The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Ranking of Countries by Neighborly Nationalism
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The seventh wave of the World Value Survey, covering the years 2017-2020, is out. The following table presents a survey-exhaustive ranking of countries by the percentages of respondents, by country, who said they would not like to have neighbors “of a different race” than their own (N = 125,098):

Country %NeighborNotDiffRace
1) Burma 70.4
2) Vietnam 62.4
3) Macau 43.3
4) Turkey 41.2
5) Lebanon 35.9
6) Bulgaria 33.0
7) Georgia 32.6
8) Thailand 32.1
9) Iraq 31.8
9) Bangladesh 31.8
11) Guatemala 30.3
12) Hungary 28.2
13) Iran 27.6
14) Czech Republic 27.4
15) Slovakia 27.0
15) Armenia 27.0
17) Kyrgyzstan 25.9
18) Pakistan 25.3
19) Azerbaijan 25.2
20) Macedonia 25.0
21) Jordan 24.4
21) Greece 24.4
23) Tajikistan 24.2
24) Bosnia and Herzegovina 23.7
25) Slovenia 23.0
26) Lithuania 21.8
27) Tunisia 20.6
28) Philippines 20.5
29) Nicaragua 19.8
30) Belarus 19.5
31) Romania 18.1
32) China 18.0
33) Egypt 16.5
34) Ethiopia 16.4
35) Nigeria 15.8
36) Estonia 15.6
37) South Korea 15.2
37) Cyprus 15.2
39) Russia 14.7
40) Japan 14.3
41) Spain 12.5
42) Italy 11.7
43) Mexico 11.4
44) Croatia 11.2
45) Hong Kong 10.9
46) Kazakhstan 10.3
47) Colombia 10.2
48) Puerto Rico 9.2
49) Indonesia 9.1
50) Austria 7.9
51) Albania 7.7
52) Taiwan 7.6
53) Poland 7.2
54) Peru 6.9
54) Chile 6.9
56) Finland 6.8
57) Netherlands 6.3
58) Ecuador 6.0
59) Malaysia 5.5
60) Zimbabwe 5.2
61) Bolivia 4.6
62) Switzerland 4.2
63) Australia 3.9
63) Andorra 3.9
65) Germany 3.7
65) France 3.7
67) Denmark 3.1
68) United States 3.0
69) New Zealand 2.7
69) Argentina 2.7
71) Norway 2.6
72) United Kingdom 2.1
73) Iceland 1.7
74) Brazil 1.4
75) Sweden 1.0

Burmans really didn’t want Rohingya neighbors, and one doubts the Rohingya much want Burmans within striking distance, either.

Zimbabwe wants their white farmers back. A rainbow nation will emerge where storm clouds once raged!

Much as the US would like to grant Puerto Rico statehood, it has some work to do on its racism before it can be seriously considered!

Sweden’s anti-racism is good, but Sweden’s anti-lockdown is bad. Does not compute! Brazil as runner-up–didn’t see that coming.

Northwestern Europeans sure do come in for a lot of abuse for their putative racism. It’s really something–a sort of self-imposed anarcho-tyranny on a global scale–that the least racist people on the planet are the most obsessed with scrubbing out any vestiges of racism that might remain in those hard to reach places. That’s the tyranny. Meanwhile, the places where a lot of people want to live around others like themselves are largely above criticism, the former Soviet states somewhat excepted. That’s the anarchy.

Alternatively, it’s like an autoimmune disorder. Whatever the preferred analogy, it’s a perverse universalism we’ve come up with.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Racism, WVS 
Hide 140 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Isn’t this more of a political-correctness consciousness survey?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Colin Wright


    Isn’t this more of a political-correctness consciousness survey?
     
    Indeed. All this says is about the stated preferences of the people in each country - it says little about the revealed preferences.

    In my experience, Swedes are far more vociferous about "anti-racism" than American whites are, but are far less tolerant of differences in person (racial or otherwise). Some WN-types always go on about the Northern European individuality versus East Asian collectivism, but I actually found ordinary Scandinavians, in general, to be quite insular and communitarian - rather like ordinary East Asians.

    I tend to think of the obsession with individuality, or more accurately, anti-communitarianism, a rather Celtic (or Anglo-Celtic) trait, inherited later by Americans.

