From a Malaysian, currently living in Australia: I usually don't really think about Canada all too much since pretty little of what it does affects me. I have been over there, and kind of have to agree with @OliveTapenade in that I think of it as being like a less belligerent and less polarised US with more legacy allegiance to Britain, with the (sort of hilarious) quirk that the nation's self-conception is largely defined around not being the US despite sharing a very large number of cultural characteristics with their more powerful neighbour. Perhaps the differences may seem large if all you know is the North American cultural sphere, but to the rest of the world the distinction is not that clear. Canada is really just not all that distinctive internationally nor is it that prominent when it comes to foreign affairs.
I think this is the general identity crisis in the whole Commonwealth ruled by the king including Australia and New Zealand. As the British Empire collapsed, so did the overall identity of these countries as having the "civilizing mission" where it was their burden to uplift the world in line with projects such as ending slavery, saving artifacts in Imperial museums, spreading literacy etc. What they came up with was alignment with post WW2 liberal consensus of building multicultural societies, while other countries of commonwealth such as those in Caribbean took upon the identity as anticolonial crusaders.
Now as the mutliculturalism collapses, there is new profound identity crisis. So what is left is pretending to be more sophisticated opposition toward uncouth Americans - this is by the way also the identity of many EU nations as they also see their mutlicutural projects collapsing together with prestige be it economic, scientific, diplomatic or technological.
The whole dynamics reminds me actually of late Austrian empire and its identity as opposition toward militaristic unsophisticated Piefke "Reichsdeutschen" Germans, while at the same time being jealous of German economic dynamism and rise to power. The comparison is uncanny right down to failure of multicultural project as ethnic tensions increased down to bureaucratic paralysis and anemic economy and science as well as tension being supposedly culturally superior while relying on supposedly civilizationally inferior power for protection and growth.
georgioz
23hr ago
While I agree, there is something interesting going on. Euthanasia is similar to surrogacy. It just silently became a thing and it was barely discussed. When I opened this topic with my friends, there were quite some differences ranging from this is legalized human trafficking and slavery to nothingburger and hugely beneficial thing. These were opinions of husband and wife and it also surprised them how their view differed on this under the hood change of reality.
Things like these are pushed and normalized constantly, it is akin to gish-galop of policies and regulations many just pass bellow the radar only to pop-up when they actually cause massive problems. Sometimes these things silently work the other way around, for instance how introduction of body cams for US police officers basically demolished the argument of excess policing. These videos basically replaced Law&Order TV shows and reality shows in one.
There are numerous pre-Christian religions/theologies, that developed outside if Christianity (e.g. in Americas) that share the Original/Ancestral sin framework. For that, the main two attributes of the original sin is as follows:
- The world was created as good but it has fallen.
- The human is born broken, he is prone to sin and evil and his duty is to navigate this fact.
Here, Buddhism is a direct comparison. The universe is orderly and good, while human is born broken often ridden with karmic debt. The Pythagoreans had similar concepts as do Hindus with doctrine of Ṛṇa or Popol Vuh of Mayans. Of course there are quite an important details that completely subvert the Christian story, but so does Progressive religion.
Progressives believe in subverted story of original sin - individuals are born as perfect innocent tabula rasa individuals, it is the world that is evil and poisons them through systems of oppression into various sins such as racism etc. You have to become woke to these sinful poisonous systems out there, and do the work to perfect yourself and the world in order to build eschatological progressive heaven on Earth in form of ultimate Social Justice, thus liberating future perfect newborn beings from these negative influences. Progressive hamartiology has more overlap with let's say Gnostic view of Original Sin as opposed to mainstream Christianity - and it is not a coincidence.
georgioz
1d ago
I'd like Christians to stop pretending Wokeism is not their child and not following similar behavioral patterns as it's memetic ancestors.
I do not think anybody is pretending, for instance I as a Catholic can say that traditional Satanists who believe in existence of demonic entity of Satan are "children of Christianity" in a very narrow sense that they probably could not exist without Christianity and its system. I can even accept Wokeism as a religion that subverts Christianity - heck, they literally celebrate the most heinous mortal sin of Pride connected to sexual depravity. Many Christians see it as a work of The Enemy and indirect proof of their own faith.
