To_Mandalay
1yr ago
I think it's kind of true.
The Nazis, or European reactionaries in general, didn't just randomly pick Jews to hate which admittedly is the impression you get from the most dumbed-down version of pop history, but the Jews did become scapegoats for the sins of modernity. The case against the Jews; they are responsible for social revolution, the dissolution of pre-industrial community and the family, the victory of soulless commerce over blood and soil, atheism and the death of God, so on and on, is false. The Jews were latecomers to the European revolutionary movement, and all of the seeds of later bolshevism which were and are often put down to some inherently 'Jewish' character, were found in the very gentile French Revolution. Modern financial capitalism was likewise pioneered gentiles, as was the initial 17th - 18th century rationalist assault on established religion, etc. Jews did however become very prominent in all of those scenes for a variety of reasons, and therefore became the most obvious target for a violent reaction modernity in general, which is what Nazism and to a lesser extent other fascist movements were. It's like genocidal shadowboxing.
Since you've posted it again, you may recall a couple months ago we had a long and boring argument over Himmler's October speeches which I'm pretty sure lasted like a week. You took the position that when Himmler talks about killing Jews at Sonthofen and Posen, he is referring exclusively to partisans, partisan reprisals, and collateral damage. I said that the clear and sensible interpretation of his speeches is that he is speaking about the physical extermination of the Jews in the German sphere.
Last year CODOH finally published its magnum opus "Holocaust Encyclopedia," which has an entry on Himmler's speeches. I found it pretty interesting that authors, who obviously have every incentive not to, apparently agree with my position, and don't even attempt to argue that Himmler meant anything but the killing of all Jews in Germany's power. They just say that he was...lying. To himself, I guess:
While Himmler’s orders to his subordinates demanded ever-increasing efforts to save the lives of the Jews and to put everyone to productive work, in his speeches he ranted about having killed, by the end of 1943, each and every single Jew in the German sphere of influence his henchmen could lay their hands on. Himmler was a grandiloquent liar! Or perhaps just a typical politician.
(Though it should be noted that, as usual, the CODOH gang is being a little dishonest when they put the claim into Himmler's mouth that "each and every single Jew in the German sphere of influence had been killed" when he doesn't actually say that, and in the excerpt reproduced in this very same entry he clarifies that the Jewish question "will be solved by the end of the year" and that "remainders of odd Jews who managed to find hiding places will be left over.")
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
The Holocaust barely even rated as wartime propaganda. The extermination of eastern European Jews was almost entirely absent from newspapers, films, and broadcasts in the Western Allied countries. The bombings of Rotterdam and London and the Lidice Massacre had a vastly greater presence in the minds of the Allied public than Treblinka or Majdanek or even Auschwitz, let alone the Einsatzgruppen shootings. If the Holocaust was spun by "the exact same institutions" to gin up war fever they did a pretty shitty job of it.
as well as reading "Iron Curtain Over America" by Beatty
What exactly in Beatty's book made you think the Holocaust didn't happen? IIRC he barely even talks about this. It's mostly your standard issue Bircher stuff but with the anti-semitism made explicit.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
It might be going viral and become the next forbidden knowledge now that HBD is being digested by the Twitter intelligentsia.
This kinda went the other direction for me, back in the day. I remember watching Ryan "AlternativeHypothesis" Faulk videos in high school and thinking "wow, this guy sure seems smart." Then his more recent and embarrassing foray into WWII made me think "huh maybe his videos were this ridiculous and wrong the whole time and this is a Gell-Mann Amnesia situation."
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
One is constraining what you can think and the other what you can do no?
There are probably thoughts human minds cannot think, though obviously I can't think of any. I don't think it really makes a big difference though. Why would constraining thought be an unacceptable restriction on free will but not constraining action? When it comes to human government, thought-control is considered especially bad (hence Orwell), because controlling what someone thinks is impossible for a human dictatorship, so one that even attempts it is proving itself to be insanely megalomaniacal. But for God, who already controls everything, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Imagine for a second that you have no choice but to worship a deity, is that actual worship?
If the Deity had created us such that we would always freely choose to love and worship the Deity, it wouldn't be an impingement on our free will, anymore than the Deity creating us without the ability to teleport is robbing us of our right to "choose" not to teleport.
Walt's videos were big in 2016, to the point they were even referenced in left-wing countermemes. I think it would have been hard for someone around the alt-right "scene" at that time whether on reddit, 4chan, or twitter, not to have at least passing familiarity with his stuff.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
But there was nothing like your typical Muslim “because your congregation is liberalizing I will commit an attack” ideology. That’s novel to Islam. Protestants didn’t blow up a building when someone started teaching girls how to read.
