This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Silicon Age Hinduism - A defence of Hinduism and an elaboration of what Bronze Age Pervert gets right
Recently, Bronze Age Pervert caused a stir by defending the single most fleshed out faith on the planet and the only living ancestral aryan faith, Hinduism. BAP or Bronze Age Pervert is an uber popular right-wing dissident on Twitter who is anti "desert cult" and is inspired by Friedrich Nietzsche
Naturally, I saw a lot of butthurt takes since no sane religious person will ever debate religions in a logical manner as religious experiences and religions in particular work on you believing something to be totally true. What I found interesting was the idea that modern hinduism is totally detached from the vedic faith, which in itself is a motte and bailey fallacy, the person stating this believes that modern day hindusim is a different religion, therefore we can simply have a new revival and this helps you avoid giving any props to Indians given the current political climate. Another thing to note is that most of India, 80 percent or more, is Shudra (4th varna) or below; the first two varnas make up close to 10 percent of the population and only a small number in them live up to the ideals of old, religiously and genetically.
Modern India, modern South Asia are completely dysgenic hellholes with terrible human capital. India of all places, stands out here because castes ensured clusters of higher IQ people in the elites which is also why you see many Indians doing well. This is not what my argument is. Hinduism itself is a broad umbrella term for all sects that vary greatly but are driven by the ideals and beliefs in the Vedas and offshoots of such branches. Unlike an Abrahamic religion, your canon is not your holy book but your guru.
The aryans from the steppe were not white, the Vedas were not written by whites as whites or euros came into existence around the time the aryans came and mixed here. Aryans, therefore, are the ancestors to my people and you, the reader. Modern Hinduism has way too much voodoo, it does deviate from vedic ideals but the texts and the practices from said texts still live on. The human capital here kept getting worse and poorer, which meant that things like Gaudiya Vaishnavism seemed more appealing as the strict purity spiralling there can elect Krishna as Jesus, and then religious offerings and a grain-based impoverished diet could be seen as virtuous. Modern-day India is not some place I can ever defend despite being a resident; the vast majority of the people are beyond fixing and always have been. Hinduism is the faith I was lucky to be born with and I may tolerate some anti-H1B takes since mass migration is always bad, but I just cannot fathom the bad faith takes posted by online dissident Christians. Shiva worship was tpresent in the Indus Valley, so were castes, whilst aryans had varnas, which is something that ancient euros also had.
BAP get Hinduism better than most pagan dissidents and every single non hindu, plus a lot of Hindus. The aryan text, Bhagavat Gita for instance, is the most modern Hindu text that goes against the Vedas and yet I have heard podcasts where Euro nationalists who decry Christ for being brown talk about the Gita being an example of aryan virtue, failing to realise that Lord Krishna was dark. So was Lord Ram who by all accounts was the physical manifestation of Dharmik values.
Their skin colors may have been different, darker or fairer, it is irrelevant to their divine status. The central argument is that these people, upon falling out with their Abrahamic faith, look to the past and cannot deny the appeal of the most fleshed-out aryan faith. Saying anything good about Hindusim without asterisks means saying good things about Indians who unfortunately, do not have the best stock today, so claiming that all good things in HInduism were pre-Puranas (a lot of puranas are fan fiction btw, not all though) or that the current population has negligible traces of the past ones is a way to avoid falling into that box. Since conservatism is in many cases a retvrn to values, you have a hard time going against Christianity, which, if you can manage it, always leads to ancestor worship.
Modern-day Hinduism is not totally Voodoo, despite all the mountains of trash, outdated superstitious beliefs, the shaktipithas and the chosen few temples are alive. Modern India bends towards the pajeet stereotype more and more, even for those of higher birth, it still is the only surviving aryan religion. India was poor and backwards during medieval times; a lot of seasoned euro intellectual giants had a lot of admiration for our texts and scholars. Goethe was inspired heavily by Kalidasa.
I was 19 when I came across Curwen Ares Rolinson, who was a far-right youth leader on trial for hate crimes. He experienced a divine intervention and dedicated his life to the study of aryan faiths and started writing for his blog Arya Akasham, much of it makes little sense to me, but he persuaded me to look into theology. As a token of his appreciation, he parted away with a large amount of his life savings to help India during COVID, a loving gesture that I will forever appreciate. I came across him via survivethejive, who, of all the white pagans I know, is the most respectful towards Hinduism, since, despite a sane anti migrant stance, he can see what a living faith like that of his people could look like today and respect it. Anti Indian sentiment is at an all time high for multiple reasons including bad faith behavior from Indians, I am not trying to touch on that topic since I cannot justify sentiments against fellow indian passport holders, but I can never defend things like chain migration and seeing the nation that accepts you as a special economic zone to be exploited. I just want to dispel the myths around Hinduism being a white religion, as it predates whites and many other ethnicities, and the other false belief stapled with it, which is that the link between modern and Vedic Hindus is non-existent, as there are large enough pockets of real beliefs that exist. I see some of those things in my own life, and they are just divine.