I know many people on the right like to categorize Wokeism as a theological/religious movement but then they immediately balk when you ask what base theology did Wokeism form from.
I will not balk, it is a Hegelian "religion", same as OG Marxism etc, which in turn was informed by other religions and traditions such as Christianity, Hermeticism, enlightenment philosophy etc. They developed their own philosophical system answering question for instance of ontology (what is a man), sociology (how should society organize itself) etc. And they do not even deny it, they have a process for it inside their own religious tradition - Hegelian dialectic. Just one example, the concept of abolish has Hegelian roots, it is the concept of aufheben - it is to resolve the contradiction by dissolving it in higher truth.
There are many such words, even the word oppression is based on Hegelian Master-Slave (or more precise Lordship-Bondage) framework developed in his Phenomenology of Spirit way back in 1807. It is interesting because to explain this concept, Hegel framed it as clash of Will where the weaker will submits to the stronger one, thus forging the relationship. He introduced a new form of social and historical will as result of clash for power, which is quite distinct to let's say Augustinian concept of free will as a gift from God. There are stark differences in theology of philosophical systems that borrow from different traditions.
The same for words like alienation or consciousness in a sense of let's say class consciousness or false consciousness. These are religiously supercharged terms, talking about false consciousness requires you to accept the whole baggage in this religious system and its theology, it is completely different meaning from regular usage of let's say falling unconscious after hitting your head.
Just for instance look at the topic of "human rights". What are they, how they come to be, who has authority to arbitrate between them in terms of hierarchy, how do we amend or cancel them. These are all highly metaphysical questions for which there is no simple answer.
The very fact that they refuse to categorize it as religion is part of the culture war, they want to posit their religious dogma and doctrine informing how law and morality is enforced as some "universal" system outside of any critique. They presuppose that their religion is correct and invite you to only discuss the issue on their own terms.
georgioz
1d ago
Well, modern Christian statements about love seem “extremely false and feigned”. There’s not a lot of love in churches. There’s more love at a Juggalo gathering or a Grateful Dead parking lot. That is my read on it, at least.
That is true, however I do not think that church is the best place to create brotherly bonds. At least men create them shoulder-to-shoulder, doing specific activities and not just visiting church during mass. At the end of each mass priest invites people to various activities from pilgrimages, charity events, outdoor masses with live music and anything in between. This is where you have to step up. Or you can even join international fraternities such as Knights of Columbus.
Sure, I do not even deny it, the point being that it is not some conscious choice, but slow changing of culture. For instance silent generation grew up in schools where crosses, framed ten commandments or morning prayers were the norm even if not many of them consciously thought of it. Now those are often outright banned by the very same silent generation, but there are progress flags and Earth Day and other such things in schools instead. It is change in culture and ethos.
I like the way James Lindsay explains it in the form of various philosophical systems where theology is the grounding pilar, it is fundamental meta-narrative that determines the ultimate nature of reality, truth, and human purpose. Theology synthetizes other particular philosophies such as cosmology, epistemology, anthropology, sociology, axiology, hamartiology etc. So for instance Christians have God at the center of their theology, this informs epistemology through divine revelation and empirical observation of God's creation, man is created in image of God, Christian virtue ethics is objective morality based on God's commandments. I think he compared it to Marxism which views Man (species being) at the center, epistemology is based on your standpoint in class and other hierarchies providing you with unique insights, nature of man is as social being that is entirely shaped by material conditions etc. These are incompatible philosophical systems.
Using Scott Alexander's language, Culture War is Conflict Theory all the way down especially with such radical differences on basic things like ontology, epistemology or ideas of how society should function. Somebody will be in charge, if not you then somebody else that may have vastly different philosophical system which will seep into culture and ultimately politics. Mistatke theroy is just camouflage, you take the dominant theological/philosophical system as given, an then argue as if progressives and classical liberals or Christian nationalists or Islamists are just mistaken in how their policy proposal will bring about "greater good". But in reality you are just theocrat for your own system and view other competing systems through that prism. Mistake theory is luxury to be indulged for debates inside this philosophical system where people are theologically aligned.
georgioz
2d ago
Sure, the thing is that it is generic modern environmental hazard. Instead of zombies and hostile cannibals it could be local criminals and gals from HR. The structure is completely off and it should be apparent to anybody who reads let's say some war memoires of soldiers or other people in extreme circumstances and how people actually behave.