They didn't have suicide belts yet but angry mobs of Catholics/Protestants going around attacking each other and destroying buildings for religious reasons were extremely common during the Wars of Religion.
Catholicism is even more legalistic than Protestantism and it isn't doing much better. So is your argument that Islam is just far enough on the hyper-legalism spectrum that it will manage to endure?
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
It isn't great when for your religoon
At first I thought this was a 'coomer' joke ("aaahhhh im religoooooning!") but on second glance I'm pretty sure it's just a typo.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Because Islam requires knowledge of Arabic and because the required pilgrimage is Mecca, the growth of Islam aids the growth of Arabs in a way that doesn’t apply to Protestant missionaries.
It empirically isn't doing much for the growth of the Arab population right now. Most Muslims are not Arabs.
The center of Protestant Christianity was never an area plagued by religious terrorism, although it has a history of political terrorism, because the center has been a singular church or a collection of hands-off church collectives.
Northwestern Europe was ravage by religious warfare for hundreds of years. A lot of people died over this. At that time, "political" and "religious" was not a very firm distinction.
Protestant Christianity is a faith-based religion that promotes orthodoxy about perhaps one dozen facets of faith
De jure yes, but de facto Protestantism was extremely orthorpraxic. Calvinists insist that good works do not purchase salvation but are instead a product of salvation, but in practice this is a purely semantic distinction. There's a reason 'puritanical' is shorthand for 'rigid scrupulosity.'
There are plainly substantial reasons why what happened to Christianity may not happen to Islam.
It's already happening. Even Saudi Arabia, the financial powerhouse behind the spread of Wahabbism, is liberalizing rapidly. The Iranian mullahs can't even keep their country from periodically exploding into anti-regime protests. MENA fertility rates have more than halved in the past half-century.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Unlike Christianity, there is a confluence of significant factors that lead to Islam retaining strict behavioral and cultural rules. Mosques and scholars are funded by wealthy Arabs who have a monetary, political, and genetic influence in the spread of the religion; imams have children, the more strict the imam the more children, and dynastic imam families are not uncommon; the center of the religion is the Middle East where there is a constant threat of violence if leaders stray far enough from orthodoxy; the practice of excluding women from decision-making means that feminine-coded tolerance is sidelined; the religion itself highly emphasizes the following of strict tradition and punishments for “innovation”.
This all describes Christianity a couple centuries ago. How did that turn out?
Ethiopia did have a pre-colonial writing system, but Europe didn't independently invent writing either so this isn't really a win for whites. Even Amerindians have Europeans beat on the "invent written language" score. Europeans did probably invent the wheel, though it was invented only one time (not counting its invention in the Americas; score another for the Maya), and spread from there. I don't know where the idea that it's some super basic, easy "bare minimum" invention came from, to the point that "they didn't even have the wheel!" is a ubiquitous dunk on blacks from your crowd.
Not sure about two story houses.
EDIT: Here's a meme I've seen thrown around pretty regularly which implies that pre-colonialism, blacks didn't have roads, farms, or houses so it seems like somebody on your side thinks SSA was stone age prior to European contact.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
The "genetic pacification" hypothesis is such an article of faith among HBD-inclined internet RWers, that I expected it to be, if not accepted by the mainstream, at least a niche topic popular with hereditarian autodidacts, a la Ashkenazi IQ or something like that. So I was surprised to find that it appears to be based solely on this single paper, and that this single paper sucks.
The proposition that there was a huge sea-change in public, ecclesiastical, and official attitudes towards the death penalty in the high middle ages is supported by reference to a single work (La peine de mort by Carbasse), and two or three quotes from prominent theologians. Maybe it's true but the authors haven't done a very good job establishing that.
Later the authors acknowledge that A) they don't know how many of these condemned men procreated before their executions, B) they don't know how many were executed for non-violent offenses, C) they don't know how many murderers escaped detection. They just kind of say 'well our model is imperfect' and keep moving. The authors don't even attempt to quantify any of the aforementioned problems, despite the fact that any one could completely collapse the thesis if the numbers were wrong. Maybe the data for quantification doesn't exist, but in that case the authors shouldn't pretend this papers is anything but idle speculation.
