hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
I agree things can not go on like this if we want to survive, but I also don't see this piece of social technology of the past being all that useful.
It was not Christianity that did the heavy lifting back in the day. It was a useful tool that fit the needs of a specific people in a specific environment. But it was the environment that drove that need. Principally by how barren it was. Now the environment has changed, and our needs follow. And unless you want to commit to the bit and go full Amish or similar, then you're not going to get much mileage out of Christianity.
I mean, that's why you end up with stupid evangelical dance concerts. That's just how reduced the utility of Christianity is in modern society. You already have the broadest strokes of philosophy, law and culture existing independent and separate from it.
You need something concrete for those who lack the lifetime of regret that is seemingly required to understand just how damaging modernity can be. You can't afford to waste time on teaching people about theoretical burning bushes when the real danger is starting our progeny in the face in real time. Especially when we have seen just how little sway Christianity has today. I demand new technology.
Trouble in Paradise
A guilty hobby of mine is to follow up with the trad dating scene. Not so much the 'Real Housewives of Alaska' style, but in a more terminally online way where various trad talking heads air out their honest opinions on substack or X that then turn out to be dirty laundry to the opposite sex.
A part of the draw to this is the fact that outside of explicit gender warriors, a lot of the online right has ceded ground to the idea that traditionalism is the way to fight against the modern gender war. We need forgiveness and to look at the broader picture. 'The opposite sex can not be your adversary', 'we are in an age of strife and suffering' and so on.
That sounds good on paper. What are things like in practice?
A Dating Crisis in the Orthodox Church? A Woman's Perspective. Archived link.
tl;dr: A Church going Orthodox woman voices a complaint as old as time: The men aren't good enough. They need to step up.
The following article is pulled in part from conversations with other Orthodox women looking for a husband, from the survey of 41 responses from Orthodox women- recently married or engaged, conversations with my Priest and older married men, and my own personal experience.
Let's see the results:
“The problems shift with age. Younger women (17–25) often deal with immaturity, hygiene issues, or lack of physical attraction, aggressiveness, ghosting after “love-bombing”, or pressure to be sexual, then ghost when her boundaries of chastity are put up.
Women in their 20s (26–29) struggle most with compatibility, “too online” rigid orthobro energy, emotional instability, and financial unreadiness (i.e., a stable job or career that they feel would support a growing family).
Older women face a shrinking pool of men who also seem to want someone much younger, despite the men already being in their 30s or 40s. Often these are widows are women whose husbands have left them and have children. The single dads often still do not want to court them either.
Now... This all feels awfully familiar. Hanging a cross over our problems didn't make any of them go away. People who flock to a place that promises solution to their issues, usually have issues to be solved! It's clear that Traditionalism does not neutralize ordinary mating-market dynamics.
The good news? Several women in the survey did marry or get engaged to kind, stable, normal men. I personally know many great men. They happen to all be married!
Yeah. But great men and women don't need a church to get together, though. That's kind of baked into what makes them great. They also meet and make families living as radical left/liberal/progressives, for example.
It feels as if the Traditionalist sphere did not have many solutions to any problems. The initial thrust of 'we must rally behind the cause!' similar to other slogans like 'workers of the world unite!' sound good to those who buy into the group pathology, who implicitly believe that we could solve every issue if everyone was but sufficiently devoted to the cause. But there's a seeming lack of realism to what the problems actually are and how one can solve them outside of a faith based cultural revolution, which the author of the article proposes:
We must stop pretending the problem doesn’t exist. Parishes need real community, not forced “single dances” that feel like Protestant youth group 2.0, but actual family-style fellowship where people of all ages eat, talk, serve, and get to know each other as brothers and sisters in Christ first. Priests and godparents can gently guide the catechumens toward a healthy understanding of vocation, marriage, or monasticism, without shame or pressure. I do think that marriage is too heavily emphasized in our post-protestant culture, where if you are unmarried, you are somehow second-class citizens. I think we as a church need to do a better job lifting all those who are still single and find a way to integrate our young people in a much broader vision of family life within the local parish. Married couples need single people and vice versa. Our monastics need our support, and we need them. We should be visiting them often.
The young men need older men to look up to and mentor them. I have seen this work very well at our parish. The babuskas need muscles to help around her house and hungry men to feed. We really do not need more awkward matchmaking and pressure to force things to happen, but rather organic opportunities for people to grow into healthy members of a big family, for friendships to blossom between men and women organically without all the weird red-pill approaches, and to acquire the skills and virtues of well-adjusted Orthodox Christians.
And we, as laypeople, have to be honest with ourselves: Are we praying for our future spouse like it actually matters? Are we forming ourselves into the kind of man or woman the Church needs, or are we waiting for the perfect trad spouse to drop out of the sky to then begin our life in Christ?
Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!
