@Unsaying's banner p

Unsaying

Lord, have mercy.

2 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2023 February 15 19:59:17 UTC

				

User ID: 2188

Unsaying

Lord, have mercy.

2 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2023 February 15 19:59:17 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2188

You might consider that you don't have a very solid grasp on what Christianity is, if that's your definition.

Right, but the point is that anyone at the time who made an HBD argument using that as evidence was laughably wrong.

Strong disagree. What happened here, I think, is that there were several decades of brutal selection in an environment with a much weaker social safety net. Some substantial portion of the 'worst' Irish (etc.) simply failed to reproduce, and the ones left over are, naturally, closer to the Hajnali average. Plus intermarriage.

As for Italians, 'Italian' is not a race and Italy as a nation is a pretty new idea. Northern Italians are white. Southern Italians are something else. And to this day you'll see huge disparities between the two, modulo the same process as befell the Irish above. C.f. the Hajnal Line.

See also, http://www.anechoicmedia.org/blog/european_politics/

In short, it's a good takedown of the default, overconfident narrative of American migrant assimilation. If your idea of 20th century immigration is wretched refuse coming ashore, moving their way up, and merging economically and politically into the uniform White America we know today, that pretty much didn't happen. By most measures, identifiable European ancestries are still differentiated within America, and in ways that parallel their differences in Europe. The story of white America, then, is less one of assimilation, and more of selection bias and attrition.

European races were and are different from each other in important ways, as breeds of dog or any other animal subspecies differ. This extends to all areas of life.

And yes, we can bring in large numbers of high-IQ non-Hajnalis and they will be perfectly capable of keeping their noses clean and contributing productively to society. But do they want to live in the same sort of society we do?

Yes: That's what's necessary for God to be with us, and He loves us enough to do it.

Generally speaking, God's not into smiting people in the OT, though it's often read that way in the West. Mostly what we see is God removing His divine protection and letting people suffer the consequences of turning away. Yes, even the great flood. He pulled back His ordering of the primal chaos and it broke loose. Yes, even the people who get smoked by His presence in the temple. That's just what God's presence does to fallen humans (and also why He protected us by expelling us from Eden). He gives very specific instructions to the effect of "this is how you can live with Me safely" and people reject those and the consequences are what you'd expect.

Happens also with Ananias and wife in Acts.

What you want is a priest.

Are they smart-but-passive rule followers, or smart-but-sociopathic rule breakers?

Just winging an answer here, but I think the idea is that when it comes to personal gain they don't feel guilt and will ruthlessly defect against norms to get what they want. If caught, they will feel shame, which is distinct. C.f. the staggering rates of academic misconduct right down to cheating in university, which afaict is much more a Han problem than anyone else's.

OTOH, when it comes to official dogma, they don't seem interested in questioning it much at all. Much more conformist. This is a difference on average and there will be exceptions. But, they're two different things. Conflating both with 'rule following' is the problem here.

Scandinavians seem the same way re: conformity. It's interesting to wonder why and how. Again, the off-the-cuff supposition would be that Scandis are that way because they evolved in high-trust societies with low corruption and could generally benefit from believing the authorities, who were generally correct and benevolent. Whereas the Han evolved in a low-trust environment where people questioning authority tended to have their families exterminated to several degrees. Point deer make horse. Not questioning authority is beneficial either way, but for very different reasons, and so will play out differently.

To do the thing, He set up the rules to require Him to do?

Not following, here.

You don't get to be the omnipotent, omniscient creator God, then also want kudos for solving some problem you created. The sacrifice of Jesus is only required because God wanted it to be so.

Yes, that's what I just said. He wanted to be with us that badly. If He hadn't, He'd presumably have just not bothered with us or gone through that.

Still not sure what else you're implying. If God wants to marry us, which is rather what this whole thing is about, He wants a bride capable of choosing Him. That also means that we're capable of choosing to reject Him, hence everything else that happens.

Maybe you're suggesting that God could simply have created us capable of choosing Him and also incapable? If so I think your notion of 'omnipotence' is broken.

Everyone has geography and everything that's ever happened is historical happenstance.

You're right, it's absolutely fascinating that baseball was ever popular anywhere.