The Culture War is so toxic because everyone is a theocrat. An old classmate of mine who was ordained and kicked out of the denomination rails to his hundreds of thousands of followers about “CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM!” while preaching the enforcement of his own version of Christian morality with the dog-whistle: "Jesus says love thy neighbor." By which he means state-enforced welfare and socialism.
"Everybody is theocrat" is something that many people only recently realized. Everybody knows that politics is downstream of culture, but culture is downstream of of theology. If it will not be a Christian theology that is going to be informing the culture, then it will be something else. There is no "separation of state and religion", all policies are based on morality and ideology of decision makers. Everybody was culture warrior even before, even if they did not think it was so. They were like fish that were not aware of the water they swim in. Your regular grandma did not read Augustine, she probably could not formulate elaborate theological arguments, but she knew what is a man a woman or what is marriage based on age old culture influenced by specific ethos. Not in her wildest dreams did she imagine that this could ever become a question, nobody was prepared to defend such a basic thing. Not anymore, people are no longer seeped in the same water and we see this interaction real time - at home, at work and also in church.
However there is a huge shift even with your friend. No matter what his supposedly heretic theology is, he can just go out there and say that whatever policy he prefers is purely because Christians like him want it. This claim itself fries brain of many secular people - no, there is no need to couche this argument in some secular language that by itself is seeped in utilitarianism or harm reductionism or some other type of moral philosophy. No, my Christian sect wants this and we want it because it is our moral preference. It is the only justification (in scripture, tradition or whatever) that is fully sufficient for us to pursue this specific policy.
By the way the genie is already out of the bottle even on religious front - even discounting the fact that progressives moved the needle for society to accept their religious doctrine, such as let's say that a man is a woman as state policy. This is however more visible as they embraced Muslims into their coalition. For example schools should have halal food. Not because it is good for environment or that it is cheap or anything like that. Our Muslim voters want it and that is why we will deliver it. It is purely formed by their preference informed by their religion and no other tortured secular justification needs to be done anymore. But this was always so, we only pretended that these utilitarian justifications were morally and theologically neutral, as if history ended and secularists were just independent arbiters in safari full of religious animals. This veneer was already broken, especially by progressives who were able to smuggle increasingly insane moral prescriptions under secularist or "liberal" framework. This only shows that secularists have no better justification for "good" or "bad" policy than any other group, because what is good and bad is subject to moral philosophy and theology. Secular liberalism, intersectional progressivism, Christian socialism, political Islam - it is all just ideologies based on specific moral and theological framework that fight for influence and power.
In contrast Margaret Qualley looks like she’s literally having a seizure.
That's one way to put it. Have Qualley get some weight, give her baseball hat and sweatpants and you get this. But I still thing that Qualley has some je ne sais quoi of craziness at least in my eyes, Raygun is actually funny although unintentionally.
However there is something else going on with Qualley. She is a professional dancer and ballerina, those moves are controlled and the more they look erratic, the more you are drawn into the manipulation, the more you experience the whiplash. It is nowhere near goofy, it is precise and intentional, it is meta level madness here - it looks like random seizure but it is precise and methodical. It is that exact whiplash that may be subconsciously attractive. Like Candance Owens, mother in her late 30ies looking like a girl with perfect skin and delivering slightly threatening rant. It is the juxtaposition that many men find attractive.
georgioz
2d ago
As any healthy man should, but it was a thing for a while. Just peruse the comment section, it became a meme with other reactions.
georgioz
2d ago
But she is so vulnerable, for sure there are many predators who would use this vulnerability to abuse her. Look how innocent and playful and goofy she is, you need to be there for her and protect this rare pixie. Right?
I think this is category error, you see Margaret Qualley as attractive, it is hardly something that Christopher Walken can replicate. My two cents is that while Walken is actually goofy but still somehow dignified, Qualley to me seems actually insane, as if she is in the middle of manic episode of her bipolar disorder. But for some reason many men find that highly attractive. I remember way back when Candance Owens had this popular clip of weird voice and crazy look - and many men watched it in a loop finding it fascinating and attractive.