    Brazilians have a different conception of race than Americans do. America's one-drop rule "favors" blackness (one drop of African DNA = black person), but Brazil's is almost the opposite. Brazilians with any amount of European ancestry seem to see themselves as, if not white, then certainly white-ish or "not black." Certainly racism and skin tones as a class marker are not absent in Brazil, but nonetheless I've found Brazilians to be genuinely accepting of people of different skin tones in general (Brazil, for example, has the largest Japanese community outside of Japan and they are well-assimilated).

    So I think Sweden and Brazil being one and two really doesn't tell the whole story.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

  2. Northwestern Europeans sure do come in for a lot of abuse for their putative racism.

    Maybe it’s because there’s not much there that you can actually ostracize it since you will be dealing with a small minority and there is not much risk in marginalizing them…? If the numbers were like Burma, you can’t well go after a significant part of the population.

    It’s a bit like how you can prohibit alcohol in a place like Pakistan because not too many people partake, so you can punish the few or just ignore them. Whereas in a place like the US, prohibition caused all sorts of problems since you were going against the habits of a massive part of the population.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Talha

    Malaysia cannot ban beer outright because of the ethnic Chinese, and because hawker centers are de facto segregated, it is not necessary anyhow. But they do tax the dickens out of it. You can get two meals for one bottle of beer.

    (Singapore also taxes alcohol heavily. Like many things, Singapore used to be much more strict back in the day. The ethnic Indians have this coconut wine that was flat out banned in the 1970s due to drinking issues. There is one single Tamil shop in Johor where you can still buy it.)

    Just another AA cost, when you think about it. I have heard that more Malay dominated East Coast states have banned alcohol, but I never made it out there.

    Replies: @Talha

  3. I’ve fascinated by some of these responses.

    I wonder what people in Vietnam consider a different race. Would the Chinese qualify?

    Macau seems pretty unexpected. Maybe, a low number of respondents?

    I would not want to live in Zimbabwe. But I wonder if these numbers would have really increased markedly, if they were surveyed earlier. I mean, I don’t think the average native was necessarily that hostile or violent, but the elite were, and that makes it dangerous enough. Bet it would not be high in South Africa – still not a good place to live.

    What is the approach that Singapore takes now? Don’t they force some level of integration in apartments or something? Personally, I think a lot of people would be happier living in ethnic neighborhoods. Do they not allow polling there, or is that just for tracking pre-elections?

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @songbird


    I don’t think the average native was necessarily that hostile or violent, but the elite were, and that makes it dangerous enough.
     
    That's another important factor - government (elite) policy.

    According to the survey, South Korea is slightly more "nationalistic" than Japan, but in reality, the government policy in South Korea has been strongly "globalist" for a couple of decades now and has actively courted foreign tourists, students, and residents. Globalization ("Segyehwa") has been literally the ruling ideology of both the rightist and the leftist administrations since the 1990's.

    In Japan, the government has been pretty clear about following the Oregon policy toward Californians (only toward non-Japanese): "Come visit, spend money, but don't stay."

    Replies: @songbird

    , @nebulafox
    @songbird

    In Singapore, every public housing estate (majority of Singaporeans live in them) has an ethnic quota to fill, and you are only allowed to sell to members of your own race. This has been government policy since the 1960s.

    In practice, ethnic Malays tend to be more often found out near the Malaysian border or toward the east because they are socioeconomically poorer-bigger mosques can be seen in Punggol, Woodlands, Tampines, etc. Additionally, each of the ethnic groups does have a "heritage" district complete with hawker center (Chinese have People's Park and a largely PRC dominated Chinatown, Indians have Tekka and the surrounding Little India area, Malays have Geylang Serai/Paya Lebar) where they tend to dominate. Also, the various guest worker communities-Thais, Filipinos, Bangladeshis, Indonesians-have their own congregation spots, geographically located in LI ane PL respectively for the latter two.

    Nevertheless, racial ghettoes in the American sense do not exist.

  4. 1. They were not asked a straight question, “Would you like or not to have neighbors of a different race?” Instead, they were given a list of neighbor types and were asked to mention the ones they didn’t want. I would like to see the data looked at in different ways. For example, was the number of types they mentioned different from country to country? And if so, should the data for each type be normalized in some way? Should the data be presented as percentage of types mentioned rather than percentage of people who selected a type?

    2. They data was taken in different years. Some countries were taken in March and April of this year, when Coronavirus may have affected the race result.

