coffee_enjoyer
☕️
No bio...
User ID: 541
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
6hr ago
Roman religion was centered around vows to gods, however; obligational relationships which mirrored the Roman culture of patronage. Hence the gods were feared
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
11hr ago
I had picked up Zweig’s Beware of Pity a long time ago, actually seeing it on a hotel table in Germany, but it lost my attention. I liked his Chess Story though.
how savage war makes men
I felt this way reading about Napoleon recently. Half a million involved in the battle of Leipzig? And how much did Napoleon actually aid France at the end of the day? It’s a comical loss of life. And the amount of rape was surprising too. I actually wonder if his aggressive campaigning wasn’t halfways motivated by rape alone, with the other half mostly novelty-seeking. Like why the fuck did you invade Egypt?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
12hr ago
I would figure the newest one will be more fun than the older ones, even if older ones have reprising aesthetic features. Nostalgia may make one recommend a Morrowind over a Skyrim, but “fun and nothing demanding” would probably be latest installment.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4d ago
I would wager that the point of this story is to shame Australian men in such a way that they fear male camaraderie. The story creates a fearful negative association with male solidarity, as when men get together they often discuss women. If men in a Western country decided to form male-only groups, this poses a problem to feminism — which then poses a problem to globalism and progressivism. The act of men getting together to judge women would greatly reduce feminism, promiscuity, all sorts of things, which may be seen as problematic.
Anyway, if Australia wanted to tackle gender violence, they need to do something about their aboriginal problem, because they are “32x more likely to be hospitalized due to family violence”. Next they would want to study their Somalian population, and possibly reduce all migration from that country. After that, eliminating alcohol culture would be the best big step.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4d ago
We ought to interpret “unrapeable” more charitably as “even a driven (evil/damned) rapist would pass up the opportunity because of how ugly she is”. There is no indication that the boys have formed some some crypto-pro-rapist organization which hides their aspirations by including the word “unrapeable”. That is too uncharitable to consider. It’s like, if I say I wouldn’t eat your cooking even if I’m starving, I am not making a positive value claim about the state of being starved.
The best and most cost-efficient way to reduce recividism rates is to incentivize the playing of an RPG game and to make various rewards contingent upon its progression, even going so far as to pay the prisoner per progression
An RPG game is uniquely capable of changing the character and knowledge of a criminal because it contains elements of movies, novels, art, and social life, while requiring participation with leads to forced identification with the story. RPG gameplay can make criminals hate crime: stories involving the risks and stupidity of committing crime, stories involving guilt and shame at criminality, having a criminal villain character come in and “steal” the character’s progress, etc etc. RPGs are particularly good at memory formation because of their variety of locations and characters and cues. Real life skills can be mirrored in the game (eg applying to jobs, paying child support), as can emotional regulation strategies. Lastly, this solves the problem of criminals socializing with other criminals within a social hierarchy where the hardest criminal sits up top (literally the worst thought out punishment for criminals lmao). More of a criminal’s free time will go into the game, and prisons can also separate criminal cohorts by progression in the game.
Just imagine: you are Joe the prisoner, you are bored, you are told you can get paid to play a game. You start up the game and your character is Joe and looks just like you. The game traps your attention at first without any indication that it is about morality. But over time the storyline gets more and more moral. Suddenly you are playing as “Joe the reformed prisoner” who is starting a new life in some kind of Fable/Stardew/FF setting (but hyper-moral), all the while growing in wisdom and practical skillset, while every so often the game purposefully makes you afraid of committing crime.
What if white people would have retained their tribalism in the absence of Jewish anthropologists and social scientists who promoted the elimination of white identity? Would this change things?
