domain:ryandv.substack.com
hydroacetylene
5hr ago
hydroacetylene
5hr ago
I grew up in an actually socially conservative bubble, in the hardcore twenty percent or so of Americans(so this would be the hardcore 10-15 percent or so of working age native whites, even in the Bush era). Going to church every Sunday was the right thing to do; Mohammedans and atheists were inherently untrustworthy. The blacks are racist too, and responsible for the problems in their community(I was of course warned not to repeat this in public). Fornication is bad, actually, but it happens and needs to be dealt with- and if an eligible man was known to be sexually active with a woman he had to marry her, even if she wasn't his preference or he had other plans. Homosexuals are (mental and sexually transmitted)disease ridden perverts. Gender roles and real and not optional. Women shouldn't be in the military. Marijuana is an evil drug, much worse than alcohol. The 'liberal elite' pushes bad values on purpose; I remember much bellyaching about how they had recently succeeded in making bikinis the overwhelming default, and when I was a bit older about themes in Harry Potter and Twilight. Better be spanked as a child than hanged as an adult(and few, if any, of the people around me had sympathy for criminals). A woman's father had the right- and in many cases, the responsibility- to veto a marriage, and maybe even a dating relationship. Ideally the woman should stay home with her kids, unless she was a teacher, but in either case the man was responsible for the bills. Society was going to collapse because the government uses our tax dollars to push bad morals which make people unproductive; that's why people are dumber, less virtuous, and grow up slower than in the fifties. You can't get a divorce just for falling out of love- the man has to be violent or not holding down a job, or the woman has to be an awful mental case, or somebody has to be addicted to drugs, or something.
I don't say these things so the motte can litigate them. I say them to point to the sine qua non which made the worldview work- different people have different roles in society, mostly due to their membership in various classes(age, gender, social class, maybe sometimes race). As a male youth it was my duty to protect my sister if we went to a social event together, and it was more important that my schooling focus on getting me into a good job which would one day pay the bills for a family. My sister had more household chores(well, in the conventional sense- I had to mow the lawn etc but lots of people don't count yardwork as housework) because it was important that she learn how to do ironing and baking and stuff that I wouldn't need. I was told in no uncertain terms that if I got a girl pregnant or lived with her I would have to marry her, even if I was in love with someone else or had other plans(and my male cousins have pretty much all followed this rule when they took concubines)- although the ideal was obviously a white wedding. And of course being that we were basically middle class I would have to provide a basically middle class standard of living- homeownership and stable employment and going places in cars and the like. My parents threatened to kick me out when I expressed my desire not to go to university, and only relented when I found an HVAC apprenticeship- because it was my job as a middle-class man to have a career, not just a job. These are of course an illustration.
I don't see this mentality from, shall we say, 'converts' to social conservatism. I see a lot of bemoaning about how someone else used to do better from e-trads. And I think this is a lynchpin that's missing which makes a bunch of it 'larping' or 'cargoculting' or whatever; the motte likes to talk about it from time to time. But y'know, social conservatism works off of 'who you are makes x,y,z your job and not doing it even when you don't want to makes you a bad person'. Lots of people like to talk about this- positively or negatively- about women's domestic or familial expectations. I don't think focusing on 'a man's role' or whatever is the missing piece I think you just... can't talk about it without talking about it intersectionally. 'How does everyone fit into society' is a question that needs to be answered and if you've already decided personal characteristics are the way to go about it, well...
I feel like this discussion is the missing ingredient to lots of the topics du jour. Let's take the leftward drift of young women- well social conservatism today seems to have, uh, not discussed what other people owe to them, only what they owe to other people. Is it any wonder that the victimhood narrative from runaway woke is more appealing? Or the disagreements over immigration; we no longer have a class of people whose obligation is to do manual agricultural labor(and most of the historical people who did this did it as an obligation, not a job; serfdom and the corvee is the historical norm). The modern American right seems to simply lack the actual difference between itself and progressivism; it differs only in accidentals(I'm pretty open about voting republican because they protect my right to be socially conservative, and not because they'll push social conservatism). I don't think this mentality can come back from the government, but only from intermediating institutions that democrats would like to punish for doing their job and pushing this. But this is the key difference; most adults have probably worked it out for themselves but nobody ever says it out loud.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
5hr ago
It's only obvious to you because you aren't blessed with the worldliness of a mushroom.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
6hr ago
I think it really just turns on what you consider "diversity". Obviously and famously past Americans considered Germans and Irish and such as contextually diverse in all four of those senses, while today we would probably not say the same of their descendants. I'm sure you could take a stab at some rough numbers about what it might have been over time if you used diversity "in context" for contemporaries, but that would probably be pretty difficult and subjective. Still, I like the instinct here, because it does always annoy me when we hear the similar idea about "division" being the worst it's ever been when the country literally fought a civil war before.
