Corvos
22d ago
I’m very curious to know how you analyse a “forearm imprint”. I guess you can get height, muscle mass, and fatness maybe?
Corvos
22d ago
Very impressive numbers, much more than I expected.
I assume 95% are lurkers which I think is the normal ratio. That gives you 5% of 60% as regularly posting redditors, about 3% of America.
Which broadly passes my sniff test but may not do so for others.
I was thinking of the Charlotte murder. I would be surprised to see much resulting from Kirk's murder but to be fair I've never heard of him and he may be much better known in America. Broadly I think that nothing kinetic will ever happen so the only plausible kind of flashpoint is a cultural/psychological one and the above is one that I can imagine a lot of people settling on.
The idea of just sudden death like that because you sat in front of a black man and didn't feel able to move away is visceral to me in a way that the other stuff isn't. I'm in London ATM, I take buses and trains. Thankfully our murder rate is still pretty low but the amount of aggression and fuck-you signals like playing your boombox at full volume and daring anyone to do anything about it isn't. Almost every time I see someone being a dick in public, it's a black or Arabic man.
Corvos
23d ago
If he turns out to be a boomer Trump voter who turned against the Trumpy Right because of Epstein for example. I usually expect Red tribe to use guns and Blue tribe to use riots and lawyers, though there have been exceptions.
I am very skeptical that a flashpoint will happen, but if it does I think the most likely candidate is the centre-right shifting into open racism against blacks prompted by one too many black on white murders or another set of black riots.
That is, the only serious psychological shift I can see as being both plausible and meaningful on the right is if enough centre-rights shifted at the same time from private ‘well, he’s got a point’ or ‘leftists call everyone racist, it doesn’t mean anything any more’ to publicly saying ‘fuck these guys’.
If the taboo against open racism breaks and the Supreme Court comes down softly rather than harshly when people start discriminating against blacks in public, the lay of the land shifts quite dramatically.
(I think this would only happen with the support of Hispanics, so basically limited to black people only in this scenario. I’m also confident that there will be no uprising and no guerilla warfare.)
Corvos
23d ago
While this is true, if black schizophrenics are (hypothetically, I don’t know if they are) vastly more likely to aim their paranoia and rage at white people than at black people, that seems to blur matters somewhat.
“This person is possessed by unstoppable rage that makes him hurt people.”
And
“This person is possessed by an unstoppable rage that makes him hurt people AND a racist hatred of whites that means he goes after them specifically.”
Seem to hit quite differently. Like if Dexter had gone after Indians rather than other serial killers.
Corvos
23d ago
Once someone is converted to Christianity, they attempt to convert everyone they interact with. Does transgenderism have a mechanism like that? In my opinion, no.
Certainly the internet had a lot of 'cracking eggs' and 'if you feel this way you're transgender' and 'if you like yuri anime (that is, if you find two girls hot) you're probably transgender', etc. Trans people can be very evangelical, especially in spaces they control.
Corvos
24d ago
Depending on how you use the word original, I would argue that’s an inappropriate bar. The majority of people respond well to and express themselves using the forms that they are familiar with.
Somebody creating an utterly unoriginal chocolate-box landscape, AI waifu or Madonna With Child is expressing some kind of internal spirituality and cognition IMO, even if you don’t find the results interesting or impressive. (And you don’t have to! That’s not my point.)
Or am I misunderstanding you and you mean original to be just anything that’s not a literal direct copy?
Following up on the famine, it seems that the case against Britain is that although there were supply shortages everywhere (remember that Britain was under rationing at the time!), the British managed to supply food to most places except Bengal, which allegedly they neglected out of racism or a desire to punish.