Conversion to Judaism in Christian white spaces is starting to become a small thing
A singular former Goldman Sachs analyst converts to Judaism and this is supposed to be a “thing” among white people? I don’t think so. What does Shia LaBeouf tell us, who has a much larger cultural influence?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
9d ago
Connotation plays a big role here. “Stuck in a forest with a man” is a phrase that has horror movie connotations, and isn’t going to be analyzed in some dispassionate objective meticulous way (the median forest of median size, with the median man, some random distance away). That’s just not how humans will interpret questions on the fly. The question begs to be understood in terms of conflict: why else would you be stuck? Why else would man be compared to bear? The question would be a lot different if it was: “[points to a random man] would you rather be 200ft from that man in a forest, or 200ft from a bear?” Women also do not want to signal that they are interested in strange men, but they do want to signal that they like animals, which is feminine-coded in America.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
5d ago
The far right has little knowledge of how ultra orthodox communities operate, which is a shame because it’s the perfect discursive weapon: either you must defend the orthodox practices (and then approve of similar white aspirations), or you must criticize them (and then ask, “how did they steal one billion dollars in public funds and not be prosecuted”)? It is a win-win discursive tool.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
5d ago
Right, but — if you are a critic of Fuentes(?) — you now have to argue that his doing that is bad, while asserting it is okay for Hasidim to do it in the middle of Manhattan; and you have to argue the latter while Fuentes cites stories about billion-dollar tax evasion, discrimination, whatever. Or, if Fuentes doing it is bad and Hasidim doing it is bad, Fuentes can press on why you and other ostensible progressive organizations do not seem to care about their enclave or crime. I’m just saying that it’s surprising the far right hasn’t latched onto this discussion point.
I don’t see these events as anything but (1) a textbook example of college student protests and (2) a frightening display of Jewish social and cultural power.
The students believe that Israel is killing too many innocent people. Lots of intelligent people believe that; whether or not it is factually the case, it is a rational belief that many reasonable people hold, including many Jews. Even Chuck Schumer of all people has the opinion that Israel is behaving immorally. The students want their universities to cut financial and academic ties with Israel. All very simple, all very traditional, and very reasonable as far as college kids go. No different than protests against the Vietnam War or South Africa or the Iraq War. The protests have been exceptionally peaceful; if BLM was “mostly peaceful”, PLM is utopian. Try as I might, I could find no clear case of a Jewish student being physically victimized. Most of the arguably anti-Semitic comments have come from outside the campuses, by random non-affiliated protests, one-off statements that do not tell us anything about the college protestors. There’s your typical extremism college student view, but this is normal as far as college students go.
What makes this event so unique IMO is how Jews have finessed the narrative in their favor. Despite no evidence of any physical attack, the most over-represented ethnicity on college campuses (with the most advocacy groups and the most political clout) claim to feel “unsafe”. The media reports this as if it is true, and now the narrative is no longer “is Israel committing human rights violations?”, but “are Jews safe?”. In a reasonable world, the discourse would center on whether Israel is or is not committing human rights violations, and why some of the smartest students in America strongly feel they they are. A secondary question may be whether Jews in America are too close to Israel in terms of political ties, because that’s a serious problem if Israel becomes a pariah state. But Jews have strategically shifted the narrative to their own victimhood, with zero evidence. They have influenced politicians to make statements and start inquiries. They have significant sway over MSM narrative. They threaten to take tens of millions of their donations away from universities who don’t prevent the protests.
I found a video from earlier this week that illustrates the power of victim politics. An immigrant Uber driver arrives to his requested client, but can’t fulfill the request because the client accidentally ordered the wrong car. A verbal altercation ensues; phones are equipped by both parties. The client brags about his status as a lawyer, threatens to get the driver fired, claims he is being aggressed, claims the driver has threatened his children, and when all of these fail to exert his power, he claims that the driver muttered antisemitism under his breath. This last accusations makes the driver flee immediately.