Linguistic and religious diversity might be exceptions, though. This article has a few stats for language that implies it was higher even (or especially) at the Founding, although also worth a side-note that the voting percentages would have been different to some extent. In terms of religious diversity that's also tricky - how do you count "religiously unaffiliated" and its various flavors? I don't really think a fair historical comparison is possible, and I guess you could try, but I won't.
crushedoranges
6hr ago
A lot of the current angst in the left is that a table with one communist and nine people remains a table with one communist and nine people, which drives them crazy.
AlexanderTurok
Alt-MSNBC
6hr ago
Obviously the market is distorted by access to illegal labor, as much as a market would be distorted if people were allowed to own slaves.
This reminds me of the "libertarian" on Twitter who thought "the government opening the border" was "statism."
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
6hr ago
The Middle Class already does crappy work for a living. I don’t think farming is grunt work — if I had a choice I would sooner enslave the financiers than the farmers. I would rather import Chinese and Indians to take the jobs of White financiers than the farmers, because that is truly innoble work. The Western Christian legacy is considering this work as innoble, as beneath human dignity. Even programming demeans humanity more than “picking fruit”. Look at how they write on Twitter. They are halfways to the singularity and I pray that their wishes come sooner and they become fully machine.
a few Oaxacans and Hondurans
Right, it’s obviously an incredibly larger amount than this which can easily make the White population dwindle to 5% by the end of the millenia.
better for everyone
Not at all. Actually, there’s a good argument to be made that deportations could increase all the wages of the lower middle class. But if we’re really basing things off of “better for everyone” we need to talk about waste among the .1% income level.
FtSoA
6hr ago
There are many thousands of contemporary documents in the historical archive at Auschwitz, which is why the complete lack of documentary corroboration for the existence of an extermination plan that killed over a million people at the camp is so conspicuous.
It was a fairly secretive operation. And there was a cover up.
Or do you deny there is evidence of the Nazis trying to cover something up at these camps?
Even the top-secret decodes intercepted by the British, which captured top-secret communication between Auschwitz and SS command, contains not a single iota of reference to an extermination plan,
Are there not certain reports of death counts? A famous telegram, I believe?
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-riegner-telegram
This one is a rehash, but highlights your mistake: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/aug/01/secondworldwar.jamiewilson
What were they discussing at the Wannsee Conference anyway?
At least try to deal with the evidence I'm providing.
as we discussed recently David Cole in 1992 exposed that the "gas chamber" shown to millions of tourists on the tour at Auschwitz was actually fabricated post-war in Soviet-occupied Poland and presented deceptively as an original structure.
You don't have to convince me not to trust the Soviets by default.
There's no backup- the entire narrative rests on the reliability of this tortured confession extracted under duress during a World War which has been proven to be extremely unreliable in key respects, like the description of the sequence of events that led to the creation of the gas chambers at Auschwitz.
You're ignoring his memoirs and remarks made long after the alleged torture session, which itself was reported in his memoir. If he were a compelled witness, this is a very strange way to go about it. It feels like you didn't even skim the resource I provided dealing with these concerns head on.
And even burning a body does not remove the evidence: if 1 million people were cremated at Auschwitz-Birkenau, according to Grok that would produce 2,5000 metric tons of 5.5 million lbs of cremated remains, or 3,000 cubic meters of human remains by volume. These remains, though, have never been found or identified. They are just gone.
Well where did the millions of intact pre-war Eastern European Jews go? Are they not "just gone"?
Also, using ashes for fertilizer, dumping them in rivers, or any number of reported ways to hide them would seemingly explain this problem away quite easily.
No, there was no gas chamber at Dachau.
So the evidence I submitted is simply fabricated? Not that it matters, in that the Mainstream acknowledges it wasn't used.