The contradiction here seems clear enough. People who have their stuff together don't need any of this. Confident, socially adept well put together men with good jobs and a vision for the future, as desired by the author, are not going to spend their time wallowing around an Orthodox commune filled with incels being bossed around by babushkas. It's just ridiculous to expect successful well adjusted people to saddle themselves with such things in the modern world. Same goes for well put together women that know how to attract men. The real world operates on a 9-5.
Now, that might definitely be to our overall detriment. A key issue with modernity is a lack of real world communities, of course. But a community of needy weaklings is largely what the church has become and it has not made it stronger. And more pertinently, real world communities fall apart in modernity for a variety of reasons. Saying that they would be good to have, which is most likely true, isn't doing much to solve that problem.
This entire thing feels like a giant knot of contradictions and conflicting interests. Much like... nay, exactly like the old gender war. There's a reason why the 'Based Pastors' are doling out "weird" repackaged Red Pill material to try and meet the needs of young men. There's a reason why this woman is regurgitating utopian communalism and anti-red pill platitudes in an attempt at finding men who meet modern standards. Both might very well be correct in their observations. But it's clear they are not seeing eye to eye.
Edit:
I said I was not into this topic for the 'Real Housewives of Alaska' dynamic, but I wanted to see why the article got deleted. Turns out our author deleted the article and much of her online presence after it was alleged that she was sending men nudes. Well... I guess she can now better focus on praying for a husband.
hanikrummihundursvin
1d ago
I generally don't like this argument.
If the 'plan' is to engineer society to carefully balance individual freedoms alongside a high enough bar of entry so that stupid psychos can't do maximal damage when the screws fall out then lets make that the plan and operationalize that. Rather than alluding to that being the plan but not dealing with the nitty gritty of it.
So far the gun toting looneys of the US have managed a sub par result compared to Islamists driving trucks of peace in the EU. The only one that even compares is the Las Vegas shooter, and that shooting is to this day an anomaly. A much easier solution before you ban trucks or high capacity magazine rifles would be to stop importing foreigners from populations that hate you.
But there's our problem. Some people really like importing foreigners. So they're not willing to give that up. Just like some people are not willing to give up their rifles. So when push comes to shove, those who allude to the 'plan' are generally not planning on sacrificing the liberties they hold dear themselves. People can generally smell that, so the 'plan' never goes anywhere.
I'm sure one can easily draw up a politically balanced 'plan' that makes everyone unhappy. I'm less certain for one that anyone actually likes.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
And my point would be that it's not particularly hypocritical when those individuals are just playing the same game everyone else is. Including Israel, that is not really concerned with whatever amount of dead or raped Palestinians they leave in their wake. I mean, I don't think the worst part of that is the hypocrisy but whatever.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
Ontological status: If you rape your enemies, they win.
You're not describing a double standard insofar as you can observe this exact same behavior from JIDF posters. Where mass rape on Oct.7 definitely happened and is super important, but these rapes did not, or don't really matter. It's just the standard.
So maybe we are looking at some motivated reasoning that can afflict us all. Rather than a specific trait of the woke left. And perhaps you're not dunking on a strawman, but what are you dunking on, and to what end? The motivated reasoning of one side irks you, but not the other?
So no, the woke left don't have to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization that committed acts of unspeakable cruelty on Oct.7 anymore than the JIDF has to acknowledge that Israel is a a genocidal nazi state that commits acts of unspeakable cruelty in their prisons. You hold no leverage to make that claim. You are just asserting a one sided rhetorical frame on woke leftists. They would be right to recognize what you are doing, call you a genocidal zionist and continue on inside their bubble where Israel is bad and Palestine is good.
hanikrummihundursvin
2d ago
Dunking on woke leftist strawmen might be a fun past time, but I'm not sure the NYT qualifies in this particular instance. From the opening paragraph of the article:
It’s a simple proposition: Whatever our views of the Middle East conflict, we should be able to unite in condemning rape.
Supporters of Israel made that point after the brutal sexual assaults against Israeli women during the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Benjamin Netanyahu and many U.S. senators, including Marco Rubio, condemned that sexual violence, and Netanyahu rightly called on “all civilized leaders” to “speak up.”
And yet in wrenching interviews, Palestinians have recounted to me a pattern of widespread Israeli sexual violence against men, women and even children — by soldiers, settlers, interrogators in the Shin Bet internal security agency and, above all, prison guards.
It seems the author was one step ahead of your critique.
Both sides claim rape is a horrible crime when committed against them. To reiterate the point: Should all parties not be against rape then? And to pontificate further, if we believe one side is not against the rape of their enemies, does that make it OK for us to rape them?
I don't see a double standard. I see two backwards third world populations making appeals to morals and standards that have nothing to do with them. They both play the shivering hurt animal and as soon as they think no one is looking the teeth and claws come out.