So maybe you are just into crazy women, you would not be the first one. It is well known I can fix her or Manic Pixie Dream Girl effect.
Sounds like the issue isn’t that the “nagging female companion” trope is too unrealistic, it’s that it’s too realistic of a depiction of many marriages—thus taking the escapism out of it and/or hitting too close to home.
Sure, I guess many of these are just projections of author, including using heroes as mouthpieces for their ideology. There are so many ruined projects. For instance there was Steel Foundations - a 16th century knight from Holy Roman Empire is Isekaied into medieval fantasy world with levels and skills. What an amazing premise. Only the protagonist is not a 16th century knight, but basically your cookie-cutter nerd from San Francisco. He hates religion and he was a secret atheist, he actually hates authorities and he is secretly liberal, he takes shit from girlbosses around him and he is all for women equity. While he is is an atheist who mocks religion he at the same time loves to meditate and treats eastern mystics who know how to brew tea with great reverence and respect. His backstory is there just to make him wear plate armor and Langschwert, otherwise he is just a projection of author.
The same goes for many other things where the social structure is nonsensical. Imagine Walking Dead but dialed to eleven. Yes there is apocalypse, but there is still the same stupid drama as if we are in an episode of Friends with zombies. Rick also dedicates half if not more of his time to just keep bunch of morons in check. He is fighting zombies as much as his stupid wife and other whining morons from his group who complain about lack of toilet paper. It is basically a middle management bad office drama story, cheating wives, stupid kids doing stupid shit but just with zombies. In fact zombies are something like bad weather or environmental hazard, it could as well be a series about bunch of morons being transported to Alaska and slowly dying to diseases by eating berries or going to hug bears just to prove that Rick is incorrect. In fact it is completely good parallel with katana wielding badass diverse character who eventually becomes heroes romantic interest and 50 something abused wife Carrol, who becomes the best tactical genius, sniper and survivalist who single handedly dismantles fortified base of cannibal cultist as some Black Ops genius. But at least they are cooperative and supportive of Rick and his stupid wife died - I would consider it as a rare quality gem in litrpg if Rick had levels. In reality they would also be his wife in one.
She's Basil Exposition, there to conduct the background research and dripfeed the reader useful information that's too tedious for the protagonist to bother with. She provides Harry with some of his cool gadgets. Harry is the one putting his body on the line. Harry is the one who has to systematically lose his parent figures in the process of growing into the leader his people need him to be. Harry is the one who figures out the last pieces of puzzles at the last second when it really counts, and then actually defeats the bad guy.
This is just matter of perspective. In practice, it is Harry who is Basil Exposition for Hermione, especially given the gimmicky nature of how he receives his knowledge. If the story was written from Hermione's perspective, it would be much more interesting. She is out there in the library researching Nicolas Flamel, creating plans and plots only for Harry to casually drop stuff like randomly waking up screaming, speaking to snakes, and seeing visions of Voldemort torturing people - only to obsess about quidditch the next day as if nothing happens, leaving all the work to main protagonist Hermione.
The story would shift toward Hermione managing this Harry moron, who refuses to communicate (e.g. when he refused to talk to Hermione about seeing Grim in Prisoner of Azkaban), who endlessly whines about how bad he has it and, who has some inferiority complex trying to hard to be a hero only to be rescued like damsel in distress by Hermione. You would get your standard YA story where the main protagonist manages his team of moronic sidekicks who more than villains are there to foil his plans. Just think about all the time when Harry talking to Hermione would solve the plot in couple of days instead of whole year.
But Harry isn't just some buffoon protected by main character energy. Set his special chosen one status aside for a second. He may not be a star student, but the books are pretty explicit that this is because he prioritizes the battle against Voldemort over academics.
No, he does not prioritize that. Like I said before, he wallows in his trauma and refuses to communicate. He constantly switches priorities to stupid stuff like quidditch instead of the issue at hand or even communicating with the group. Other than Hermione, it is his chosen plot armor is his main quality.
Harry is also much more well-rounded than Hermione (in the model of the classic English gentleman. Being a broadly successful dilletant is good; being a single-minded striver is gauche).
