil War, unlike the various Indian tribes. It’d largely explain why the so-called myths of the clean Wehrmacht and the Lost Cause of the South came to be.
Botond173
1mo ago
Has there ever been a case of a successful project in any large Western city to build a network of lanes exclusively for cyclists, scooter-riders and Walmart/mobility scooters?
Botond173
5mo ago
To what extent do American normies buy into the belief that their society is a honest meritocracy?
Botond173
6mo ago
sticking around and thanking us for training them
Why should they? What reason did you give them to? Do you think their attitude is worse than yours?
Half of them within a year have left to take senior admin jobs.
They're gone in 6 months. As soon as you train an American, they are gone.
So what is it? Half, or all?
Botond173
9mo ago
It's not merely that she's relatively young, it's that she's much younger than the two presidents who'll have preceded her.
What issues can be her Perestroika, her Glasnost, her liquor ban?
You can also name about a dozen potential issues, can't you? The college debt bubble, the NIMBY vs. YIMBY struggle, the opioid crisis, economic stagnation, the housing bubble, Medicare, women's rights etc.
Botond173
10mo ago
because men who are plausible leaders will never be actual incels
I suppose what you meant to say was that no group of men accepts an incel as their leader?
and no one will take the massive status hit that comes with taking up any incel-adjacent positions.
In a patriarchal society where early marriage and monogamy are the norm, this would be generally the case indeed.
Botond173
10d ago
There are two glaring problems with that. Imperial Germany had a legacy of democratic norms already - there was a legislative assembly, elections, political parties, political discussions in a free press etc. Also, Germany isn't in Eastern Europe.
Botond173
3mo ago
Strange. A few hours ago I was checking this thread in the phone and I swear there was a short and witty response wondering just how unique the historic experience of Gen Z is. By now it disappeared.
I'm just wondering if you're aware that in that particular crisis the Polish military regime, instead of offering military assistance to the Czechoslovak state to defend itself, actually decided to take part in the partition of it instead in order to pursue irredentist territorial aspirations of its own? They did this even though they were aware that they were the only state capable of realistically offering military assistance to Czechoslovakia in a potential defensive war, and that the Nazi government was staking a claim for Danzig for a long time, which meant that Poland was obviously going to be threatened in the future, that is, they were going to be next.
This is a repeat from 1938, where the Czechoslovakian military potential that could have subtracted the Germany potential, got added to them.
The remaining Czech rump state received no security guarantees or assistance from any great power, it had an enormous armaments sector that was completely intact, and was actually even beyond the range of the air forces of Germany's enemies. The parallel with Ukraine doesn't have legs to stand on in any of those aspects.
Why do you and others keep lying about the Budapest Memorandum? I can assume that you know perfectly well that it wasn't a binding security guarantee (which is precisely why it was called a 'memorandum'), and that it was signed primarily because it served US interests (to curb the then-scary prospect of nuclear proliferation), not because it was meant to benefit Ukraine.
Why are you insinuating that the Ukrainians are a blameless party in this conflict who can be trusted all the time?
Also, where is your enthusiasm? All I was hearing throughout the war from Atlanticist mainstream media was triumphalism promising total victory, because the Moskal are just a bunch of freezing, starving orcs who will use up their last functioning tank, cruise missile, artillery shell and pair of socks in two weeks. Where is the victory? Where is the glorious counteroffensive?
More options
Context Copy link