@ResoluteRaven's banner p

ResoluteRaven


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 15:34:04 UTC

				

User ID: 867

ResoluteRaven


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 15:34:04 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 867

US intelligence concurs that ISIS was responsible, and this attack definitely fits the MO of Islamic terrorism in Russia and previous ISIS attacks more than anything Ukraine could or would want to pull off (so far mostly kamikaze drone strikes on military targets).

It appears that the Afghan branch of ISIS has been gaining in strength since the Taliban takeover and is now fighting the same kind of insurgency against them that they did against the American occupation. Say what you will about the Taliban, but at least they don't dream of world domination like many other jihadist groups. I suppose it's a pipe dream to wish for a foreign policy discerning enough to pick out and empower isolationist Islamic extremists at the expense of their interventionist brethren, but it sure would let the rest of the world sleep a little easier.

I was similarly confused by the media coverage of this execution, but what seemed likely to me was that a couple of outlets whose reporters are already trained to see swastikas in every shadow pattern-matched "asphyxiation by nitrogen" with "gas chambers," told all their friends that "Alabama is doing a Nazi thing," and then they all ran with it.

Regarding humane forms of execution, seeing as two things the US has in excess are fentanyl and guns, I always figured we should dope them up and then shoot them in the head, but that would run afoul of the unwritten rule that execution must be as clean and sanitized as possible so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the executioners. To which I say if we as a society can't stomach the sight of someone's brains splattered against a wall then we may as well abolish the death penalty because we clearly can't handle the weight of the responsibility.

I meant to respond to your driving post before getting distracted, so I'll do it here:

Yes, drivers from New Jersey are probably more competent technically than in the rest of the country, but since America's urban planning or lack thereof forces people like me who hate driving and suck at it onto the road every day to get anywhere I would really much rather everyone around me drive "like a grandma with Alzheimer's" rather than get myself killed trying to keep up with the pros.

Having been all over the world it also seems pretty apparent to me that driving cautiously is correlated with having a wealthy and high-trust society, the same way that the more haggling you need to do in a street market the worse the material conditions around you are likely to be.

As I've said before, the party (and the Partisans) of Woodrow Wilson, never changed sides, just their branding. Whether it's white hoods in 1920 or black hoodies in 2020 it's the same fundamentally anti-american (and dare I say it anti-western) bullshit.

Looking at the election map of 1916, I see Wilson opposed by a coalition of New England Yankees and the places they settled in the upper Midwest. As best I can tell, these same Yankees and their intellectual descendants at the colleges they founded are the ones in charge of the Democratic Party today and peddling the latest racist "anti-racist" dogma.

Finding a place with a similar racial mix to America is challenging enough by itself, but your best bet is probably somewhere in Latin America like Brazil (which does now have affirmative action, but I believe it was implemented more recently than in the US) or simply a comparison of data from before/after the Civil Rights Act was passed. The presence of large nonwhite populations in Europe (gypsies aside) is so recent that I doubt you can infer anything meaningful from their situation and other possibilities like apartheid South Africa had laws that leaned way too far in the opposite direction.

It's not clear to me that Taiwan and Ukraine require the same kinds of weapons. The former needs naval and air assets while the latter needs artillery shells and tanks. Any war between China and US allies in the Pacific (outside of Korea) would be a quick and deadly exchange of missiles and planes that ends with one navy still afloat and one at the bottom of the sea, Battle of Midway style, rather than the kind of unending slugfest that a war between two nations that share a land border can devolve into. By the time you find yourself fighting a ground battle on the island itself, a war for Taiwan would have already been lost.

Even places that lack the belief in the biological equality of different populations have mostly ended up with some form of racial spoils system à la affirmative action for Malays in Malaysia or on the basis of caste in India, or else simply tried to expel the higher achieving population as Uganda did with the Indians or most Medieval European states did with the Jews at one time or another. The stated explanation is usually some form of "disparate economic outcomes between ethnically or culturally distinct groups are an incitement to violence and the higher achieving group must either pay the rest of us a bribe for their own safety or get out."