    3. In some countries, some interviews went on for over two hours, while in others, they were more quickly concluded. Why was this and how does affect our confidence in a country-by-country ranking?

    • Thanks: Kent Nationalist
  5. @Colin Wright
    Isn't this more of a political-correctness consciousness survey?

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Isn’t this more of a political-correctness consciousness survey?

    Indeed. All this says is about the stated preferences of the people in each country – it says little about the revealed preferences.

    In my experience, Swedes are far more vociferous about “anti-racism” than American whites are, but are far less tolerant of differences in person (racial or otherwise). Some WN-types always go on about the Northern European individuality versus East Asian collectivism, but I actually found ordinary Scandinavians, in general, to be quite insular and communitarian – rather like ordinary East Asians.

    I tend to think of the obsession with individuality, or more accurately, anti-communitarianism, a rather Celtic (or Anglo-Celtic) trait, inherited later by Americans.

    Brazilians have a different conception of race than Americans do. America’s one-drop rule “favors” blackness (one drop of African DNA = black person), but Brazil’s is almost the opposite. Brazilians with any amount of European ancestry seem to see themselves as, if not white, then certainly white-ish or “not black.” Certainly racism and skin tones as a class marker are not absent in Brazil, but nonetheless I’ve found Brazilians to be genuinely accepting of people of different skin tones in general (Brazil, for example, has the largest Japanese community outside of Japan and they are well-assimilated).

    So I think Sweden and Brazil being one and two really doesn’t tell the whole story.

    • Agree: Ash Williams
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Twinkie

    Sweden and Brazil are in an interesting juxtaposition in this context, and it will be interesting to see if Swedish responses to this survey change over time. Brazilians have generations of experience living in close proximity to different people, whereas Swedes are only beginning to.

    In the United States, it is fairly common for White people to express lower tolerance for different races the more experience they have with them. Whites who have never lived among Blacks are more likely to answer a survey and say they would have no problem, whereas those with actual experience will often tell you that their experience is the reason they don't particularly care to be among others.

    There are many of us here in the US who were naive liberals who would express tolerance and equality and then changed our outlook completely after a change of residence.

    What is remarkable is the Brazilians. They have the experience, and yet they still express tolerance. I do not expect to see that among my cousins of Northwestern European ancestry after they become swamped by others. Rather, they, like me, may become more like the Eastern Europeans, like the Hungarians, who retain a realistic sensibility and awareness of what it takes to preserve their existence as a people and protect their homeland.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Twinkie

  6. @songbird
    I've fascinated by some of these responses.

    I wonder what people in Vietnam consider a different race. Would the Chinese qualify?

    Macau seems pretty unexpected. Maybe, a low number of respondents?

    I would not want to live in Zimbabwe. But I wonder if these numbers would have really increased markedly, if they were surveyed earlier. I mean, I don't think the average native was necessarily that hostile or violent, but the elite were, and that makes it dangerous enough. Bet it would not be high in South Africa - still not a good place to live.

    What is the approach that Singapore takes now? Don't they force some level of integration in apartments or something? Personally, I think a lot of people would be happier living in ethnic neighborhoods. Do they not allow polling there, or is that just for tracking pre-elections?

    Replies: @Twinkie, @nebulafox

    I don’t think the average native was necessarily that hostile or violent, but the elite were, and that makes it dangerous enough.

    That’s another important factor – government (elite) policy.

    According to the survey, South Korea is slightly more “nationalistic” than Japan, but in reality, the government policy in South Korea has been strongly “globalist” for a couple of decades now and has actively courted foreign tourists, students, and residents. Globalization (“Segyehwa”) has been literally the ruling ideology of both the rightist and the leftist administrations since the 1990’s.

    In Japan, the government has been pretty clear about following the Oregon policy toward Californians (only toward non-Japanese): “Come visit, spend money, but don’t stay.”

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Twinkie

    Korea is such an interesting case because of their recent history - supposedly at one time, it was common for there to be spot inspections of your school supplies, to see if they were made in Korea, and you might be beaten a bit, if they were not. And, of course, because the North maintains a racial attitude.

    The question of how susceptible Asians in Asia are to a multicult attitude is a fascinating one. Many factors to consider. Some say that the Finns are the most similar to Asians in their psychological make-up (having had more cold selection), and, of course, they have now been subjected to diversity. But, then again, their genetics are different. I believe the serotonin transporter is one gene, the allelic frequency which varies greatly between the two groups.