Does the fact the Mainstream can acknowledge that indicate, perhaps, it responds to evidence?
They did not excavate any graves at Treblinka II, they found a clay tile and misrepresented a manufacturer's logo as being a Star of David intended to lure Jews into the gas chamber with a false sense of security.
Interesting though, isn't it, that the buried tiles matched the accounts of eyewitness accounts? And, sure, it only looked like a Star of David, though it was merely the logo of a Polish ceramics factory. Seems like a pretty understandable mistake to me. If you think about it, the fact the excavation pulled out tiles that matched eyewitness accounts is a little too convenient, right? But BUT, as you pointed out, they actually got it wrong initially that it was a Star of David vs. the logo of a Polish ceramics factory. That's kind of exactly what one would expect from an authentic find.
Why did the Nazis destroy and bury the site if it had a routine purpose?
Do you accept Colls found mass graves and artifacts at Treblinka I?
The precursor to the CIA- the OSS was the progenitor of many of these claims from the West Allies in the first place.
Deflection. The analysis was based on aerial photography which Revisionists have to pretend was doctored.
There was COMINT that indicated the Final Solution was indeed "final" as previously indicated.
There is no historical precedent for the German "Extermination Camps", it stands out as an outlier among all of history.
Well we can agree on that. One might conclude that perhaps it's not such an incredible outlier at all because it's not merely a figment of propaganda.
If you consider the perspective of the Western Allies, finding a moral justification for the war was extremely important.
This is really funny, because I actually went and read a bit of one of your recommended books--Debating the Holocaust--and that fine author pointed out at the end that the likes of Churchill and Eisenhower barely even mentioned the Jews in their war memoirs (and Churchill was quite philosemetic his whole life). The moral justification for the war is just fine if you pretend the Jews were never part of the equation, since Hitler was the aggressor, and the Allies didn't prioritize anything based on Jewish suffering. We nuked the Japs and they didn't even have any Jews to conduct medical experiments on or extract labor from.
Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, there were no mass gassings. Do you accept:
- Europe has a long history of negative beliefs towards and violence against the Jews
- Hitler wrote a popular book in 1925 that was highly critical of the Jews as significant problem
- The Nazis in general were highly concerned with identifying and controlling Jews in both rhetoric and action, before and during WWII
- Hitler "prophesied" a number of times about "the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe" and called them "enemies of the people"
- Hitler gave a speech to his senior leaders in late 1941 that led Goebbels to record in his diary: "Regarding the Jewish question, the Führer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that, if they yet again brought about a world war, they would experience their own annihilation. That was not just a phrase. The world war is here, the annihilation of the Jews must be the necessary consequence."
- The Nazis had a "Final Solution" for the Jewish Problem
- The Nazis systematically rounded up a lot of Jews and put them into camps
- There is clear evidence the Nazis tried to destroy/bury several of these camps, particularly towards the end of the war when the tide had turned
- The pre-war and post-war Jewish population of Europe, particularly Poland, has a gap of several million Jews
No wonder people believe the Holocaust narrative so easily, right?
Was Hitler wrong about the Jews? Were the Nazis wrong to have focused on them so much? Were their utterances merely rhetoric? The ideology of no import when it came to action? But seriously though, how wrong was Hitler about the Jews? Was his rhetoric correct, but he failed to act on it? Just how big of a problem were the Jews, objectively? Like, were they just a minor problem, not a major one? Or what? (At least he was right about the commies.)
Are the Jews really so crafty that they convinced the Nazis to be the perfect evil villains years in advance of the Holocaust? Did they plant the documentation of the Wannsee Conference and Einsatzgruppen reports? The tattooed numbers are a nice touch, too.
Arguing, correctly in some (but definitely no all) cases, that the Holocaust is surrounded by less-than-perfect eyewitness accounts, unknowns, exaggerations, propaganda, and all manner of historical flaws does not remotely begin to overturn the core evidence and present a more plausible account of what evidence we have--since creating and maintaining a conspiracy to manufacture a Nazi conspiracy is even harder to prove, and for which you have provided no actual evidence. Even if you had significantly weakened the hypothesis of the conventional take on the Holocaust, you have neither overturned it nor provided a remotely plausible alternative that explains things better.
The Holocaust is very important in providing a post-hoc moral justification for the war which is essentially the foundational myth for American global empire and 20th-21st century morality.