The case for the British is that they begged the Americans to help because they couldn't spare supplies or shipping (Roosevelt apologetically said they were too busy) which doesn't sound much like the behaviour of racist oppressors, and that they were unable to commit further transport ships because they were needed for D-Day and there was too much chance of them being sunk:
Experts' disagreement over political issues can be found in differing explanations of the War Cabinet's refusal to allocate funds to import grain. Lizzie Collingham holds the massive global dislocations of supplies caused by World War II virtually guaranteed that hunger would occur somewhere in the world, yet Churchill's animosity and perhaps racism toward Indians decided the exact location where famine would fall.[230] Similarly, Madhusree Mukerjee makes a stark accusation: "The War Cabinet's shipping assignments made in August 1943, shortly after Amery had pleaded for famine relief, show Australian wheat flour travelling to Ceylon, the Middle East, and Southern Africa – everywhere in the Indian Ocean but to India. Those assignments show a will to punish."[231] In contrast, Mark Tauger strikes a more supportive stance: "In the Indian Ocean alone from January 1942 to May 1943, the Axis powers sank 230 British and Allied merchant ships totalling 873,000 tons, in other words, a substantial boat every other day. British hesitation to allocate shipping concerned not only potential diversion of shipping from other war-related needs but also the prospect of losing the shipping to attacks without actually [bringing help to] India at all."[232] Peter Bowbrick elaborates further on the British government's delay in shipping food, stating that Linlithgow's request for food shipments in December 1942 was half-hearted and that it was made on the assumption that Bengal already had a food surplus but that it was being hoarded, which is why it was ignored by the British metropolitan government. Further delays after April 1943 stemmed from the refusal to divert ships away from the preparations for Operation Overlord, whose failure would have been disastrous for the world and whose success was as a result prioritised above aid to India.[233]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Famine,_disease,_and_the_death_toll
The British were not kind to India. I don't really know any specifics on what all horrible things they did, though I am familiar with the "Blowing from Guns in British India" painting that depicted the punishment they gave for some rebellion or other.
The painting is an exaggerated 'Tales of India' depiction painted 30 years later by a Russian for a Russian audience. The practice of 'blowing from guns' did happen, however, and was a Mughal (i.e. pre-British) punishment adopted by the British in retaliation for the Satichaura Ghat massacre and Bibi Ghar massacre, both following the Siege of Cawnpore.
The siege of Cawnpore was a key episode in the Indian Rebellion of 1857. The besieged East India Company forces and civilians in Cawnpore (now Kanpur) were duped into a false assurance of a safe passage to Allahabad by the rebel forces under Nana Sahib. Their evacuation from Cawnpore thus turned into a massacre, and most of the men were killed and women and children taken to a nearby dwelling known as Bibi Ghar. As an East India Company rescue force from Allahabad approached Cawnpore, around 200 British women and children captured by the rebels were butchered in what came to be known as the Bibi Ghar massacre, their remains then thrown down a nearby well.[1] Following the recapture of Cawnpore and the discovery of the massacre, the angry Company forces engaged in widespread retaliation against captured rebel soldiers and local civilians. The murders greatly enraged the British rank-and-file against the sepoy rebels and inspired the war cry "Remember Cawnpore!".
To be more specific, the Satichaura Ghat massacre occurred when the surrendered British forces plus wives and children were told that there were boats waiting to take them down the river but that these boats could not be moored to the bank, forcing the British to wade into the river to get to them. As the British entered the river:
Controversy surrounds what exactly happened next at the Satichaura Ghat, whether the signal was a bugle or three shots[5] soon afterwards thousands of sepoys emerged from hidden places on shore to shoot at the boats while they were peppered with artillery. Only three boats managed to set off, men, women and children suffered the same terrible deaths, but the women were spared a massacre of the survivors on shore.
(...)