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
As far as I can tell from various third worldist twitter accounts who post about the conflict 24/7, the US has allegedly sent Iran a proposal to end the war, and Iran is yet to respond. I feel like I've read similar things 5 times in the past few weeks.
If someone has similar pro USA or pro Israel accounts, please link for comparison. I'm not engaged enough with the topic to see fact from cope anymore.
hanikrummihundursvin
6d ago
The word I would use is "culture" (although I don't think it's magical, and I don't object to other words).
Is Icelandic culture not the expression of the Icelandic people? Is it all in the moss? Did they decide to not commit crime against each other by chance when they started to prosper post WW2?
Your source shows massive swings over time (e.g. surging from 21% of prisoners in the US in the 1920s to 50% in the 1990s) that can't be explained by merely noting skin color or ancestry.
Didn't we just go over this? Giving low quality people more avenues to express themselves leads to more low quality expression. AA's have more avenues to express themselves in the 1990's compared to then. Not to mention that the way crime is reported now is different.
To make a long story short, putting a population in different environments will lead to different results. I'm not sure why you think that's a point against anything I'm saying. It doesn't change the fact that if that population has a lot of low quality people it will express more problematic behaviors than a population with less low quality people and more high quality. The point I was making is that the trend of high crime rate and violence is a universal fact nigh everywhere blacks are subject to western style policing. And sometimes even when they're not. There are outliers, but they generally come with big caveats, like Rwanda. I'm sure we could lower the crime rate if we police AA's similarly. But I would not want to be subject to such militarized scrutiny myself.
This is also the point of a cultural analysis. The cultural analysis focuses, however, on the choices that people make, whereas an HBD analysis focuses on their ancestry. My specific objection here is to focusing on HBD to the exclusion of other factors. As your own sources show, other factors are tremendously important.
Environmentalist explanations can't originate a cause for culture to begin with. Which is why you have a host of half baked attempts by the likes of Jarred Diamond that try to create magical history narratives strung together by a-ha! moments that feel coherent and plausible. HBD adds the cause. The good, the bad and the ugly. It's all genes expressed in an environment. The more control our genes have over the environment, the more they amplify their own expression and open avenues for otherwise suppressed tendencies. The more the environment constricts the genes, that much less can we observe expression. When two different gene expressions exist in the same environment the result might be similar, or it might not be.
Sure, we are ultimately a product of environmental selection pressures through natural selection, but those things happen over a broader timeframe.
We can live with AA's, but not in an open and free western style culture. So much is obvious as things stand. The point of contention here relates to how these groups behave within our specific western environment. If you want to argue in favor of a more radical solution that reshapes our environment in a different direction, go ahead! But as you stated, such things are not politically palatable to the two majorities, conservatives and lib/left/progressives. Hence my dissatisfaction with both.
Boomer conservatives generally don't mind desegregation but they do not necessarily support everything that Civil Rights ended up entailing.
Conservatives love desegregation and Civil Rights. Posting MLK quotes to own the libs whilst Civil Rights legislature redefines their sacred constitution to work against everything they otherwise hold dear. It's a giant blindspot that is generally only called out by dissident right figures. Maybe those voices have started to reach into the mainstream and I missed it. But I doubt it.
Interestingly in the United States penal servitude is legal.
Haha, yeah. Just don't call it slavery.
Perhaps, but what's your superior solution? "Keep welfare, return segregation" is not a palatable political solution.
I don't have anything one could campaign on. At best it would be a soft eugenics program shadow operation. Start by eliminating murderers, violent criminals and repeat offenders from the gene pool. Then map their family history and observe if the trends of violence continue/go back within families. Restrict those families reproductive rights.
I think the biggest potential propagating cause of AA's violence are strains of violence passed down by the mother.
Now, is that viable? No. And it's closer to science fiction than anything else. But there was a time in American history not too long ago where similar ideas were passed along by more serious men. If we could get over the post war consensus and get back on track with social technology that actually advances humanity in a dignified manner then we can mend this absurd state of affairs that has gone on for far too long, which has been causing suffering and harm to innocents to the benefit of feeble minded losers that are indifferent or unaware of the destruction they cause or sadistic animals that revel in their own violent expressions and the suffering they inflict on others.
hanikrummihundursvin
7d ago
Interesting. What's the name for the shared social environment created by a group of people?
I don't know. Is calling it the shared environment created by a group of people not sufficient? Or are you looking for a specific word for an a-ha! moment? Id prefer if you got to the point.
Then what's the point of HBD? If African-American violence is substantially different from people of similar ancestry, then why am I supposed to think that ancestry is important at all?
Is it substantially different? It seems to me like black criminality is a thing in every western culture where a sizeable enough bloc of blacks live.
The problem with making a comparison between countries that I was alluding to is that they can be too different. Like, they don't accurately record crime at the same rate. The only crime one could hazard a guess on for comparison would be homicides, and SS-Africa is a world leader in that department.