The murder rate dropped all over Western Europe over the time period in question, but the 'execution rate' the authors use of 0.5 - 1% of the male population every generation appears to be based solely on England and Flanders. Was it the same in Germany and France, where the homicide rate also dropped precipitously? The Scandinavian countries? Did they even check? Does the data exist?
a comparable proportion [to those executed, died] through extrajudicial executions, i.e., deaths of offenders at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial.
The above appears to be a case of "I made it the fuck up," or at least the authors don't cite anything to back it up. Nevertheless, it's the justification for boosting the 0.5 - 1% of violent men removed per generation to 1 - 2%, which naturally is better for their conclusion.
They also assume that the heritability of violence was the same in the Middle Ages as it is today. I doubt it, though there's no way to know since no one was doing heritability estimates in 1300. But again, this is necessary for their argument to go through.
Then there's this bizarre section
Eisner’s control theory is vulnerable to another line of criticism. In societies of Western European origin since the mid-20th century, external and internal controls on behavior have weakened, while “bad boys” have become more positively portrayed in popular culture. This cultural change seems to have caused a modest rise in violence among young men of European background, but nothing comparable to what existed a millennium ago (Eisner, 2001; Spierenburg, 2008, pp. 3–4). If strong external and internal controls had alone caused the pacification of social relations, what is to prevent a return to the earlier, less peaceful state once they have been relaxed? This prospect is evoked by Muchembled (2008, p. 8) in his history of violence in European societies. It also comes up repeatedly in works of modern fiction from Lord of the Flies to A Clockwork Orange, whose characters revert to barbarism when freed from the restraints of civilization. In reality, this reversion to barbarism has not happened.
The argument seems to be "We think 'bad boys' are cool now, but murder rates haven't exploded! Could this be because the murder genes were bred out of us????" Sure, why not?
All of the above is besides the point, since we have much firmer historical evidence from much more recent times that very high homicide rates among large populations can collapse quickly enough to rule out genetic explanations. The 19th century Mediterranean littoral, in particular, suffered from homicide rates equal to those of the most crime-ridden American cities today. Southern Italy had homicide rates of 30/100k, Corsica about the same, in Greece this was even higher, up to 50-60/100k. Spain had a homicide rate of about 10/100k in the mid-19th century. By the early 1900s, Mediterranean homicide rates had fallen several times over, down to the 1-3/100k range. Anglo-American homicide rates in the American west were also several times higher than those back east, despite the same genetic stock. I don't have the sources on any of these on hand, but I can go find them if anyone wants. The whole idea of 'genetic pacification,' is entirely superfluous, when there is good evidence that environmental factors are sufficient to produce manyfold reductions in murder rates in much shorter periods of time than the entirety of the middle ages.
This kind of stuff is why, despite being too dumb and lazy (for genetic reasons, surely) to understand the dense statistics that underpin much of the HBD cinematic universe*, I'm pretty skeptical of the whole thing.
*This paper being an exception, where it's so bad it's obvious even to me.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
I can't think of any reasonable way to draw the lines which would lump Richard Hanania in with Ben Shapiro or Candace Owens. They're almost polar opposites.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Okay, but it's undeniable (and why would they want to deny it anyway?) that the fitness 'aesthetic' is a very integral part of a certain type of online right-wing politics and fitness influencers/youtubers/etc. tend to lean right.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
It's silly for right-wingers to be like "can you BELIEVE these insane leftists saying fitness is a gateway to the far-right?" when "fitness is a gateway to the far-right" is the whole schtick of guys like BAP, and I say this as someone who lifts weights 3-4 times a week. On that note, I haven't noticed myself turning into any sort of right-winger as I get stronger. But for me it's not a hobby, it's a chore that I do purely out of vanity, not because I enjoy the activity itself at all.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
I meant "left"
I think it's strange that people accuse Hanania of shifting his views to avoid cancellation. His views are still much more extreme and controversial than are acceptable to pretty much anybody left-of-center. In any case, what would the cancellation of Richard Hanania consist of? It's not like he's an actor or a politician or somebody. His public-facing activity consists of posting on twitter. Musk owns twitter now, and you can be a full-on Nazi on there now, let alone whatever Hanania is. The most parsimonious explanation for Hanania's shift is that his views actually changed.
On another note, I wrote the above before actually clicking the link and seeing who this guy was. Now that's a name I've not heard in a long time lmao. I'll never forget his racist cover of "On The Open Road" from A Goofy Movie ("the left are the real racists, to Mexicans they lie/'cause family values cross the Rio Grande! (¡Hola!)/you'll still get on a hate list, let's go to NPI/stop burying your heads into the sand!") 2016 really was a hell of a ride.