Three boats had been able to set off General Wheeler's boat, Major Vibarts and a third which was holed beneath the waterline by a round shot fired from the bank. Two boats drifted to the north bank and the occupants slaughtered. From the crowds being burned, shot and sliced to death some survivors set out to desperately swim to the boats. Mowbray recounts how Vibarts boat took on the survivors from the second, while severely damaged and still being shot at.[10]
The surviving boat had around 100 people aboard, twice the amount there was space for. severely damaged it, without a rudder, it was being pursued along the riverbanks by the rebel soldiers, by midday they were clear of fire as the artillery bullocks had grounded in the mud. The boat frequently grounded on the sandbanks subjecting the survivors to further attacks. The rebels launched a pursuit boat which also grounded and a burning boat hoping to catch the refugees on fire which was defeated by the refugees.[17] On one such sandbank the pursuers struck again. The dying Major Vibart ordered Lieutenant Thomson and two other officers and 11 privates to make a defence while they tried to refloat the boat. After defeating the enemy, Thomson and his men returned to the boat but it had gone.[18]
Meanwhile, the rebels had launched an attack on the boat from the opposite bank. After some firing, the 80 surviving refugees on the boat were recaptured. Returned to Cawnpore the men were all shot dead along with one woman and one infant who refused to leave her husband. The other wives t were pulled away.[18] Nana Sahib granted the request of the chaplain Moncrieff to read prayers before they died.[19] The women and children were confined to Savada House, to be later moved with other survivors to the Bibighar
The Bibi Ghar was a house in which:
Initially around 180 women and children were confined to Bibighar. A group of European women and children refugees who survived the Fatehgarh massacre and a others later joined them. In total there were 4 men, around 200 women and children in Bibighar.[23]
Nana Sahib placed these survivors under the care of the servant of his favourite concubine, earlier a concubine of his brother. Called Hussaini Khanum (or Hussaini Begum) she was highly abusive and made sure no servants could help them. Without soap, clean clothes or bandages for their wounds cholera and dysentery began to kill them. Without any material comforts they could only sing and pray.[22] Every day they would be led out to grind corn - not to eat, but as it was symbolic of the work of a slave to humiliate them.[24]
Fed one meal a day (by the lowest caste) they had no furniture of any kind (already emaciated from surviving the siege). It is said that orders from Delhi were received to improve treatment, a doctor was assigned and they were allowed to go out on the verandah.[22]
(...)
At 4 in the afternoon they came for the 3 male refugees from Fatehpur, the merchant and his son and a 14 year old boy. Nana's men led them out on the short walk while the women were confined in the house. Nana had assembled a crowd, sitting in rows while he sat beneath a lime tree wearing a gold turban, All of his advisors were there. Jwala Persad, Tantia Topee, Azimoolah and Bala Rao. As they reached the gate they were shot dead. Their bodies were thrown on the grass and mutilated by the crowd. This continued for half an hour before the Begum informed the women they too were to be killed.[28]
One of the ladies went to ask the commander of the guard if this were true. He said no. He would have been told. One of the guards told the Begum "Your orders will not be obeyed. “ Who are you that you should give orders?" Upon which the Begum went to talk to the Nana. The guards discussed this in her absence and pledged to never murder the women.[28] It is possible that the guard - Yusuf Khan actively pledged to save them (possibly to ensure their own survival when the British arrived.[24] The Begum returned with five men carrying sabres. Two Hindus, one young, one old. Two butchers wearing white and a member of the maharaja's bodyguard wearing his red uniform, named Survur Khan, from a distant province.
The guard sepoys were ordered to fall in. Half a dozen obeyed. They raised their muskets, but shot high at the ceiling of neighbouring apartments.[30][18] It was the gloaming dusk and the 5 killers entered. In the gloom Survur Khan stepped out of the house, his sword broken, to fetch another, then another. By the time darkness fell the men left and locked up the house. The screams had stopped, but the groans continued until the morning. The next day the sweepers came to throw the bodies into the well.[28] Many of the children had survived and tried to escape, children of 5 or 6. A crowd looked on and the children cried for help. No one helped them. When one went into the crowd they grabbed them and through them down the well.[30][26] Three women had survived enough to talk and were also murdered.[18]
An alternative account is that after the men were murdered, some of the sepoys only agreed to remove the women and children from the courtyard when Tatya Tope threatened to execute them for dereliction of duty. In this account Nana Sahib left "the building" (his position outside the courtyard under the tree) because he didn't want to be a witness to the unfolding massacre.[4]
The British females and children were ordered to come out of the house but they refused to do so and clung to one another. They barricaded themselves in, tying the door handles with clothing. In "Our Bones are Scattered" Ward writes that the soldier could not be compelled to pull them out, so they decided to kill them inside the building. The lack of spectacle making Nana leave.[31]
At first around twenty rebel soldiers opened fire from the outside of the Bibighar, firing through holes in the boarded windows. The soldiers of the squad that was supposed to fire the next round were sickened by the violence caused and discharged their shots into the air. Soon after, upon hearing the screams and groans inside, the rebel soldiers threw down their weapons and declared that they were not going to kill any more women and children.[4]
An angry Begum Hussaini Khanum denounced the sepoys' act as cowardice and asked her aide to finish the job of killing the captives.[4] Her lover hired butchers, who murdered the captives with cleavers, leaving when it seemed that all the captives had been killed. However a few women and children had managed to survive by hiding under the dead bodies. It was agreed that the bodies of the victims would be thrown down a dry well by some sweepers.
