Garfielf
1d ago
Everyone on here telling me that he makes good points about the nature of women and decline of population even if it is couched in out-dated terms should be happy to find out how being educated has harmed them, right?
You're right. The idea more education makes men and women miserable is poppycock, which is why South Korea was rewarded with making its young mens' entire lives revolve around entrance exams with the lowest suicide rate in the world!
What do you think you're accomplishing here? Yes the bureaucratization of everything, especially education, has hurt men. In this house we believe the industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. Is it inconceivable to you that someone might think this?
(1) You should all convert to Catholicism (2) You, too, should marry early for the salvation of your soul (3) You should engender a large family (six to eight children) (4) You should not let your sons be educated by female teachers as already in 1905 the rising generation of boys are all effeminate limp-wristed mama's boys (5) You should not be over-educated, nor should you let your sons be over-educated. Avoid university if at all possible. Manual semi- and skilled work, or office work in business as future self-made millionaires, is the goal here for success in life. You know all you need to know by fourteen, now go out there and work! (6) Marry early to young, ignorant, slightly stupid, possibly lower in social status than you, women who will be totally dependent on you for provision during wifehood, motherhood, and possibly widowhood and who will not have any views, opinions, tastes, or interests higher than maintaining her home and family. Presumably you seek out other men for stimulation of the intellect or just a conversation that is not about babies and furniture?
Co-signed for points 1, 2, 3 without seeing any need for defense or explanation. As for 4, yes, the negative psychological effects of raising boys as if they were defective girls under female direction were already showing by 1905. Girls should not be educated by men who expect them to behave as boys, either.
On point 6, of course, we are in complete agreement. I would kill myself in despair if I were not able to marry a modern Virago who was wisely taught to despise and be suspicious of me as a threat for my male-ness, to expect everything from me and give nothing, not even fidelity until death do us part, in return, and to loudly point and splutter if I suggested she or any woman were less than perfect.
Garfielf
2d ago
Interesting view of life you got there, mod.
I agree with the mod
Why is everyone calling me a mod? I'm not a moderator of this website nor a member of a midcentury British youth subculture!
Garfielf
2d ago
Though it's hardly perceptible through a Western overton window, the Taliban moderated immensely to win back power while in exile. In essence, they purged any extra-Quranic elements of their organization (such as the unspoken Pashtun supremacism) to broaden the tent. This has had undeniably stabilizing effects (the semi-permanent anti-Pashtun rival army that had held out in the north for decades failed to reform this time as non-Pashtuns are represented at the highest levels) and some wish-washery that seems to please no one (the New Taliban likes modernity enough to force mujahids who just want to run around the desert shooting shit to get office jobs but not enough to keep schools open for Kabul's women). I've seen some conflicting evidence on whether they've managed to staunch Afghanistan's US-induced freefall in birthrate but it's probably too soon to tell.
Garfielf
2d ago
The least convincing kind of "fighting retreat unto death" Feminian sandstones apologia is when a righteous zealot shows us an antediluvian man predicting the coming Feminist future where he gets 9 hits and a miss, but writing about the whole thing in fakey middle english so the reader hopefully think's he's a tosser anyway.
Garfielf
8d ago
I can actually confirm this is the case, and I hope I've established my "not an establishment liberal running-dog" bona fides on this forum. My roommate had an HVAC job and the other guys talked his boss into firing him in less than a month because he awkwardly dodged or didn't join in the raunchy chud humor. I get it, I'd have a siege mentality too, these days.
Garfielf
15d ago
There's far more then enough men around to ensure the human population keeps going
No there aren't. South Koreans will be an endangered species by 2100 if the 100% gynocentric sexual culture continues.
Garfielf
19d ago
Your own source describes (using simperingly defensive language toward the black Chicagoans, of course) how there was a massive race riot begun by Bronzeville (black Chicago) residents in 1919 caused by allegations of white police apathy toward a homicide, before the advent of redlining or covenant segregation in Chicago, which the article itself says only began in the 1920s mainly in response to this riot!
Garfielf
1mo ago
I defended your earlier posts against point-and-sputter sneering, but a lot of the peanut gallery's objections are starting to hit home. Why the repeated, winking reference to the color of the Hajnals vs. Tropicals' skin? If Tidus isn't earth because you want to sneak great truths into propagandized minds through metaphor, there's really no worse way to do this than raising the "That's Racist!" shields every westerner got drilled into his head in school.