I think even you can recognize this is a pretty delusional take since the exact same people most up in arms about "Nazis" and "fascism" are also the most likely to be claiming that Jews are privileged White People, that Israelis are settler colonialists committing genocide, and that globalizing the intifada is a good thing to do. From the river to the sea.
Furthermore, the Allies did very little to prevent or mitigate the Holocaust, even rejecting many refugees. The American "global empire" left Israel basically to its own devices for the first few decades of its existence, when it faced overwhelmingly numerically superior foes in several wars. (Good thing Arabs are bad at war.) One might imagine we have wanted to compensate for that guilt a bit as time went on.
EverythingIsFine
Well, is eventually fine
6hr ago
Off topic, but I kind of wonder how the racial estimate question might change if you gave people a slider that forces all the percentages to sum to 100
crushedoranges
6hr ago
Obviously the market is distorted by access to illegal labor, as much as a market would be distorted if people were allowed to own slaves. There is no inconsistency here. People want to compete in the legal framework of their country, under the same laws. An army of scabs willing to work for less in shittier conditions (that would be illegal for any citizen) would depress the labor market.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
6hr ago
We should make national policy decisions based on the projected wellbeing of citizens. That would include the psychological theories of Csikszentmihalyi, which shows that certain occupational activities are more conducive to happiness.
Historical precedent suggests that the same voters flip flop every four years.
This is a bit of a quibble, but actually it’s more like voters come in and out of participation, but the numbers usually balance out in such a way so as to appear that the same voters switch every time. Longitudinally, the number of individual voters who regularly change their mind is pretty low. But yes, elections are close, so they can still matter, but overall they aren’t the kingmaker. What IS true is that these movements in and out of participation are still downstream from persuasion, and tend to jive with mind-changers. So the general idea still holds.
In 2020 to 2024, for instance, although the chart doesn’t show candidate breakdowns, you can see Figure 43 from this report that about half of voters are consistent but the other half is made up of about 3 even-ish groups: new entrants, dropouts, and midterm-skippers.
When talking about Biden, this summarization basically says that 2024 Democrats had both a turnout and persuasion problem, but turnout alone wouldn’t have reversed the loss (so functionally it is still persuasion, which is exactly how you want the elections to work)
EDIT: will further point out that reading the second link provides compelling evidence that the pro-Trump shift, 2020 to 2024, was driven more by men than women, although both groups shifted that direction. We're talking 10% and 2% changes, going by Pew numbers.
I once knew a woman who was sobbing because her boyfriend's family didn't like her- ok, reasonable enough, except the family in this case was his wife and teenaged daughter that she'd insisted on meeting.
:laughingcrying_emoji:
Classic coffee moment and common W for female mate choice copying.
But also, uh, they're looking for guys like their dads, who probably acted like that, because that's their model for how men are. She's probably never gotten to know an upstanding family man. She may not know they exist.
Alternate, but compatible/complementary hypothesis: Single, upstanding men are invisible to her, because they don’t give her the tingles.
Sounds like it could be a Norm McDonald joke: “Women love dating family-oriented men. Sometimes, some of those men even aren’t already married.”
You should invite her here to do one of those user viewpoint series.
quiet_NaN
6hr ago
I think it really depends on how much pain it is to stockpile the goods in question.
For example, assume that when Trump announced his tariffs, market observers agreed that the price of Tamagotchis in the US would increase by 100%. Obviously, this would lead to people starting to hoard Tamagotchis, which in turn would cause the stores to increase the prices on their existing stockpiles, on which they had not paid any tariffs. When a few months later, the next container ship arrives, the prices will stay high even though supply might be far higher than demand, as the owners are just sitting on their supply and waiting for demand to materialize, knowing that more shipments of the goods will not be coming soon.
Now imagine the same situation for bananas. Even anticipating a price hike, customers will not buy their four-year supply of bananas while they are still affordable. While the banana-delivering ships which set sail in the pre-tariff era are still on the ocean, the supermarket price of bananas should mostly stay stable -- some importer is making a loss on them, but still not as much of a loss as if they left them to rot.
Of course, the banana importers will anticipate higher prices and thus lower demands and therefore order a lot less bananas. Unless they are mistaken about the shape of the demand curve, this will lead to a price hike roughly when the ships with the smaller orders come into port.