He never is more well rounded. He is myopic, lack any planning or true talent except of dumb luck. And it even gets worse as Hermione shores up her academic/theoretic leanings by raw experience. If anything, managing Harry in earlier yeas is her training wheels - much as in some story the main hero takes care of his younger sibling or ailing mother.
Also Hermione is much better leader and even possesses better character. Just compare these two scenes: Harry is tortured in Goblet of Fire and he decides to stand and face Voldemort by pure grit and defiance. He casts his stupid expeliarmus - there is nothing else in his bag of tricks - and the nature of predcicament makes it so that he resists Voldemorts curse by pure cosmic coincidence. Second scene: Harry is threatened by crucio torture in Umbridge office. Harrys instinct is stubborn denial. However Hermione keeps her cool, pretends to fold, invents complex story about Dumbledore's secret weapon in the forest thus leading Umbridge into a trap. This was the umpteenth time where Hermione bailed out that moron from deadly situation so that the Voldemort could actually be defeated.
Hermione is as brave as Harry, but she goes about it more intelligently. She is proactive, strategic, she can rely on backup plans. In terms of leadership she is communicative, competent, mature, she has high moral integrity and by the end of the book she is very versatile monster of a witch, true enlightened gentlewoman. Harry is isolated self pitying whiner, inept, prone to distractions like quidditch. His redeeming qualities are his stubbornness - the other side of the coin of introversion and refusal to communicate. He is for sure brave, even stupidly so and his main redeeming qualities are plot armor in form of being the chosen one.
If I wanted to select who would be my colleague or coworker or even friend or role model after the whole ordeal, I would take Hermione over Harry every time.
Sure, Hermione is not such a girboss in books - although that is arguably a little bit more grating to be honest at least in the beginning. However she shows quite a lot of growth, by the end of the series she is a monster who can cast every spell silently, she can best deatheaters in duels under high-pressure situation, she is genius in potions and transfigurations that she uses constantly to great effect etc. Harry on the other hand remains stagnant, from spellcraft he is one-trick pony using expeliarmus and patronus. Other than that he just utilizes pure gimmicks such as hic connection to Voldemort and psychic visions or pulling Gryffindor sword literally out of the hat just because. He is the series version of McGuffin, he is imbued asset managed and operated by Hermione according to Dumbledore's strategy. It is Hermione who does the heavy lifting such as actually researching on how to destroy horcruxes or painstaking training in spellcasting.
Ok, I mean, I get the desire for gritty warband-society fiction, but having zero women is not a natural or optimal state of most societies.
It's not just society warband gridmark fiction. It is any fiction, take Three Investigators that was famous genre during my time as young adult in 80ies and 90ies. The same with old Western books by Karl May such as Old Surehand or Czech version of it in form of books by Jaroslav Foglar, huge proponent of Boy Scouts and who created incredible world where boys had their own culture and hidden wars in Prague.
he Harry Potter example is strange - I have never seen a single complaint that it has too many female characters for the male readership's taste, until now, I suppose.
Really? You never read any analysis of how Hermione Granger is the true hero? I took it for granted that Harry Potter is just a lucky, brave but ultimately passive and reactive "chosen one for no reason" moron. The only thing that he really owns is his quidditch success, that is why he was such a good target for Eliezers fanfiction remake. Ron is comedic relief with loyalty as his best attribute. Hermione Granger is the ultimate hero of the story, she is the brain of the whole operation, she is proactive one who prepares for everything, who is there to get the group out of trouble and often is the only one capable to execute due to her diligence and knowledge of spells. She is basically managing the other two morons. Additionally such a group is hardly something normative, I cannot imagine any such group dynamics developing anywhere during my childhood.
And superhero comics? Really? You mean those superhero comics that famously don't have women acting with agency on par with men, ever?
These were nowhere near as popular especially compared to S-tier heroes like Spiderman, Superman or Batman, in fact most of the female led comics were on brink of cancelation in 1970s and 1980s with one exception of Wonder Woman. But I will give it to you as the same thing is happening with anime Tsundere phenomenon, so I guess nerds universally are attracted to sassy combative female characters who are there as a prize to be won if hero simps enough and takes the abuse.