The internet is saying that the client is a big shot music industry lawyer. If the internet is right, the client was on the board of directors of UJA, a Jewish charity that oversees more than one billion dollars in endowment (one of the largest local charities in the world). The man is from a pedigreed family: his Dad once ran Columbia Records. Without any shame, he punches down to a poor immigrant rideshare driver and falsely accuses him of antisemitism to record him and get him fired. And not for anything serious, but because of a minor inconvenience. If this is the attitude of someone on the board of UJA, then I think it could hint to a larger, dangerous attitude in the Jewish-Zionist community: that it is permissible to weaponize victimhood for personal or communal gain.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3d ago
This is an interesting question. On one hand, were I tyrannical dictator of the universe I would ban all spectator sports, so I don’t think the playoff game is important. On the other hand, what is very important is that a man fulfill his responsibilities to his friends and supporters. So while the game itself is insignificant, the social relations on top of it are maximally significant. So the player would be in the wrong if these social relations are more important than being at the birth of your child. And now the final layer of complexity: is it actually important for a man to be in the hospital room while his wife gives birth, and is this contingent upon the significance of one’s social obligations? To the first question, history says men usually were not present during the birth of their child, except for elite families. To the second, I think yes — when more people are relying on your husband, this means a lessened or eliminated obligation to be present during childbirth. Lastly, there’s the unique situation here where the NBA player’s entire livelihood relies on playing the game, and this livelihood allows the wife and child to live amazing lives, so I think it would be wrong for the wife to complain.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
16d ago
Men fighting and women not fighting makes sense when the social role of women is to provide abundant healthy offspring for your culture. If the women are instead opting out of making babies, moving to other countries, and not possessing in-group preference, there is no longer any moral reason to allow them to abstain from fighting. Ukraine should institute an immediate draft where women who are not pregnant or rearing children are drafted into the frontlines, and women who are raising a soldier’s child get a stipend.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
5d ago
Fuentes is entertaining, funny at times, and has a social media army of teenagers. This can be influential in the same way that the 4chan --> Elon Musk pipeline was influential. Charisma is important (why Musk’s persona is more influential than Zuckerberg’s, why Trump won the presidency). Jared Taylor is too old and outside the current memeplex to affect culture now; maybe he is the most well-spoken person on the far right, but being well-spoken doesn’t really do much. Remember how influential Jon Stewart was? Stephen Colbert? These were dumb personas that made jokes but IMO were vastly more influential than their knowledge or raw intelligence should allow. Fuentes has 10 more years of being a “youth influence” (going by Asmongold’s age) and putting him back on Twitter is a way to grow his audience.
I disagree that Tucker is 10x more influential. IMO Tucker is more like 50x more influential.
I can’t help but feel that Elon purposefully drew attention to Fuentes, by posting multiple replies about him. Yeah, he can say “well akshually I’m philosemitic”, and maybe he is, but by his actions he is making hundreds of thousands check him out. I also find the Andrew/Tristan Tate interactions notable; it’s hard to overstate how influential Andrew Tate is for, like, 9-16yo boys of diverse backgrounds. Tate essentially stamping approval on Nick Fuentes is a strange phenomenon which is leading impressionable young boys to his influence. It’s also pretty funny how the ADL has negligible public support: The ADL’s tweet about Nick Fuentes and Nick Fuentes’ first tweet had the same views for a time, but Fuentes had 80x the likes (adjusted for his persona non grata status among normies, maybe 120x the likes?). The ADL is the arm of wealthy donors — it has no backers among the common folk.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
9d ago
Football has for decades been a way to stave off unrest. First, the sport attracts the attention of violent men without impressive economic prospects, as the sport itself is visibly violent and masculine. It is the closest similitude to war (armor, helmets, commands, clashes). It gives these men a castrated, impotent tribal identity in the form of regional teams, which are corporations motivated by capital without any serious tie to a region or interest. The men wear the insignia and colors of their favorite team and recite the assigned warcries. This establishes the attention of the cohort who are at most risk of unrest. Now that they have your attention, they push domestication propaganda in the form of rituals (national anthems, even the new “black” national anthem) and spectacles (ads, half time shows). After a Super Bowl there are occasional riots, but this is like when the waters of a flooded dam are redirected so as to keep the integrity of the dam — the Super Bowl brought tens of thousands of the most passionate fans, and not all of them will have their masculine energy siphoned off completely; they are allowed to expend the rest of their energy in a controlled way.