No one survived the massacre.[5]
The page also describes the aftermath, unfortunately but naturally this report is from the perspective of the arriving British forces:
They came to the house at first expecting the captives to be alive, instead finding only blood. Jonah finally came in to look for his family. Some Highlanders followed the tail of blood towards the trees to find Bhudree Nath leaning against the well. Following his gaze they found the bodies. "..the whole of the bodies were naked and the limbs had been separated.." a "mangled heap" of bodies, limbs in various states of putrefaction. A Highlander vomited.[33]
As more soldiers arrived they wandered sobbing through the house, "...ankle-deep in blood. The plaster was scored with sword-cuts: not high up, as where men have fought; but low down, and about the corners, as if a creature had crouched to avoid the blow.[32] Brigadier General Neill wrote at the time; "the bodies of all who died there were thrown into the well of the house, all the murdered also. I saw that house when I first came in. Ladies’ and children’s bloody torn dresses and shoes were lying about, and locks of hair torn from their heads. The floor of the one room they were all. dragged into and killed was saturated with blood. One cannot control one’s feelings. Who could be merciful to one concerned ? Severity at the first is mercy in the end. I wish to show the Natives of India that the punish¬ ment inflicted by us for such deeds will be the heaviest, the most revolting to their feelings, and what they must ever remember"[34] In the courtyard, the tree nearest the well was smeared with the brains of numerous children and infants who had been dashed headfirst against the trunk and thrown down the well.[35] Soon the people of Cawnpore were fleeing down the road to Delhi en masse, not waiting to think whether they could establish their innocence or not.[32]
Neill wrote; "Whenever a rebel is caught he is immediately tried, and, unless he can prove a defence, he is sentenced to he hanged at once: but the chief rebels or ringleaders I make first to clean up a certain portion of the pool of blood, still two inches deep in the shed where the fearful murder and mutilation of the women and children took place. To touch blood is most abhorrent to the high-caste natives. They think, by doing so, they doom their souls to perdition. Let them think so. My object is to inflict a fearful punishment for a revolting, cowardly, barbarous deed, and to strike terror into these rebels. The first I caught was a soubahdar, or native officer, a high-caste Brahmin, who tried, to resist my order to clean up the very u blood he had helped to shed but I made the provost-martial do his duty, and a few lashes soon made the miscreant accomplish his task. When done, he was taken out and immediately hanged, and, after death, buried in a ditch at the road side."[32] Kaye records him writing; "a Mahomedan officer of our civil court, a great rascal, and one of the leading men: he rather objected, was flogged, made to lick part of the blood with his tongue".[34]
A later text, written by an eye witness but published decades later writes; "On the date of my visit a great part of the house had not been cleaned out; the floors of the rooms were still covered with congealed blood, littered with trampled, torn dresses of women and children, shoes, slippers, and locks of long hair, many of which had evidently been severed from the living scalps by sword-cuts. But among the traces of barbarous torture and cruelty which excited horror and a desire for revenge, one stood out prominently beyond all others. It was an iron hook fixed into the wall of one of the rooms in the house, about six feet from the floor. I could not possibly say for what purpose this hook had originally been fixed in the wall. I examined it carefully, and it appeared to have been an old fixture, which had been seized on as a diabolic and convenient instrument of torture by the inhuman wretches engaged in murdering the women and children. This hook was covered with dried blood, and from the marks on the whitewashed wall, it was evident that a little child had been hung on to it by the neck with its face to the wall, where the poor thing must have struggled for long, perhaps in the sight of its helpless mother, because the wall all round the hook on a level with it was covered with the hand-prints, and below the hook with the foot-prints, in blood, of a little child."[36]
The incident marked a significant downturn in the relationship between the British and Indians, which obviously hadn't been fantastic to start with but had been at least somewhat collegial, certain parts of India being entirely happy to point the British at other parts they didn't like and earn plunder and British coin in the process. To their credit, many of the Indian soldiers involved refused to take part in the massacre, although I'm afraid I doubt it got them much when the British returned.