If you can't compare two groups of related people simply because they are in different environments then it sounds like the environment is doing a lot of the heavy lifting.
Who controls these environments at this point? The people. The difference between the environments at this stage in history is the clearest demonstration of population differences one can imagine. The point of HBD is to help us recognize that these trends in behavior originate from the people. That their environments are not coincidental but a product of their expressions.
You might object that your idea that "prosperity leads to crime" is mechanically different than "dependency via the welfare state leads to crime" theory our hypothetical pal would espouse, but you would also oppose giving them welfare, since that could increase their latitude of action.
I don't believe that prosperity or welfare leads to crime. Otherwise Iceland would have a lot of crime. Low quality people lead to crime. Giving low quality people more opportunities to express themselves will give you more low quality expressions. And yes, I would argue that there is a very relevant difference between recognizing what the causal factor is in the equation and not recognizing it.
There are proportionally more low quality people in the AA's population than the white one. I don't want to live with groups of low quality people. I don't want to work with them. I don't want them working near me. I don't mind having a welfare state. I don't mind giving a proportionally small amount of low quality people money or financing some sort of livable environment for them that's not a prison cell, provided they behave and don't cause ugliness or suffering. I do mind them mindlessly procreating and growing their share of the population. I don't want to harm them but I also don't want to harm future generations and subject them to endless cycles of subsidizing wealth confiscations and violence against themselves and continuously growing the share of low quality folks that perpetuate the process.
I don't agree with our boomer friend that it's just welfare policies that make the situation worse. Desegregation and Civil Rights made things worse as well. But our boomer friend loves those things. Along with a host of other conservative sacred cows. So he will advocate for policies expecting results that will not occur, because he does not understand things, and then the lefties will pick up the slack provided by these poorly thought out policies and run the country further into the ground. And the boomer, just like every conservative that came before him, will accept his lashes and 20 years down the line his own children will pretend that conservatism is actually about conserving the progressive gains made against the sins of their own father.
You're right though, The most meaningful conservative policy is being tougher on crime. Principally because killing violent people is the most surefire way to prevent them from procreating. And Trump has said he wants to expand the death penalty to other crimes, which would be good. But to exemplify the point made above, being tougher on crime that's not punishable by death would functionally just be a different form of welfare. Except we are locking more people up for longer in abhorrent conditions that facilitate further ugliness and suffering. Without ever addressing where these low quality people come from. It's a very good example of how the conservative lack of understanding fuels their opposition. They create poor conditions that are easily propagandized against them. Which is also what would happen if they somehow managed to end welfare.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
For similar reasons AA's do, one could imagine. It's a practice that is more common among lower impulse lower IQ people in America. With the population size of the US you see the broad behavioral trends of lower quality people. But that's just us observing their behavior and expressions. Seeing they have bad outcomes and then erroneously assigning the blame to their actions is where we go wrong.
I mean, there are bad behaviors that have bad outcomes. Like gambling with slot machines. Your intelligence wont save you after you put your money into the machine. But there's a clear mechanism there. The RTP is 97%. There's no such mechanism in having children out of wedlock.
To that extent I can't possibly imagine what would influence the shared social environment of Icelanders except the Icelanders themselves. The country is primarily a cold inhospitable mossy wasteland. The population is largely atheist, is extremely sexually promiscuous, drinks a lot, does a lot of drugs, gambles a lot, has a lot of obesity. But they have a high IQ along with other positive traits and somehow manage to make one of the most peaceful places on earth. None of the classic American conservative boogeymen work when trying to explain this. Just like lefty theories fail to explain how the poorest country in the world, and a former colony, managed to become one of the most prosperous places on earth in less than a century.
Aha, but there are plenty of black people who don't behave in anti-social ways, so the same logic holds there, right?
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, yeah, there are plenty of high impulse control high intelligence black people. Like Charles Murray infamously proposed, all the race gaps in America seem to vanish when you control for things like IQ.
They are, my understanding is that children in single-parent households do in fact suffer worse childhood outcomes, even in Iceland.
Yes, but what portion of the blame rests with low quality people being more likely to make poor decisions that lead to single parenthood, and what portion of the poor outcomes of the child are simply a result of the child having inherited their parents low quality. Sure, it would be better for the child in the short term to have a better home environment. But the research on home environment and IQ, for instance, shows that there are no IQ gains into adulthood. So if the kid finds themselves in the wrong circumstance in adulthood, their inherited low quality traits are liable to make themselves known. Adoption studies also show this very clearly as well with regards to criminality.
What gene controls freedom?
I don't understand this.
Even if you don't buy the Flynn effect, do you deny that African-Americans have a greater percentage of European ancestry than Africans? Do you deny that they perform better on IQ tests?
AA's have greater percent European ancestry and have higher IQ's on average, as far as I can gleam, than many sub-Saharan populations. What's the relevance of Africans?