You might think, “but what about the kneeling for the flag controversy? Didn’t this create more controversy rather then unity?” No, this acted as a marketing campaign to give football more attention in the at-risk cohorts (black nationalists and MAGA guys). Both of them are now tuning in to football news, maybe they watch and want the kneeler to lose, maybe the opposite. Were they to ignore that controversy, they would not be capturing the full cohort they want and neither would they be accomplishing the sublimation ritual. Adding gambling to football culture was another way to do this (while producing an enormous profit), because gambling was already in video games but you want attention given to football as well. I think this is also why the “Sketch” streamer is being astroturfed. This is where Travis and cowboys and TSwift come in. They code right, they bring in more viewers.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
13d ago
Wealthy Jewish donors are uniquely driven to withhold donations based on this combined ethnic, religious, and political interest (Israel + the Jewish people). No gentile donors are as motivated toward any issue because they lack this level of tribalism. Imagine if Bill Gates was concerned about the low number of white admits, or withdrew donations because of white identity politics, or etc. This is a prisoner’s dilemma problem, or even example of Popper’s paradox of tolerance. There is one group of Americans who have a maximal focus on their tribe; all other groups are pressured to focus on helping Americans generally. If only one group is hyper-focused on the Israel issue, then they effectively get to decide the mainstream narrative. Non-Jews either have to be okay with a perpetual Jewish “decisive vote” on matters regarding the Middle East and the anti-semitism topic, or they have to rebuke this level of tribalism.
Abbott
One his largest single donors is Jewish, Jeff Yass, who made the largest single donation in Texas history. Yass is also a big supporter of Israel and Zionism. Another big donor is Ken Fischer. There are other wealthy Jewish philanthropists in Texas who he may want donations from, like Michael Dell. If these donors are single-issue donors, then Abbott knows he can get millions by taking a hard stance on the protests. Evangelical interests need not factor in.
I mostly agree with them, but what do they expect to be different about today than in 2014-2016? Trump ran on combatting illegal immigration with tremendous passion; nothing happened. We can try the same thing next time, but I doubt anything will happen. “45 percent of Hispanics support deportation” means that the more Hispanics you import the harder deportation gets. I imagine that as Indian Americans ascend as a political force, they will push for greater Indian migration like in Canada.
It just strikes me as an ineffectual hope that there is ever going to be a change in immigration policy. Maybe a national boycott of companies that donate / are complicit in replace migration would be more helpful? That is at least halfways feasible.
edit another thought: in order to create an energetic political culture which can actually expand, regenerate, and effectively complete its goals re: immigration or something else, you need the kind of political culture that thrived in the 19th and early 20th century in America. Politics was intwined with drinking, music, dancing, fashion, brotherhoods, art, unique magazines, and so on — they weren’t a spectator sport, they made up most of your social identity. When I try to imagine a conservative youth movement that forms a brotherhood, shouts political chants, meets for drinks and dancing, and wear the same attire… the media will go 100 on declaring this fascism. Any viable and energetic conservative political expression is fascism, literal Hitlerism. See how they hate VDare and their castle when it’s mostly innocent old men? University clubs and the infrequent conference is not enough culture to create the political culture necessary to curb illegal immigration.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
5d ago
I think the argument would fail in this case, because there is clearly no greater evidence of power than the ability to steal billions for your group and go unpunished — indeed to have your reputation unstained. Only the most propagandized progressive would fall back to the “powerful tautology”, if you will — so about 5% of them.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
7d ago
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
11d ago
The only realistic move is to organize into a tight religious in-group, because: religion is the best way to train the young’s’ spiritual/mental immune system against political propaganda, religion is the best way to transmit cultural/philosophical concerns, and (most of all) America offers strong religious protections which would allow you to live sequestered away from normal life in America. Note that (while I think Western Christianity is the best) your religion need not be fantastical or even really theistic. Unitarian Universalism for instance is simply the progressive worldview codified into religious dogma and adorned in tax protections. There’s nothing stopping a conservative from establishing a religion that believes in Spinoza’s God, believes that the Western classics were divinely inspired, or even believes that certain developed populations are God’s chosen people. Now your community’s resources can be pooled together without taxes, you can establish schools with a religious and conduct requirement, etc
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
4d ago
Hasidim and Chabad have alliances with non-Orthodox Jewish groups and leaders. Some non-orthodox Jewish billionaires will help fund Hasidim or Chabad organizations. ADL and other Jewish advocacy groups never touch the Haredi issue. Chabad also has close ties with the Israeli state (Mossad finds them to be a key ally), and thus the secular Jews who promote Israel politically. Secular Jews may want some of the Haredim to become more secular, but by and large they are allied politically, culturally, and religiously with them, and do zero to combat their corruption. Meanwhile, Chabad houses are becoming the center of religious life for non-orthodox Jews in America.