In addition, you earlier replied to a comment of mine saying you'd address my critique of De Gobineau that all of the original 'Race of Kings' died off and were replaced with elevated commoners but I don't see how you did this. Maybe the bit about how the industrial revolution causes the laziest Hajnals to not reproduce? I remind you your original portrait of Tidus is of King-race nobles ruling over their fogheaded underlings regardless of skin color of the said underlings. Now we're supposed to believe a few decades of accidental eugenics have turned Hajnal factory-workers into Kings themselves, whereas the melinated Tropicals are irredeemably bad, stupid and violence-prone, immune to the same selection pressures of the industrial revolution?
Garfielf
1mo ago
why you have an entire American film genre whose recurring central theme boils down to "police brutality is good"
You do? At least since High Obama we've had an entire American film genre whose recurring central theme boils down to "police brutality is bad", and even before that stuff like "Death Wish" with the moral of "VIGILANTE brutality is good, police are useless" tended to predominate.
Garfielf
1mo ago
I don't think this is necessarily true. Most dictators die peacefully in their sleep. Stalin left behind a Stalinist empire that outlived him by decades which was peacefully replaced by a 10 year halfhearted USA larp and finally the current dictator whose ideology is "OK maybe actually applied Stalinism doesn't work but it shouldn't diminish our love for the Stalin Who's In Our Hearts".
Garfielf
1mo ago
I think you're now selectively and dishonestly embracing the same kind of eugenic arguments you decry in the Mountain. The fact (many) Muslims' violent cultural rejection of some dysgenic aspects of modernity may help them thrive in our future does not have any bearing one way or the other on whether races that practiced barbarian warrior pastoralism dominated because of that in the past.
Would you mind elaborating? I don't really remember doing that and this may be a case where I implied something accidentally. Related to the below?
The one that I had in mind when I wrote that is specifically this paragraph from chapter 6:
(Oh and hopefully, down the road, no one in the host society gets the bright idea of appropriating economic surplus from the honest, productive people to give extra resources to the dishonest ones such that they can have a lot more kids than they’d otherwise be able to support, thinking this might fix the problem. Can you imagine?)
I don't think you've demonstrated that the struggle of divergent prototribes to assimilate in IIRC the bronze age directly maps to what can't be read as anything other than a criticism of modern welfare states.
also,
Who has harder control of his women than the Emperor? Yet he's also the guy deploying eunuchs to manage them.
The Emperor can't be anywhere at once, and you can't uncuck yourself, only avenge the humiliation. I'd be willing to bet that in pre-Confucian Chinese states with both large Imperial harems and absolute proprietorial control of commoner women in monogamous marriages with their husbands, the commoners actually had much lower rates of infidelity simply because they could actually keep an eye on/meaningfully restrict their women, and also for the reason if anyone fucks any of your 5000 wives you're technically a cuckold but it's rather disingenuous to say it's exactly the same for obvious 'per capita' reasons
Garfielf
1mo ago
Yes, yes, we're all snowy white big-brained men on here (except those of us who aren't).
I'm pretty much pure "Mediterranean man" according to the poetry you quoted above, and I neither claim to be a Nordic ubermensch nor prostrate myself to my Aryan betters (the current state of the Nordic lands is, I think, strong evidence against any claims of unblemished superiority). Nevertheless, I lost to the urge to sneer at your comment that was, itself, pretty much 100% sneering.
Swear to God, I never thought I'd be fighting for the conservative viewpoint of not being a total pain in the behind, yet here I am.
And what are you doing to uphold this standard in particular? Above, you actually challenged a factual assertion from the story about hearth-worship being patrifocal. That's fantastic! However, you also felt the need to leave a whole separate comment (and not your first on this series) just moralistically jeering.
As a matter of fact, I don't agree with all the factual assertions and implications of this series. Off the top of my head, two big problems I have with it are that while the author literally once said offhandedly something to the effect of "of course all women aren't cynical whores," he doesn't address at all societies which practice 'hard' arranged marriages, which would mean women have pretty much no say at all in their mates, and we would expect to lessen, or at least change the form male peacocking takes, as well as cease to force women through a hypergamous darwinian selection process. In addition, I find his insinuations his fairly convincing view of how stone-age tribes slugged it out explain modern racial politics pretty risible. By the time of the last serious elite-supported defense of pure hereditary elitism - De Gobineau's age - the claims European Elite Human Capital represented nearly pureblooded Aryans ruling over potato people peasants were completely false. Warfare had simply gotten too lethal by the Middle Ages, to the point nearly all European nobility represented former commoners raised to knighthood and eventually higher rank to replace some Aryan conqueror unceremoniously stuck through with an Ottoman crossbow bolt or whatever.