I apologise for posting atrocity porn, even with sources, and would put the quotes in an expandable section if I could. But if we are going to have a thread discussing downstream whether the 1800s British were the official Worst People In The World in conjunction with the Nazis, Stalin, Mao and slavers, or merely just very bad, could we please have a bit more providing of sources and a bit less of 'everyone knows'?
I can understand why India was happy to see the back of us, and I imagine that similar stories could be told from the other side. I also get that the OP was complaining about overly-exaggerated portraits of British awfulness. Most ethnic grievances can point to a tit-for-tat spiral. But it seems relevant that British 'unkindness' in India largely post-dates the kind of stuff that is at least as bad as anything Hamas or ISIS did.
From my own brief research: India's GDP did not decline during British rule, their percentage share of the global economy reduced because the Industrial Revolution was happening in Europe. As for the Benghal famine, I claim no detailed knowledge but as far as I can tell the worst allegation is that Britain (in 1943 i.e. in wartime siege) did not attempt to alleviate a natural famine because they were busy being under siege by Nazi Germany, which to my eyes makes it pretty different to something like the Holodomor or famines under Mao.
UK. I asked in a bit more detail and the matter is broadly evaluated on a spectrum from enthusiast devices (antiques, breech-loading shotguns) on one end to personal security devices (automatic pistols) on the other end:
-
Getting antique weapons from > 150 years ago requires no application, nothing.
-
Getting a breech-loading shotgun for pheasant or equivalent - easy if you're the right kind of person (rural farmer, country squire) and have no criminal record. You might be asked for a reference. These guys quite often make their own ammunition and there's no problem with that AFAIK. If you live in the city you may get probing questions about when and how you plan to use this thing.
-
If it's a rifle you will have to do a lot more work to make the inspectors happy but if you look like a plausible deerstalker you can do it without too much issue. My school had these for training cadets, but we had to count bullets in and out and account for all shells fired.
-
My friend knows one person who was allowed to have an automatic pistol. He was a banking family scion who could plausibly argue that he was under serious security risk, and he needed vast amounts of paperwork, checks with the local police, regular medical and psych evaluations, and even then he had to lock up both the pistol and the ammo separately and so it was almost useless to him. He just did it for fun.
Enough to produce a cohesive pan-East-Asian political movement that can push strongly for desired outcomes on issues that matter to this new, more cohesive group.
Given that native whites are not allowed to coordinate any political movement that directly represents their own interests, and that these issues whatever they turn out to be are not likely to 100% beautiful win-wins for everyone involved, these are likely to come at some expense to whites.
they form interests group which are detrimental to "native whites"
conspiring to take down the whites
These two things are not the same. The existence and tolerance of non-white racial blocs and only non-white racial blocs can be detrimental to white people without any malice or conspiracy required.
Corvos
25d ago
Do they basically assume that if you're applying for a license you have a legitimate reason and are box-checking to make sure you aren't a criminal?
I think broadly this? Depending on demographics? The people I know who have guns are upper-class, semi-rural people of the huntin' shootin' and fishin' variety, who are culturally expected to own guns and be responsible with them, and none of them ever complained of any difficulty with bureaucracy.
Corvos
25d ago
Prohibition was as much feminism and public order as it was religious though. Probably more.