I am not here to defend Hinduism against logical arguments. If you ever want to know if it's true, meditate, and you will experience what truth feels like. We are a dying people, but I have faith in Shiva, and I pray for the benefit of all beings.
P.S. will add links in a bit
You complain about "poor human capital" and "dysgenics" seemingly ignorant of the fact that if you're right, hinduism-- specifically, any proscriptions regarding caste separation-- must be the direct cause. The very existence of an "upper caste" requires the existence of a lower caste. And once you've created one, you can't turn around and complain that that caste then turns around and wants to become the "upper" caste themselves.
It's dysgenic in that the more blue blooded simply let the underclass run wild due to cheap labor, now that we are in a democracy, the extant of that damage is incredible.
Castes are not dysgenic at all as without them you have less smart people overall. Compare Pakistan with Indian, Pakistanis and Sikhs are seen as blue collar immigrants and regularly live in ghettos with blacks, Indians, many are scammy, Hindus I meant, produce way smarter outliers.
The ideal thing would have been what England did where the blue blooded replaced their own underclass a few times.
It's incredibly unlikely that the effect of government policy post-independence has had more of an effect on local genomes than the effect of literally thousands of years of caste-based rule. If you have less smart people now, it's because of the castes. And in any case, while I'm inclined to doubt IQ research in general, even if I were to accept it, IQ looks like it's basically just correlated with cold weather, and high-iq countries almost invariably lack castes. Actually, if I was going to bet on anything increasing IQs, it would be the existence of longstanding meritocratic civil-service exams tied to a powerful, well-renumerated bureaucratic class. Tying wealth and therefore reproductive fitness directly to a measure of analytical fitness seems like it would apply the most powerful selection over the broadest possible pool of candidate genes.
Also, England didn't replace their underclass. It did literally the exact opposite-- replacing celtic with roman with germanic with norman nobility. The underclass sticks around and interbreeds with the newcomers every time, both accepting "fallen nobility" but also producing its own occasional homo novus granted land and titles. Honestly, if you want a genetically elite upper class that's just objectively the sane way to do it-- instead of assuming prima facie that your ancestors 3,000 years ago had the very best genes and you're going to preserve them forever, just continuously skin the cream off the top while siphoning the congealed milk off the bottom.
This is simply untrue, these exams are the reason why French revolution happened and also why you see Asians represented disproportionately in places as their society lives and dies by exam conferred status. Did China or Korea produce anything resembling what Indo Europeans did until the 21st century?
We know aryans had varna, that euros pre Christianity had varna. The cream was skimmed but sometime in the medieval era, free labor from the underclass led to modern demographic issues.
Replying here to both your comments.
This is a big claim when from my perspective the historical performance of pakistan and india have been pretty similar in terms of GDP per capita. The main reversal has come only recently, which seems like it would directly counter your complaints about indian society becoming more dysgenic. And saying that there's not a lot of differences between those countries-- and that those differences are shared with countries that perform both better and worse than india on an IQ and economic basis-- indicates that those differences are not decisive in increasing indian IQ.
Elites are smarter than their underclass everywhere. You don't need castes to do it. Rather, the evidence is that creating caste-based elites makes your nation underperform relative to other nations with similar capacity for elite formation. Consider Mexico, which got mogged by brazil and the US in the 20th century at least in part due to political instability caused by the remanants of its caste system. Consider how recent european history is basically just relatively meritocratic states stunting on relatively aristocratic states. Picking smart people to form your elite just works better in every way that picking an elite and trying to make them smart.
source? And what does that have to do with my argument about selecting for IQ? Even if you're right, it seems to fit pretty smoothly into my model of, "create intermarrying genetic castes -> castes put on bottom have a rational reason to revolt".
And this counters my argument how?
Um, yes? From here:
Also relevant,
It's not an exact match, but considering that rome then proceeded to collapse and never re-unite while china had long stretches of stability, it's fair to say that European and Chinese civilization were probably fairly comparable at various points in history.
You foundational assumption-- that castes increase the total amount of very-smart people-- is wrong. India has the same normal distribution of IQs as everyone else. If you were right, India would have a right-skewed distribution. The caste system may or may not provide IQ benefits to the elite castes (I'd guess "not" looking at how the Indian elite underperform relative to the european and chinese elite), but it definitely fails to provide that benefit to society at large. At best, castes don't do anything except split India into a variety of fueding interest groups. At worst, they reduce global selection pressures for IQ without actually doing much to improve outcomes locally.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link