Only in places where the different groups exist on a continuum, Latin America for example, do we see less conflict on these particular grounds (I suppose you could argue that the class-based violence that occasionally consumes these countries is a proxy for it, but poor black Brazilians hating their rich white overlords because they're rich and not because they're white seems like an improvement over our situation). It may be trivial to say that there would be no racism if we all interbred until there were no distinctions, but it seems like we might only need to go halfway or less to get that benefit.

Apart from official recognition of areas that are already de facto independent, like Somaliland, Kosovo, Taiwan, etc. there is a possibility of an East African Federation forming in the next few years as a political union of up to seven currently separate countries. There are a few Pacific islands that have a chance at formal independence as well, including Chuuk (from Micronesia) and Bougainville (from Papua New Guinea), and Yemen and Libya would also probably be better off each splitting into two countries to avoid prolonging their current civil wars indefinitely.

One example of a society with more women than men is the black urban ghettos in the US, where a decent fraction of the male population is in prison at any given time, and they certainly don't do much to inspire confidence in this eugenics scheme. If we cast a wider net to look at matriarchal societies in general, which may or may not have arisen due to a temporary or chronic gender imbalance, we see that women do all the economically productive work and men spend their days gambling, drinking, and killing each other (my impression of Soviet Russia post-WWII is that it trended in this direction as well, but was kept more in check by heavy state intervention).

As far as feasibility goes, I'm also not sure that this is as easy a change to make as one might assume. We don't, to my knowledge, know the genes that regulate the frequency of boys or girls being born. We can infer that it involves control of X and Y chromosome segregation in male gametes, but that's about it. It's true that under famine conditions more girls are born than boys, but that's because male fetuses are more fragile and are preferentially miscarried when the mother is stressed, not because fewer of them are conceived. Of course, if everyone is doing IVF anyway you can select the sex of your child easily, but that's intervention at the level of individuals rather than populations.

I don't have a good answer to your larger question, but in the case of Crimea the inhabitants never wanted to be part of Ukraine: they tried to become independent when the Soviet Union collapsed but the new Ukrainian government strong-armed them into amending their constitution to state that Crimea was sovereign "as a part of Ukraine."

Because to Asians raised in famine-stricken societies, it the responsibility of a host to ensure that their guests are well-fed. This explains the Asian obsession with food relative to westerners who are many generations removed from true poverty, a decent fraction of whom seem to eat almost entirely for sustenance and not pleasure. In many Asian languages the traditional greeting is "have you eaten yet?" and you can't walk ten feet in a rural area without someone offering you dinner.

I'm not sure what there really is to complain about here though. I love taking home enough leftovers from a Chinese restaurant to cook my next three meals; it's the customers who are leaving money sitting on the table if they let the restaurant throw it all away. The only things I don't usually take back with me are excess hotpot broth and dipping sauces. By contrast, whenever I go to a European restaurant and am presented with half a sandwich and a cup of soup I feel cheated because I could have gotten 3x as much of better-tasting food for the same price at an Asian or Middle Eastern place.

After decades of ridiculous claims, I will believe that we have been visited by aliens the moment one of these whistleblowers tosses an extraterrestrial corpse onto a table in broad daylight and not a moment sooner. Maybe not even then, unless they released a chemical analysis report along with it.

New Hampshire has always seemed like the odd man out in New England to me due to its strong Scotch-Irish/Libertarian heritage, but I digress.

Having considered it more, I suppose I can agree with a version of your thesis that goes like this (writing this out more for my own understanding than yours):

What those in the early-20th century called Progressivism produced a generation of technocrats (including Wilson, Hoover, FDR, etc.) who for several decades controlled both political parties while fighting a (to them very real and serious but to outsiders insignificant) battle amongst themselves. The technocrats recently lost control of the Republican party and what many HBD-believing folks on the new/dissident/alt/whatever-right are trying to do is re-establish the yang to the Democrats' yin while ignoring the bubbling cauldron of resentment into which both the current elites and their would-be shadow elites are soon to fall.

Now let's talk about the supposed conspiracy to force people into the suburbs. The largest American cities of 1920 were all built before the car. Many of them have a ring of streetcar suburbs. Most of them have lost population. There is a plentiful supply of dense urban cores in America with lower population than they had a century ago, and yet all the demand is for building more suburbs.