The main complaints about alcohol were that drunks were beating their wives, neglecting their wives, and/or being disorderly on the street and slovenly at the workplace.
Some do, sure. But there's no such thing as "Asian ethnic interests" - why Vietnamese, Indians, Koreans, Chinese, Sikh and Indonesians would have the same interests? I've met many people of different Asian descent, and they had very varied interests - I can't imagine how a single group would be able to represent them.
First generation yes. As you get further from the original immigration, people are much more likely to form pan-ethnic support groups for 'people who look kind of like me and have my kinds of issues'. A second-generation Indonesian is quite likely to feel they have a lot common with the second-generation Taiwanese and Japanese boys who can relate to overbearing parents, not really fitting in with your customs from the old place and the fact that white girls don't seem to go for Asian men, or whatever. Especially as they start marrying each other within that group.
Not in all cases, certainly, but in enough to matter.
(India and Sikh etc. are more different. I would expect to end up with a generic East Asian identity rather than anything).
Corvos
25d ago
The fact is that you almost never see homeless in Tokyo. I was asked for money perhaps three times in six years of living there. My understanding is that Japanese homeless are much more tractable than American homeless and the government mostly pays to keep them housed without too much trouble.
Corvos
26d ago
Maybe. The numbers show that the economics aren’t working in Europe, and various parties have turned against it. Even the Left wing in the UK is nominally against it though for various of the reasons stated it hasn’t actually done very much.
Whether this is downstream of the economics not working out or other factors is hard to say.
Corvos
26d ago
I don't know why I keep getting replies which assume that I agree with this position when I specifically began my second paragraph with "Let this not be mistaken for a pro-open-borders argument on my part"
Not doing this is surprisingly hard. But also, people just want to state their objections for the record, it's not necessarily aimed at you.
Corvos
26d ago
I see you have watched the famous anime
(Not quite! But surprisingly close.)
There is much to what you say. It is also true that various leftists have, in unguarded moments, given much much more cynical arguments for immigration. For example, in the Blairite government in the UK:
Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.
Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.
He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.
He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.
He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.
"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."
(Emphasis mine)
The Left support for immigration is a confusing mixture of:
- compassion towards immigrants
- cultural xenophilia and a desire for local non-native cultural enrichment
- economic beliefs that high immigration improves GDP and living standards
- a political belief that immigrants will support the leftists who are their allies
- discomfort with preventing immigrants getting what they want
- dislike of common reasons given by the right for opposing immigration - nationalism, anti-xenophilia, crime, religious differences
- discomfort following chains of thoughts that might lead to 5 or 6, and concern for the social consequences of doing so where their friends can hear it
- mistaken beliefs about the costs of immigration resulting from an ability to externalise them (e.g. the anger when immigrants were bussed to Martha's Vineyard and New York, the fact that lots of immigrants either work in the service industry or in warehouses)
I think it's important to point out as you are doing that people genuinely believe 1-3, but it's also fair to point out that darker motives 4-8 also exist and are not invalidated by 1-3.
Corvos
26d ago
Fair enough. I haven’t had an intimate relationship and it may just be that I don’t understand how visceral jealousy can be.
I’m also used to ‘projecting’ myself - I have written dialogues with myself to make decisions or talk through problems.
Corvos
26d ago
Not me in the 'I would happily commit suicide because I'll still be alive' sense, but me in the 'exactly the same in every way' sense. Different consciousnesses but otherwise identical. And I would feel love and warmth towards him because it's the closest possible relation you can have with someone.
You might worry about divergence over the next 10, 20, 50 years but even then it would be like having a very identical twin.
Corvos
26d ago
It's not relevant right now, and my feelings might change once it is, but I don't see why not. It's me. Being jealous of yourself seems silly. Especially since I know the other me wouldn't be jealous either, so it's not like I need to worry about him going behind my back. I am the one person in the world I genuinely, absolutely trust.
Signals need to be somewhat unambiguous to be effective though. That’s why Putin conducts his assassinations with Russian-government-accessible-only poisons.
More options
Context Copy link