I would believe it was it not for the fact that it is still happening even in male dominant subgenres like sci-fi and to some extent fantasy. Although there is significant part of female readers there (around 40%), the domination is almost complete and you can hardly find something for men and boys. There are some holdouts like Warhammer 40k that still hold 80%+ of male readership, but at this point the clock is ticking.
The point being that male readers are there, but they are not catered to. That is why they move over to other stuff. The situation is similar to what happened to superhero genre or comics, which also have majority male readership but that is increasingly catering to female readers. So men and boys react by going over to anime such as Berserk or Chainsaw man and not whatever gay/feminist slop is produced now in mainstream DC and Marvel comics.
The same goes for literature for boys. There is no replacement for old Cowboy pulp fiction or various adventure books or genre like The Three Investigators, where male/boy heroes only interaction with women is to get sandwich from them. Modern young adult writing is at best Harry Potter clone, where there has to be some know-it-all nagger like Hermione Granger or some female professor hero. The old style of literature of 100% male space is completely gone from modern publishing and especially Young Adult publishing, which became utter gay/feminist slop with mandatory diversity quotas for characters like in Hollywood.
No, seriously. If you feel like you're a guy, and you don't read enough, stop forcing yourself to read highbrow literature or books like you feel you should read, and track down some lowbrow junkfood. I suggest /r/Romance_For_Men , /r/HFY , /r/ProgressionFantasy , or anything on the royalroad front page. If you're a parent of one or more boys, point them toward the pig food dispenser. And I need to clarify that I am not being hyperbolic here. Just like babies have to eat mashed-up food before they can chew through steaks, young men need a regular diet of sophomoric fantasies before they're ready for Asimov or Murakami. Yes, there's a certain risk that the Heinlens and Ayn Rands of the world will feed them masculinist fantasies incompatible with the feminist-egalitarian view of the world you might prefer to instill... but hey, at least that's better than whatever the TikTok algorithm would have done to them.
Interestingly enough I am a fan of LitRPG and progression fantasy and this space is absolutely horrible. It is riddled with various feminist tropes that make it unreadable for me and I think large part of male population. In general this slop genre is riddled with something I call "nagging female companion", that literally abuses the nerdy incel male hero to oblivion while at the same time serves as some kind of supposed "prize" and "source of tension". The hero needs to power up in order to deserve romantic interest from such a bitch and he swoons over her for no reason, while she does not bring any value to him except of nagging, disrespect and drama. She is there just as a foil and to keep the hero back. The author Phil Tucker is king of this genre, such as with his Dawn of The Void series where the hero is literal homeless alcoholic who shares System Apocalypse with literal female crackhead to whom he trauma bonds. I did not manage to read too far into it, but the start is literal toxic abuse that would be grounds for immediate decapitation if it was not female "companion" but some male villain.
Paradoxically one way to avoid this is by having a female protagonist, you have rare Ellen Rippley style character like in Azarinth Healer, where by virtue of being female she does not give a shit about some nagging disrespecting sidechick. Other escape is autistic power fantasy of male protagonist who does not give a shit such as in Primal Hunter or Defiance of the Fall and the like - who are basically Conan The Barbiarian style pulp fiction male fantasy characters with extra steps. However these are surprisingly rare. It is impossible to find genre where you have just bunch of male friends doing the progression and apocalypse, while women are actually supportive of them and do not create some stupid drama or are just background noise. Even military litrpg authors cannot help themselves and they do have to introduce some version of hated purple haired Admiral Holdo wannabe or some sarcastic and sassy katana wielding female Captain Marvel type of character.
And that is just feminist tropes. Other tropes are sarcastic nihilist know-it-all moron who moralizes over world where he was Isekaied - ideally telling them how slavery or religion is bad, throwing some bad and dated cultural puns plus literal Atheism+ with dense dose of progressive spices - one example is Jason from He Who Fights with Monsters. Other than that there is the anime incel tropes of some gamer moron who is dumb, stupid and mentally and socially inept but somehow became The Chosen One by sheer luck. But the most time it is all three, a moralizing Atheism+ moronic dumb incel being the Chosen one, who has some nagging combative female sidechick or at least some system who is there to create drama and tension and with whom he trauma bonds, and who throws bad dated puns and Young Adult/Marvel style of grating supposedly comedic relief that has no place in the setting. The landscape is very dry to be sure.