There is a reason many of those urban cores lost their population and it isn't just because the people there decided they wanted to move out one day because of changes in technology or lifestyle. Without the increased crime rates, race riots, and domestic terrorism of the 60's and 70's, America's cities would probably look much more similar to those in Europe.

I'm moving there for the same reason people hate suburbs: community. People talk about how suburbs are alienating and have no third spaces. I'm moving for the community, which is my wife's extended family. The third space was her grandparent's house. Now it is her parent's house, and someday (hopefully far in the future) it will be our house.

My understanding is that a family home is explicitly not a third place, because a third place is by definition a neutral public meeting ground with a semi-rotating cast of characters who have no obligation to be there. It might be possible to make one's house a third place by hosting enough open and regular events and parties, but that would be quite unusual, and would be made unnecessary if more typical meeting spaces e.g. coffee shops, bars, bowling alleys, dance clubs, etc. were common enough to meet people's need for socializing.

There is a generation of dogs that are poorly socialized on account of covid lockdowns, or at least that is the explanation their owners give when I have asked them about it.

As Carl Sagan used to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A single clear picture of an alien spacecraft, a single radio signal listing off prime numbers, a single microbe in a meteorite that shares no common origin with life on Earth, any of these would be evidence of extraterrestrial life, but none have been presented. All we get is a lot of hemming and hawing, winks and hints, and the tiniest crumbs of blurry images or eyewitness reports. Show me the data and we can have the conversation. Otherwise I don't see the point.

Are Indians and the Chinese going to actually assimilate like the Italians, or are they going to behave more like Jews?

From what I've seen, the Chinese are quite likely to assimilate into the white population as soon as the flow of new immigrants is cut off by the motherland's catastrophically falling birthrates, and tend to be quite politically apathetic relative to their population size outside of issues like college admissions. Even in the event of a war with China I wouldn't expect any sort of large-scale treachery, although if the government tries the whole internment camp thing again and rounds up some Koreans by mistake there will be federal casualties.

Indians on the other hand are both more politically astute (compare Nikki Haley or Vivek Ramaswamy to Andrew Yang as presidential candidates) and have multiple overlapping factors holding back complete assimilation i.e. stronger religious traditions (especially for Muslims that demand conversion upon marriage), a tradition of arranged marriages that seems to be making a resurgence among sexually frustrated zoomers, and a larger population reservoir to draw new immigrants from. In that sense Indians are much more like Jews and will likely persist as a distinct and politically salient population for far longer than any East Asian group.

We certainly hear a lot more about the USS Liberty than we do about that time the British bombed the French fleet after their surrender to Germany, killing over a thousand sailors, or the many times commercial airliners have been shot down, among other such incidents. What sort of conversation do you think we should be having? Should we break our alliance with Israel because they killed 34 of our sailors? We're allies with Germany and Japan after all, and they've killed about 10,000 times more Americans than that.

I think this sort of argument almost always becomes a debate over what exactly the terms "strong men," "good times," etc. mean, but I wanted to bring up one of the better meditations I've read on the topic that agrees with your perspective, namely Bred Devereaux's four part series of posts on what he calls the "Fremen Mirage."

Personally, I'm a bit closer to Ibn Khaldun, in that I've observed degeneration at all scales of biology as soon as selective pressure is released, from yeast in a test tube losing whatever useful (to us) gene you try to insert in them whenever it stops being necessary to survive, to 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants losing the work ethic and conscientiousness that their parents or grandparents honed while toiling away to escape grinding poverty in Asia.

I tend to think of it like a spring that can be coiled and released i.e. all the valuable work comes from the release, not the compression, but it also resets you back to the initial conditions or worse after you let it go. What would be truly great is if we could achieve the advantages of so-called "hard times" or what I call "compression" without actual hardship, whether that's through some sort of mental conditioning, strong enough cultural memes, or direct genetic engineering.

Going off of your point about urbanism, what has always galled me is how much more beautiful European cities and frankly people are compared to their American counterparts, knowing the difference in wealth. Some of the few things Europe has left going for it (in purely material and aesthetic terms, of course people have an attachment to their own culture/language/etc.) are gothic cathedrals and a lack of visible homeless drug adicts or morbidly obese people walking around in public spaces.