Unfortunately Walt was a terrible singer.
EDIT: Also the "Be Prepared" parody where Scar is an Elder of Zion and the hyenas are blacks and browns ("Be prepared for the end of the white man!/Be prepared for his daughters and wealth!")
EDIT 2: now that I've actually read it, extremely funny that the primary impetus for Walt's ceasing to identify as a WN was that he moved to the midwest, and got so annoyed that midwesterners refused to be as based and redpilled as he expected that he decided they were a race of servile undermen.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
Well BAP at least is (23&Me results and everything), Martin tends to get really defensive around the Jews/Israel but yeah RW twitter is generally just a huge welter of "you're jewish" accusations and counteraccusations so I'm not 100%. My favorite is the absolute refusal of a large number of users to accept that self-declared mass immigration advocate and Klaus Schwab enjoyer Richard Hanania could possibly be a gentile.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
I think so, but Groypers call everybody who disagrees with them Jewish, so it's kind of hard to tell sometimes.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
The Jewish RW e-celebs (BAP, russiancosmist, FbF, etc.) also tend to go in the hardest on the hardcore hatred of blacks and browns, presumably to take a little heat off of themselves since they know a huge portion of their audience is Jew-hating wignats.
I can barely think of any women with any capability to be interesting.
It doesn't sound like you like women that much beyond wanting to fuck them.
I've always liked hanging out with girls, even (or especially, since it can get weird otherwise) ones I'm not sexually attracted to. I'm not really bothered by the dearth of female CEOS or substack pundits.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
The men I know who seem to hate women, very obviously genuinely love women--but are angry that they have been denied access to women, by whatever means and for whatever reason.
It's not impossible to hate someone you want to fuck. My experience is that a minority of men do in fact hate women, insofar as they have visceral contempt for the interests, behaviors, habits, and mannerisms of women, and if you zapped these men with a ray that made them gay or asexual they would never interact with another woman again if they could help it. My experience is also that women are much freer with casual "men suck" and "I hate men" talk but women who actually walk the walk and really seem to hate men on a gut level are rarer than the reverse.
To_Mandalay
1yr ago
In what universe was a "combined Anglo-Franco-German force fighting a total war for national survival with the cooperation of all the anticommunist CEE governments" ever going to exist? Where did I even imply that? Of course that's ridiculous! And its' not what I meant.
Because the whole genesis of the question is VinoVeritas belief that Hitler was cool because he fought the bolsheviks, and that without Hitler the Red Army might have marched to the English Channel. But without Hitler causing WWII in the first place, a Soviet invasion of Europe would have faced an Anglo-Franco-German (and everybody else in Europe) alliance, with no aid from the US or anyone else, and been completely screwed.
I know, I read the book a long time ago, but I didn't remember him saying much about the Holocaust, which you just confirmed for me.
There were thousands of US generals during the Second World War. Who cares if six of them signed off on Beatty's book?
Beyond the fact that this meme isn't even true (I don't know where it came from. I think the first time I saw it was in Ron Unz's "American Pravda." Did he make it up?), and Churchill at least does mention the mass killings of millions of Jews, so what?
Most people, even western Jews, did not actually care that much about the misfortunes of Jews in eastern Europe. Not even the Soviets particularly cared. I think most of Curtis Yarvin's stuff is stupid but he's right when he says that Hitler was the only person of note during the war itself who actually thought massacring millions of impoverished Polish and Belarusian shtetl Jews was some kind of epic world-historical battle between light and darkness rather than a mostly irrelevant sideshow.
Why? Did you painstakingly go through the works of Churchill, Eisenhower, and De Gaulle, find that every instance of mass death during the Second World War which you agree happened is mentioned in direct proportion to its share of the total 80 million dead, and note a glaring exception in the case of the Jews?
So what are you actually arguing? The Holocaust was made up in the 60s? That isn't even the "steelman" denier position, which acknowledges that the bulk of the evidence emerges during the war itself and soon afterwards, they just find increasingly creative ways to insist it's fake or otherwise doesn't matter.
Have you tried assess the evidence for the Holocaust, whether through reading historical books on the topic or denier literature, or preferably both? Or are you just kind of squinting and going "idk seems made up."
Your brand is "based right wing edgelord who makes leftists mad" so I fully expect that if you ever do get around to reading the Castle Hill, Mattogno, Graf, stuff you will be very eagerly and easily convinced by their arguments, but at least do that before going "Holocaust fake because Churchill didn't mention in this book."
More options
Context Copy link