I stand corrected, you are right that all of them were indeed treated with suspicion and many of theme actually became targets of White Terror except of small cadre. Horthy's power was based on former POWs from Italy and France - same as Czechosovakia, but in our case it was due to time reasons as Czechoslovak legion in Russia did not come home until late 1919. Nevertheless they were celebrated as loyal anticommunists and acknowledged for their contribution toward better diplomatic position during Versailles and Trianon treaties, while legionaires from France and Italy did contribute toward early wars to safeguard borders. My bad to project this history onto Hungary, which was a different beast. So these loyalists were probably the most unlucky bunch of Hungarians who took it from both sides. Thanks for that, I learn something new every day.
Food preparation / cooking is predominately or exclusively done by women in 98% of studied primitive societies
Shit biased anthropology study as usual, where they deliberately defined cooking strictly as "domestic, daily meal preparation at the family hearth". We can even skip communal or ritualistic cooking in the agricultural primitive societies done by men or men doing many cooking related tasks such as gathering fuel for hearth, skinning and butchering game, milling and other labor intensive cooking related work that was defined out of scope of this shit study.
Hunters and gatherer societies and to large extent also pastoralist and agricultural males cook all the time, they embark upon hunting trips or group male activities that can take from days to weeks. So they process game, they butcher and cook it. Moreover they are also able to repair their clothes and tools. It is not as if cooking is taboo haram activity for men, it is just logical division of labor. Domestic cooking and cleaning is delegated to women, because they have to stay with kids in safe domestic environment anyways. Hunting, hard labor related to construction, wood cutting and storage, herding other work outside is domain of men. But there is blending of the two - young girls can go gathering berries or herding livestock, especially poultry. The same with young men.
georgioz
4d ago
They did back in Hungary. In early days the threath of international communist revolution was real. Horthy brought about white terror in Hungary and these loyalists Hungarians from Russia were backbone of his power. So the naming is legitimate
It's there in Wikipedia, this is also what I remember from history channels regarding the whole thing. Czechoslovak legion in Russia was originally okay with being transported to Vladivostok to leave, it was not until after this conflict in Chelyabinsk where the things escalated, and even that was forced by Germans who wanted loyalist Hungarians back ASAP. Nevertheless these loyalist/White Hungarians were seen as suspicious by Reg Hungarians post WW1, however these whites then in turn formed the power base of admiral Miklós Horthy's government in Szeged (not these from Russia, but POWs from Italy and France) for his coup, which formed a government that endured up until WW2.
That is definitely not the only or even predominant Christian view outside of Calvinists and related sects. For instance Catholics do not view original sin through prism of guilt, original sin is contracted, not committed. Orthodox Christians actually use different vocabulary, the call it Ancestral Sin.
Yes, seeking redemption is the way how you do it. I did not want to go into details of soteriology as there are even more profound differences in as with what is the nature of grace, what is the nature of justification, sanctification and glorification etc.
As for the rest you are also too hung up on details here, which is strange as as you have no problem saying that Communism and Wokeism “borrowed” this concept. You defined Original Sin narrowly toward Calvinist tradition. Of course you will find out that it is unique. I framed Original Sin as more general concept specifically related to nature of the world and human. Of course various religions or even specific heresies will differ on specifics of cosmology and related human ontology and harmatiology - including Communism and Wokism.
Incorrect partially. You were born with white privilege - but this privilege is bestowed upon you by oppressive system of white supremacy, it is not inside your ontological nature. It is the system that is corrupt. You have to of course do proper progressive work, accept and profess your privilege, listen to people of color as they posses superior standpoint epistemological position etc. But this work is related to dismantling the oppressive system so that future whites are no longer corrupted and we live in true and voluntary equity. I'd argue that there is no true personal atonement in progressivim, you are shaped by material conditions of the systems of opression, to “atone” is to change and ideally abolish these systems, so you and future generations will be shaped differently. There is just endless work in Theory-Praxis cycle for everybody, as we all possess some kind of privilege even black women can be cis etc.
More options
Context Copy link