It's pathetic that the richest country in human history can't close the gap on these things when you consider how far ahead the US is by any other measure. We could build our own Vienna or Paris if we wanted to, but all we can manage is Las Vegas and Disney World. When it comes to small towns and rural areas, the only place where the manmade environment hasn't depressed me has been New England (crossing from Massachusetts into upstate New York and seeing the contrast in what the small towns look like feels like crossing the iron curtain into some post-industrial wasteland).

On pretty much any other topic I will happily argue against liberals who romanticize Europe, especially when they're immigrants ("If you think Denmark is so much better then why did you choose to move here?"), but I have no counter on this one.

I think the double whammy of deinstitutionalization of mental patients and white flight from cities with their soaring crime rates in the mid-20th century dealt a nearly fatal wound to American urban life. Had only one of these changes occurred, then perhaps city governments could have responded adequately and maintained standards of public order, but at this point the very concept of a city in the American consciousness is thoroughly entangled with crime, homelessness, and filth-ridden streets.

I have been to both Oakland and West Africa (including some of the bad parts) and many neighborhoods in the former are worse. Even in the poorest countries on Earth people keep their homes remarkably clean, as it is a point of dignity and pride for them. Only in America have I seen homeless people asleep on a pile of garbage, with both cops and citizens walking by without giving them a moment's consideration.

These same people take vacations to European or East Asian cities and then wax poetic about the cleanliness of the streets, the beauty of the architecture, and the ease and safety of getting around, as though they exist in some fairytale, instead of being real places built by flesh and blood human beings with less wealth per capita than we have, and whose best practices we are more than capable of emulating.

Among people I know or observe regularly, mostly in college towns and other liberal strongholds, I have definitely seen many adopting this habit of wearing facemasks when they are ill or when it is very cold outside (works better than a scarf in my experience), rather than masking indoors all the time out of some lingering covid paranoia.

Seeing how El Salvador went from being a crime-ridden hellhole to being safer than almost anywhere in America in the span of a few years would seem to invalidate the notion that such measures are impossible. Maybe blue tribe liberals won't be the ones to do it, but their hold on power is not eternal, and they are doing their best to empower nonwhite immigrant groups that have fewer qualms about the methods necessary to clean the place up.

America has never been an ethnostate. If anything it is the literal anti-ethnostate. As far back as 1776, Thomas Paine pointed out that less than a third of Pennsylvanians were of English descent and so any claims of being an English nation were already moot.

The direction has been clear since then: from just Anglos to accepting all Germanic and Celtic peoples to accepting all "Judeo-Christians" and so on. I too have colonial ancestry, but I don’t see how my New England Puritan, New Netherland Dutch, and Palatine German ancestors formed any sort of ethnos. They certainly wouldn't have said so, those of them that even had a language in common to communicate in. Their blood may be mingled in me now, but so is that of subsequent waves of immigration from Europe and Asia. Where do you draw the line?

There is a path towards a single American nation, the same one followed by the Romans from a civic identity that encompassed the whole of the Mediterranean world from Gauls to Numidians to an ethnic one of Greek-speaking Romanoi living in the Eastern Empire after losing most of the Middle East to the Arab invasions.

However, the road to Byzantium is a hard one and involves the loss of prestige and power on the world stage and a retrenchment into more parochial, local concerns. In many ways we are already on it, but it is not the rediscovery of a centuries old white ethnic identity (though depending on the exact demographics it may be framed that way by some) but rather the binding together of those populations that are already here, be they of European, African, Asian, or indigenous descent, and from our perspective it may seem as strange for that new people to claim the mantle of "American" as it would be for Augustus to see some Greek Christian from Anatolia in the 10th century claiming to be "Roman."

If we're not embracing full cultural relativism there must be a line somewhere beyond which certain things are unacceptable even if they are part of some group's culture. Jumping the subway turnstiles in New York or shoplifting in San Francisco are actions that are widespread and largely overlooked and while it would be personally unwise if an individual attempted to stop someone doing those things (in the same way it may have been unwise in this case for the pregnant woman to press the issue of these teenagers camping on the rental bikes), I think society would be better off if instances of antisocial behavior were challenged by citizens when the authorities are unable or unwilling to intervene.