As a theistic person, your post reads to me thus:

I am asexual. I cannot comprehend how sexual people like the way they are and I regard it as a sickness rather than recognizing myself as the one who is sick. If I can, I will fix the flaw in human beings which causes them to desire romance with each other. That is disgusting and it is clear to me that so much unnecessary pain could simply be avoided. I know so much better.

What I'm saying here isn't an argument. It's an apology. Best wishes to you.

What help is there to ameliorate the invincible globalist elites being out to get me?

Same help there's always been. God. All you're doing right now is surrendering to the very real demonic forces which have successfully convinced you that not only are you helpless, but there's not even a fight worth fighting. Maybe question those assumptions.

Go to church, make yourself a worthy husband, and raise a solid family that will carry worthwhile values into the next generation. It's about the hardest thing there is to do, but also the worthiest.

And if you're not called to family, then there's about a million and one other things worth doing as well, and many communities of people who will be happy to support you in the work.

Yeah, no, the presumption of good faith is gone here. You do not have the attitude of someone interested in learning and I won't be snookered into wasting more time on you.

Sure, it's better to be alive now in the first world than at any previous point in time. Our material well-being is historically pretty maximal, though we may have peaked just about now.

This is a popular talking point and even Jordan Peterson capitulated on this when he was murdering those Swedes, but I have my doubts. The worthiness of human existence is not defined by material comfort, and I suspect that many a man exists in these benighted latter days who would have been much happier in an era of shitty rights, worse food, and a faithful and stalwart wife who would bear him many children. Your mileage may vary but I know which I would choose, were I not blesséd enough to have both.

Re: Germanity, what can I say but F. I doubt very much if that race can be reconstituted but if I have the opportunity and no greater obligation I surely will accomplish this thing.

This is smuggie-tier material. You're not using 'omnipotence' to mean anything like what we do when we use the word, and I suspect you have very little idea of the context regarding the matter.

So what we're left is,

"Oh, your story makes sense internally? Well let me just motivatedly redefine terms until it doesn't. Wow, you look so dumb now."

Do what you want, I guess, but if you'd like to know what we actually think and why your criticism doesn't seem even remotely applicable, I'll be happy to tell you.

Wait, like, at the same time?

You know, a third way would be to simply eliminate the malformed. Not endorsing that but I don't see why it wouldn't work. Societies have been practicing some form or another of this basically forever.

To be clear the question was rhetorical. Of course an outsider can see things an insider cannot, but so vice versa.

What can I tell you of Germans? I have only recently discovered that I am not one. Yet I feel a great affinity for what that people, begging your pardon, had been.

You tell me - how would you go about restoring an entire nation that's almost a century into its own dismantling, dilution and degradation?

Christ.

Here is the problem with advocating censorship of "bad" ideas: If it is permissible make rules about what ideas can be expressed, then someone has to make those rules. And who will that be, people with power, or people without power. Obviously the former.

I don't see why that's a problem, though I can certainly see why it would seem problematic to people with certain assumptions.

If Christians typically went out and executed people for mocking Christ, that would indicate that Christianity is dead.

No idea, but I bet it would be interesting to break that down by the net worth of the people involved. I suspect that maybe only about ten percent of men getting divorced are worth shearing, as it were. I do know that divorce is often initiated (by the woman) upon a man losing his job or suffering some other substantial curtailment in his earning potential.

Then again, I'd expect high-earning men to also have good legal teams and/or hidden assets, so, who can say, really? Maybe a wife who can afford her own good legal team and competently prosecute a divorce is also more interested in getting her slice of assets than hounding him for alimony, as she'll more often have her own solid income.

Is there protocol for that? Is he even eligible at that point? Does he reign from prison? Is he released? Can he release himself? Seems like I should know these things.

for height, I couldn’t think of another cultural mechanism

Lifestyle factors resulting in premature age-related shrinking maybe? Like spending more or less time on one's feet. This is fun.

I'm excited to see you pointed in this direction and greatly anticipate whatever you come up with next.

I think about that story a lot. That and Baxter's Mayflower II.

I'd like to hear more. So far in my experience when people say that they're just talking about game theory.