Oh, interesting. In what sense is the United States in the 1960s and 1970s or the 2020s a more permissive environment than Africa today? Is the law enforcement here less competent? Or is it that the United States has more legal freedoms and the people who you say have an antisocial disposition are careful Constitutional scholars who have figured out how to game the system? Or what?
I'm not sure I understand this. Many sub-Saharan nations can't even qualify for a comparison.
In the same way poverty can prevent obesity, many less prosperous populations were guarded from their own self destructive tendencies. As an example, Pacific Islanders didn't have a problem with highly processed food products until they were presented with the option of buying them. Then it turns into an obesity epidemic. Aboriginal Australians didn't have a problem with huffing gas until they could, and so on. So the freedom to make a bad decision in a more prosperous society harms low quality people in a way that the constrictions of scarcity did not.
hanikrummihundursvin
8d ago
Random people who vote R don't make the conservative narrative. It's made and expressed in mainstream conservative media.
Yes, out of wedlock births are an anti-social behavior that correlates with bad childhood outcomes (at least in the US of A).
Yet the mechanism does not hold the same effect when looking at a different population. So it's not a cause but a consequence.
It's something like twice the rate among African-Americans - which, relevantly to my point, has risen since the 1960s. Why has this negative behavior among African Americans risen with their IQ score?
There are plenty of single mothers who successfully raise their children alone. So single parent homes are not a cause but a consequence. There are different reasons for why some people find themselves in the circumstance that correlates with negative outcomes. It's those reasons that matter, not the circumstance. A low intelligence low impulse control person was always going to have problems when given the freedom to express themselves, and their offspring would always face similar challenges if they carry those same traits.
The notion that civility and success needs to be drilled and beaten into every child through a mother and father isn't true. It's true for some of them, and I do personally believe two parents households are better. But the high quality children generally just make success and civility happen because it's not that much effort for them. Sitting still, figuring out the solution to the problem and getting a reward for their good behavior comes naturally and effortlessly. You can sabotage them, sure. And some otherwise high quality kids might have specific peculiar needs that will hamper them if not met, but the point is that there's a difference between what a sufficient environment is for a 'high quality' kid populations and 'low quality' ones.
As for AA's IQ gains, they seem largely driven by test score inflation. Or are, at the least, not indicative of an improvement in intelligence. Look for the 'Hollow Gains' chapter.
what's the HBD explanation for why African-American crime rose massively in the 1960s even as they grew more prosperous (in the 1940s, when African-Americans were poorer, crime was much lower)?
Why would more freedom and prosperity being handed to a population that has a lot of low impulse control low IQ people make them less criminal?
A more constrictive environment prevented the expression of bad behaviors. A more permissive environment allowed for it.
To contrast this with the point made earlier, a more permissive environment in Iceland allowed for more expressions of good behaviors. Because the population there had more good behaviors to express. The controlling factor is the population.
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
In the conservative narrative you are trying to identify (not necessarily my narrative), the Freeman's Bureau would just be the start of a much more persistent and long-running government-led effort specifically designed to target black Americans (and other minority groups) with various types of benefits.
Yeah, that's generally how those narratives go. A string of just so stories and a-ha! moments that don't hold water when we have to explain the same pattern existing elsewhere.
If you hung out around conservative Americans long enough you would hear some of them say something along these lines, perhaps with fewer five dollar words.
Paleo-cons got kicked out of the mainstream a long time ago. Peter Brimelow did a nice interview on the topic on Tucker Carlson's show recently. Which was a nice, albeit a bit late, surprise.
In the United States, African-American out-of-wedlock births have increased dramatically since World War Two. This is despite the fact that measured African-American IQ scores have also increased over the same period of time. Why?
Why indeed. Are either of these things relevant or related? Out of wedlock births in Iceland are the norm and happen at almost the exact same rate as out of wedlock births for AA's. Yet they have none of their problems. You are going to have to clarify what the point is here.
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
You describe the exact process I'm talking about. We both agree that MAGA optimists judge things by whether or not Trump did the thing or not. We both agree that this is novel.
Where we seemingly don't agree is whether or not a relevant amount of people care about 'things', like gas or housing prices, or something similar. I think a lot of people see or feel something that personally affects them like that and therefor want to vote for those things in specific. Expecting a solution and positive change. Using those things as the barometer. I think you understand and agree with this dynamic insofar as you understand that it's important to maintain that Trump is keeping his promises, like you do below.
I guess my point comes down to the question of how you determine values. It feels like we are doing a lot of outsourcing to Trump. My perspective is that MAGA optimists are going the way of the Dodo. They are politically a minority, their children will be a racial minority. I feel like I'm watching the sky fall and then I see them happy as clams because Trump is in charge.