Nevertheless, you don't see me here in the comments doing a "dumb racist uncle at thanksgiving" impression.
Garfielf
1mo ago
Of course, your insinuation, that the conclusions OP have drawn must be factually incorrect because you find them morally abhorrent, is spot on.
While in the past anthropologists were forced to wrestle with the hate fact that a few ethnic groups have completely dominated huge swaths of the planet's surface in its brief recorded history, with today's wisdom we now know this was purely due to economic and climatic factors - it is very fortunate and convenient that the varied economic and climatic conditions of the many countries the Indo-Aryans dominated, for example, simply happened to favor them every time. In fact, such outdated terminology is already giving way to more factual and less inflammatory terminology. Soon anthropologists will be able to speak of the Indo-Socioeconomic Migrations rather than uncouth "Aryan" conquests.
Garfielf
1mo ago
Noahides are not "bad" from a Jewish perspective at all. Virtuous pagans were fundamentally good people (whose deaths should be mourned) unable to know the truth of Christ. They were not 'less bad'. (IDK about marxists though)
Garfielf
1mo ago
Christians acknowledge there were "virtuous pagans", Jews acknowledge gentiles who lived righteously. Even Marxists developed the concept of someone in the past being "historically progressive."
Garfielf
1mo ago
What an utterly fascinating worldview. If that's the case, perhaps you should use your eminently correct modern values to triangulate when the first good person in the world was born, so we can know the first funeral it was moral to shed tears at.
Garfielf
1mo ago
So then you believe that, in round terms, 100% of Christians and Jews (and Europeans more generally) who lived before the 1860s, when buggery started being bumped down from being a capital crime, were bad people, and none of the deaths of anyone who fought in any European war, or was murdered in Christendom before then, was sad?
Garfielf
1mo ago
I can't speak for Jews, but for observant Christians (such as Charlie Kirk), they believe Jesus Christ deliberately gave requirements for carrying out stoning that are impossible (anyone throwing a stone must be without sin) and therefore they are not supposed to stone anyone, homosexual or otherwise - though men having sex with men remains sexually immoral.
Garfielf
1mo ago
For the purposes of this argument, let's define observant as being, at minimum, people who believe the Old Testament is the revealed word of God, and that God, being perfect, has not made mistakes. Do you think anyone unwilling to say that God made a mistake in the Book of Leviticus is a bad person, undeserving of sympathy if they are murdered? And as I asked above, do you think such Jews and Christians therefore and necessarily want to go out and stone homosexuals?
Garfielf
1mo ago
Do you think that all observant Christians and Jews in the world (the latter, unlike Christians, I remind you, think the entire Law of Moses remains binding) believe in going out and stoning homosexuals right now, and are therefore terrible people?
Garfielf
2mo ago
Simple: all the pseudoscientific and pseudoreligious reasons for a society based on the sexual revolution have been shown to be even faker.
Garfielf
2mo ago
The principal difference between the 1890s woman and the 21st century man is that the 1890s woman was legally defenseless against abuse from her husband, while the more fortunate 21st century man is merely legally defenseless against career criminals, mentally ill violent strangers on public transportation, police officers, his boss, every woman who works in his HR department, his wife, and rioters who have the correct politics.
You couldn't be more wrong. I am struggling through post-graduate education to become qualified to be a provider for my future wife because I am aware I am repulsive to women without higher status and more money than them. My dating life has been an unbroken succession of disappointments because none of the women I've dated were comfortable with waiting for marriage to have sex - they wanted to fool around, and I did not. (Every relationship was one I went into intending to marry the girl if she was willing, BTW)
Feminism has liberated all the women around me of all expectations upon themselves, but men like me still struggle with all the pre-feminist expectations for men to be manly male providers, but taken away anything we might get in return. So what's good for the goose is only being given to the goose. This gander would love some, but isn't getting it.
More options
Context Copy link