secular Jews at the forefront of anti-Haredi policies
This statement is the oppose of evidenced. They were nowhere to be found when Kiryas Joel, Ramapo, or Monroe were dealing with issues of Hasidim. The campaigning, journalism, and documentaries were almost exclusively driven by white Christians.
secular Jews said and did very little when eg. black people were attacking the black hats
That’s again not true. Their secular advocacy groups made it a national news story. There were statements made by every politician. Their politicians secured them more security grants. They have a constant security presence outside. Task forces on antisemitism were made. The attacks entailed a younger black pedestrian punching one out of nowhere — this literally can’t be “policed”. They policed it maximally by actually releasing footage and dedicating police units to the area.
Recently they’ve accused secular Jews of coming after the ultra-Orthodox by targeting the landlords/slumlords who finance a lot of the community.
Okay, so are you referring to the slumlords that have gotten away with corruption / discrimination so far? What helped them get away with it for so long?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
11d ago
The “young” Right re-learned the importance of religion for survival only recently, I’d argue, around the time of the Benedict Plan in 2017. And public thinkers like Jordan Peterson only recently brought serious arguments for religion to the public, in a way that can satisfy the more “rational” conservative cohort who would otherwise be stuck on Nietzsche and new atheism. So it’s not surprising you haven’t seen this development immediately.
I don’t get your point about the Satanic Temple. Satanism is not a culture, it’s pretty much only an aesthetic, so it lacks the motive to utilize tax exemption for the purpose of maintaining a culture. If I were to bet, practicing “Satanists” are usually anti-natalists who think that their cultural heritage sucks. I similarly don’t get your point about the Amish; they were established at a time when no one policed how you established towns and schools… when there was no mass media… they just plopped themselves in Ohio and created, effectively, a micro-nation because they could… and there were few taxes then. So you’re comparing apples to orangutans here, in that there is genuinely no comparison to be made.
your solution to almost any issue is more dakka religion
Approximately, yes. More accurately, it’s “hierarchical organized communities which use stories and rituals and social competition to guide human behavior, whose leaders are chosen by virtuous conduct and who are prevented from having any material bias of self-gain eg accumulating wealth or women.” This just so happens to be religious in nature due to quirks of the flesh human nature. It’s hard to look at the demise of South Korea, the resilience of the Pashtuns, the birth rates of the Abrahamic Orthodox, the beauty of renaissance art, the economic waste of consumerist sexual competition, and the quasi-religious attitudes of political radicals and not come to the conclusion that what we need is Optimized Religion(s).
“The protestors” don’t wave a Hamas flag, any more than “the Israeli protestors” call everyone protesting a Hamas terrorist (see: Shai Davidai). Some instances (almost always of non-affiliated / non-students outside of campus grounds) do not allow you to impugn a whole protest movement.
Hunter-Gatherers and Play
More options
Context Copy link