It's not even that mysterious. It's not hard for me to make a case for why Trump went to war with Iran or how this is potentially a good thing. I don't have to appeal to mysterious subrational forces.
But you are appealing to a very limited force. Mainly just yourself and your faith in Trump. You making a case and then asserting that the course of action being taken is the best because Trump took it isn't particularly rational. Apologies if this sounds too dismissive but I'm starting to feel like you're just constructing a rhetorical fun house of sorts, where you can make assumptions and assertions yourself but preclude others from doing so at any time if they disagree with Trump. Since Trump is smarter and has more information and such. Like, not to rehash things but what is the current state of the Iran war? At what point can we state that the war has been a failure and that Trump made a bad choice? Or is that even possible?
Respectfully, conservative politics has moved way far beyond whether conservatives can talk about race.
Not really. The small contingent that was bullied into white advocacy, like Charlie Kirk or Tucker Carlson, talked some about whites as a group. But they all defaulted back on individualism, culture and values when push came to shove. Which is the same song and dance they've been doing since they ostracized Peter Brimelow and similar voices from the mainstream.
To me this reads like making the perfect the enemy of the good, and declaring that, since Trump hasn't accomplished everything he must have moderated. But I don't know anyone, not a single person, who has ever accomplished everything they intended.
Yeah, that sounds more true than not. So what is perfect?
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
To take your narrative seriously one would have to imagine that a post-war government program that lasted 9 years in the 1860's which gave resources and education to a group of people was always going to lead to that people being welfare dependent. If that's not the argument, then we're just finding historical a-ha! moments that might feel satisfying to our brains but are of no real consequence or value beyond that.
Both the left and the conservatives assert that the gaps exist because of historical circumstance and/or oppression. They both assert historical just so stories without ever applying them seriously as sociological theories about the nature of man. Instead treating it like a verbal game, not a look at reality. They walk through the steps of history and pontificate on each as a cause for behavior, but not a consequence of it.
The 'monocausal' foe is the nature of human beings, the differences between them, the widely divergent population groups humanity is composed of and the wide variety of circumstance they find themselves in.
If history was causal in the way you describe and not consequential, one would see a vast difference between ancestrally similar population groups that had divergent historical paths. We have this case.
Iceland was the poorest country in Europe for centuries. Yet with the Marshall Aid program post-WW2, they went from being the poorest to being one of the most prosperous nations on the planet in the span of 50 years. The lesson is simple. Give high quality people technology and resources and they will prosper. Being colonized doesn't matter. Being poor doesn't matter.
Becoming a criminal or welfare dependent is not a consequence of history. It's the path of least resistance for a certain type of person. Most people find it easier to learn how to read than to have 5 children with 5 different men, collect child support, become obese and claim medical benefits on top of that. Most people find it easier to go to work rather than rob a liquor store and sell drugs. Most. But not all. The difference is the people.
The circumstance that make those anti-social actions possible are a consequence of the kind of people that would take advantage of those circumstances existing. On top of that, welfare programs existing doesn't cause, for example, Norwegians in Norway to abuse the programs at nearly the same rates as other groups do. In short, these history specific explanations fail to explain anything in a broader context. They're not applicable to the real world. These things happen in different context and the obvious determining factor is the humans, not their historical circumstance.
hanikrummihundursvin
9d ago
The welfare state and ghetto culture are the mechanism. That doesn't explain why blacks are drawn to it more so than other races.
If race is skin deep and the sociological theory being presented is true then it should apply equally regardless of race. But instead we see very disparate results along racial lines. It's the same problem lefty sociological theories have. As soon as you treat them as serious theories and not convenient verbal political excuses that have no substance and only exist to help us turn our brain off, they fall apart.
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
Many MAGA optimists don't gauge things by what is happening around them. It's exactly like you say. Their barometer is what Trump does. If he does X, then X was the best thing to do because they trust Trump. Their gas prices going up or their jobs moving away or their farms going bankrupt is just not accounted for as a counterfactual.
HBD has no place in mainstream conservative politics. The functional reason for the existence of the dissident right is to be a right winger that can acknowledge HBD. The mainstream conservatives have no explanation or the gaps between the races beyond what I described before, if they even acknowledge them at all, which is rare. The conservative position is that maladaptive black behavior is driven by culture. Primarily the welfare state making them dependent and ghetto culture that glorifies violence. They never explain why blacks move towards this sort of thing, nor how they are going to fix it. It's an excuse that is just as loony and baseless as any lefty cultural excuse about historical oppression and omnipresent ethereal white supremacy.
Those in power being the most competent is only true insofar as they are competent in staying in power. I'm not sold on how that naturally translates to functional governance. From what I can tell the Trump we have now is so far removed from the 2016 Trump it's not comparable. If one wants to say that every decision that he has made that has removed him from his original brand has been the best course of action, then I'd ask, best course towards what? Draining the swamp, building a border wall and kicking all the foreigners out and give jobs to Americans? Or the best course of action for Trump to stay in power? If it's the latter, why is it good that he is staying in power if those same actions are removing him from the original promises?