My estimate is that different factors affect how well you can stockpile a certain trade good. Food will rot. Any resource needs to be stored, many of them in a dry place. Fossil fuels have to be protected from going up in flames or escaping into the atmosphere or the ground, sometimes. Electronics become obsolete, eventually. Consumer taste and fashion changes, who knows if in two years anyone will still be interested in cheap Chinese "Alligator Alcatraz" merchandise.
hydroacetylene
6hr ago
the U.S. is more linguistically, religiously, ethnically, and racially diverse than it has ever been.
I don't know about that. In the past there were entire states which mostly didn't speak English(Lousiana and New Mexico have both had governments that did not operate in English).
hydroacetylene
6hr ago
No, Marines have their own special forces and the fallback for that is usually 'normal getting shot at' jobs like machine gunner and infantry grunt. IIRC the most usual path into force recon is to try to transfer from normal light infantry anyways.
hydroacetylene
6hr ago
Alcoholism forces the lowest social classes to hold a job and then die when they get to be too old to work anymore, which is broadly what society wants from them. Alcohol is an important social lubricant in not-rigorously structured societies like the west.
hydroacetylene
6hr ago
I have a theory that college girls sometimes get nose rings to say 'I'm old enough now' when they're not otherwise clearly distinguished from teenagers.
zeke5123a
6hr ago
In moderation, alcohol can create social cohesion. The moderation is the key bit.
hydroacetylene
6hr ago
The QoL of agricultural grunt workers has, in every society in history, been pretty bad. Yes, you can entice some college kids to do a bit of it over the summer for unlimited booze and sex, but I am very skeptical they'll do enough of it to replace migrants. 'Picking crops' is just a job that always inherently sucks.
The cost advantage of illegals is also not the only reason that illegals are preferred by lower blue collar employers; I don't know if you've met native white and black trash but they're both just awful. Drugs, dysfunctional relationships, poor communication and attendance, legal issues, poor conflict-management, unreliability, theft and dishonesty, laziness, etc are way worse among our native underclass- and illegals are themselves not necessarily role models with that stuff. Lots of them are essentially unemployable because that's who's left over in a society like the US where huge majorities of functional and capable people 'make it' out of having to do shitty unskilled labor for a living.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
6hr ago
It would be, but to try out for the SEALs you've already enlisted in the Navy so that's pretty much the way it goes for many people who turn out to be only 99th percentile athletes rather that 99.9th percentile.
hydroacetylene
6hr ago
As I keep saying, the conditions required to 'keep farms running so we can stock the shelves with a variety of produce' are not great, and first worlders will not do it without compulsion(or, I suppose, being deluded into halfway doing this for brief periods of time on partyfarms). Likewise lots of heavy construction labor etc.
Americans should mow their own lawns, watch their own children, etc. But the idea that we can replace illegal migrants and roustabouts with middle class whites is farcical. Manual laborers are by definition not middle class, at least when they're doing temporary grunt work.
No_one
6hr ago
At this point tattoos signal nothing more than conformity or body dysmorphia.
Piercings are more serious, I'm not sure what they say except for 'lower social class' or maybe body dysmorphia.
No_one
6hr ago
fine, but then why did every other Western nation that was looking to change calibers and was capable of indigenous weapons development also reject the idea
They were largely not sovereign nations and forced to do so by Americans due to NATO. I'm sure that e.g. had the Germans been left to their own devices they'd have kept making Stg.44s post war as the rifle's superiority was recognized during the war.
And honestly, no, the other ones don't really matter.
Sure, buddy. Sure. A communist Malaysia is okay, sitting straight on an important trade route and providing oil.
no other military would adopt a smaller cartridge until 5.56 NATO).
Japanese adopted 6.5mm in 1897.
If these existed then farmers would already be using them. Unless the argument is "illegals are so cheap no one bothers to invent them" but then why doesn't any other nation without infinite underpaid Guatemalans invent one?
And then if the logic is "american kids will be so expensive to hire it'll incentivise someone to invent a tomato scooping machine" 1) why hasn't anyone else already done this where labor is expensive and 2) is the price of food going up due to large wage increases just being handwaved away as "worth it"
Also my autism demands I point out that tomato's do not grow in the ground (sorry)
More options
Context Copy link