I'm not a routine Fox viewer but as far as I can gleam from the Youtube clips, they are pretty much on the Trump train. Especially with regards to Iran. It's been a fair while since I saw any rhetoric comparable to the #NeverTrump of 2016, when Fox, outside of Tucker Carlson and similar, was anti-Trump.
hanikrummihundursvin
10d ago
There is something very admirable about the seemingly boundless faith some grassroots MAGA supporters have for Trump. It's a pure loyalty exercise for them. To a point where reality itself is just a test to be overcome. But that's also a flaw. Ruthless optimism that parts the sea of information and fact to lead us all to the promise land of hope through loyalty is only good insofar as the promise land is actually there and the parted sea doesn't collapse back in on everyone on the way there. J6 does come to mind.
To springboard off your example on lefties and white supremacy. The sociology theories lefties come up with to explain the racial gaps are obviously insane and untrue. But at the same time it's not possible to falsify them without actually explaining why the big gaps exist.
Now how does one explain that as a race blind MAGA supporter in Trump's America? Do some similarly half baked sociology based on the Moynihan Report? Do we just advocate for the implementation of a genuine white supremacy to mend the black nuclear family back together through force? Or do we just not talk about it?
Not talking about things seems to be the preferred option for dealing with most things that are unpleasant to think about for the MAGA optimists. We instead trust our leaders and don't think too much about things. Just listen to cope merchants on Fox and friends tell us about how everything is under control. No need to deal with hard reality. And that's where things stop feeling admirable.
When people start recognizing that this loyalty exists and start to pander to it for their own gain, then you're left with a snake swallowing its own tail. With hucksters abusing this captive audience that has nowhere else to go. It's very sad to watch.
hanikrummihundursvin
15d ago
It's an odd thing. Throughout the many lefty podcasts and interviews one can watch on the net, Harris feels like a ghost. She just isn't talked about. I genuinely don't remember anyone paying her a compliment or talking about her qualities as a leader or whatever.
On the flipside, when someone has something negative to say, she's usually only there acting as a springboard to launch the more radical lefty commentators into rants against the establishment or the futility of the Democratic party and 'electoral politics' and whatever else.
Being thrown under the bus would practically be the only role she is suited for. A not so memorable character that no one could really get behind. But hey, she got 75 million votes last time so...
They are seemingly not willing to release the 'autopsy' because it's too divisive, and because Harris is making a second run, so they can't throw her under the bus.
Whilst Ken Martin claims there was no smoking gun in the 'autopsy', there were already signs that there were fundamental problems between the base and the DNC on the topic of Gaza.
Whilst that source is obviously biased, I don't think it's an envious position to be a small z zionist in the Democratic party at the moment. Which is what most of the leadership ostensibly is. Being quiet on the topic of Gaza isn't enough anymore. But they still have donors and personal loyalty towards Israel. Feels like they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
On the topic of anti-zionism within the Democrat base, the louder grassroots elements all seem very intent on their opposition to Israel. It's hard to find a single left of center voice that isn't explicitly anti-zionist or anti-Israel. And when they aren't, they get attacked for it by the base. It's a barometer of sorts, at least where I live. If you are not demonstrating the correct position on the topic of mass bombing of Palestinians by Israel, you are the outgroup. Trump hysteria has seemingly given way to Gaza. Especially with women.
To that extent there's a small scale civil war happening where otherwise diligent lefties are feeling the weight of the Zionist lobby. The marginalization of BDS has been a thing for a while, so I'm sure the DNC can shrug some of this off in time for elections and animate the base with something else. But for that to be feasible one really feels like the Israel-led humanitarian disaster in Gaza needs to end sooner rather than later.
I keep waiting for the glory days of the Democrats to come back. Hillary and Harris were a humiliating spectacle of self indulgence and greed. Biden felt like the last representative of Democrat competency, just on life support with a crack addict son. And insofar as they were the choices on display, I thought the Democrats just had a candidate issue. But maybe that issue is just downstream of one too many contradictions like Gaza that gum the machine up to a point where they just... can't even vet a candidate.
To give Ken Martin some leeway, there's probably an analog for every issue like Gaza within the Democrat base. The 'autopsy' probably just showed that every identity wants their piece of the pie to be bigger, to some extent. But it feels like Gaza has given certain demographics within the party, especially white men and women, a special cause to put their energy behind that's especially divisive for the establishment. It might just be one ball too many for the DNC to juggle.
hanikrummihundursvin
16d ago
This post is longest form "We must maintain the post-war consensus."
It laments we are not maintaining it, but doesn't once tell us why we should maintain it!
Here's why I don't want to maintain it: It is ethnically displacing and disenfranchising Europeans.
Seems like the competency crisis is hitting everyone hard.
It is difficult to get past your internalized misogyny when the Secret Service is incorporating what looks like an elementary school teacher.
But on the flipside I've internalized so much progressive propaganda I can practically feel the Netflix script they will write about the lone stalwart woman warrior that fought the incompetence of her superiors and coworkers and singlehandedly kept Trump alive through an unprecedented amount of half baked attempts against his life.
Honestly, if they made her full Karen it might even be worth it. As her insistence that everyone follow the rules exactly keeps foiling the ploys of the motley crew of would be assassins that seemingly can't do anything right.
hanikrummihundursvin
17d ago
The convergence of memes is too strong for this not to be true.
What are the reactionaries reacting to? I'll just make the case as quickly as I can since you brought it up.
Collective guilt is the game being played on all sides. That's why, when black outcomes aren't on par with whites, we blame systemic racism, which is allegedly perpetuated by the existence of white people.
So whites swallow their ingroup bias, funnel trillions to a minority group that disproportionately rapes, robs and murders, all whilst being continuously bombarded with crap about how evil whites are. Yeah, it is a pretty... 'magnanimous' thing to do. I'd call it hateful and coercive to do that to whites or any other group of people, but whatever.
Given that state of affairs, I don't feel like an increase in the black share of my environment, near or far, is unrelated to me. So to borrow a phrase from our friend: THAT FUCKING AFFECTS ME. I'M WHITE.
Chi_Wara is sitting in a forum reading a direct argument for his own ethnic subjugation. These are being presented as equivalent burdens requiring equivalent restraint. They are not.
Hmm. Maybe we should take a step back here. Unless I am missing context, RR didn't say blacks should be subjugated or enslaved.
Regardless of that, my point was that two people had an ethnic grievance directed at each others group. One chose to make a point that can be verbally engaged with, the other called him slurs and said he deserved to be killed.
Demonic pigskin talking about bringing back slavery. Fuck the "norms" you deserve to killed fuck you cracker bitch
Now this is the kind of energy holocaust deniers need to cultivate. Proactive. Assertive. 'The holocaust didn't happen, but keep citing Nizkor and it might! Right here, right now!'
I've long felt that the reason progressives and similarly minded don't do well here is that the ruleset is kind of stacked against them. They argue differently. It's a lot more emotional and haughty. It challenges you on a different level. It's more personal. And, frankly, it's also more earnest and fun. They're more viscerally and honestly channeling their emotions through text.
But the flipside of that is well... everyone else can also do that. So whilst this might not be the venue for that kind of clash, I'd also ask, do you really want it to be? I have had faith in some progressives I've argued with. Their wit and tenacity was impressive, if nothing else. But are you one of them? If this is all you can muster before crashing out then I don't fancy your chances.
You're getting a fair amount of sympathy because you're black. I don't understand why. Your post was probably the worst thing one can write and I find everyone coddling you to be absurd to a point where I barely have the heart to engage with it.
Now I know my outburst was against the rules, it was uncivil, I was reacting with anger, and I knew at the time I'd get banned for it. But I don't know, when I see someone essentially laying out a justification for bringing back slavery, how am I supposed to respond, as a black person?
If white people can muster the strength to walk past all the white victims of black crime without just calling every black person the n-word all the time, I think you should be able to do something comparable when one of the whites finally has enough and allows themselves to verbally wonder in a scarcely populated recess of the internet whether this whole civil rights thing was worth it.
Comically, your reply was probably the least dignified and most validating argument in favor of such skepticism possible. You offer no sympathy, no understanding, just go straight into the most selfish and aggressively verbalized ingroup/outgroup pathology possible. Leaving no room for interpretation other than that there will be no sympathy for the white devil. He shall continue to give life and limb to the continuous project of racial reconciliation in America to the benefit of your ingroup pathology.
I can't imagine a position less deserving of sympathy than yours. Why you are receiving any is, again, absurd.
That's part of what irked me about the article. It didn't feel like a very traditional perspective, despite coming from an allegedly traditional Orthodox woman. As you point out, and I am generally ignorant of, there are a lot of elements of the faith and the history of the church that are left unexplored relating to the topic.
But at the same time, one could argue that people are flocking towards 'traditionalism' in general since it is being presented as a solution to their modern problems. I'm not sure executions or formalized acceptance of being an incel are what they are looking for. So whilst I lament that there was a rather modern woman presenting herself and her modern problems as being Orthodox, I can also sympathize with her woes. She was having a hard time finding or formulating solutions within Orthodoxy, along with other people. That's a legitimate concern to raise, despite the alleged faults of the messenger.
To that extent the article serves as a sideways critique of much of the generally male dominated Traditional online discourse, that oversells Traditionalism as a silver bullet to a lot of our modern woes, when it's not so clear that it is.
More options
Context Copy link