    If it is only a question of NE Asian men taking brides from SE Asia, then perhaps the dynamic behind it, while not necessarily desirable, is not as nearly cataclysmic, as what is happening in Europe. Men are hypogamous - that has probably always been true.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Twinkie

  7. anonymous[253] • Disclaimer says:

    Northwestern Europeans sure do come in for a lot of abuse for their putative racism. It’s really something–a sort of self-imposed anarcho-tyranny on a global scale–that the least racist people on the planet are the most obsessed with scrubbing out any vestiges of racism that might remain in those hard to reach places. That’s the tyranny. Meanwhile, the places where a lot of people want to live around others like themselves are largely above criticism, the former Soviet states somewhat excepted. That’s the anarchy.

    Northwestern Europeans are very organized and intense. If NW Europeans are racist then they will go into a purity spiral and exclude other European races as inferior people who should be subjugated or eliminated to clear the space for more NW Europeans to procreate. The last time several army groups were raised for this purpose, 40 million whites in total were killed. So not at all a big mystery why NW Europeans behave the way they do.

  8. The big question is what everyone thinks of “different race”, it’s one thing having a Japanese living next door and having a black next door. I think that many of those countries listed there had people thinking of races that have been living in their lands for centuries already, if it was specifically about living in a black majority area, they would definitely have different answers.

  9. An impressive amount of within-race variance

  10. Sweden’s anti-racism and its anti-lockdown policy are actually somewhat related. Its anti-racism had led it into allowing large amounts of immigration. The result is that there are now large immigrant areas in some Swedish cities where the Swedish police have little control. Many people outside of Sweden are not aware of this but the Swedish political leaders certainly are. These political leaders would be reluctant to say it openly but have been reported to say privately that if they had tried to institute a lockdown they wouldn’t have been able to enforce it among the large immigrant population in these city areas and that was one of the factors in deciding not to lockdown.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Mark G.


    "(Swedish) political leaders would be reluctant to say it openly but have been reported to say privately that if they had tried to institute a lockdown they wouldn’t have been able to enforce it among the large immigrant population in these city areas and that was one of the factors in deciding not to lockdown"
     
    Same in the UK - the most enriched areas have the highest rates as a general rule, although to be fair a lot of white people like to bust the rules too.
    , @Pop Warner
    @Mark G.

    That's exactly what has happened in the US. It's easy for the press to lie and characterize outbreaks as coming from evil working class white racists who refuse to wear masks, but the outbreaks in Sun Belt (Red) states are concentrated in non-white areas. In Texas the cases are high in Houston and border counties, with almost entirely Hispanic El Paso getting hit the hardest recently.

    Plenty of Unz readers saw the constant articles about large house parties getting broken up in "diverse" areas of cities during lockdown, from March up until the current day. It's easy for the press and government to use black and brown corpses for their own ends and claim the high rate of infection and death among blacks and hispanics is due to racism, but in truth it's due to blacks and hispanics largely ignoring quarantine and masks. Trump and white people are blamed for it (as always) and it's easy to use Sturgis or Trump rallies as scapegoats, but it's the regular block party or quincenera that really spreads it.

  11. … the percentages of respondents, by country, who said they would not like to have neighbors “of a different race” than their own …

    I have followed your link. That’s what it says: “of a different race.”

    Sometimes I wonder how these questions translate into other languages. Do the English words neighbor and race have precise equivalents in Chinese, for instance?

    [MORE]

    Even in English, the question can be interpreted more than one way. Would I mind having a Chinese or Jewish neighbor? Answer: no. Would I mind having many Chinese or Jewish neighbors? Answer: yes, that would not be my preference. Would I mind having a black neighbor? Answer: yes, of course, there goes the neighborhood (taking half my home equity down with it); but I would not tell a surveyor that.

    If I must answer the question as asked then my answer is no, but I am a little surprised that the yeas number only 3.0 percent. One or two percent can presumably be attributed to respondents that have misunderstood the question, so 3.0 percent is an exceptionally low number.

  12. @Twinkie
    @songbird


    I don’t think the average native was necessarily that hostile or violent, but the elite were, and that makes it dangerous enough.
     
    That's another important factor - government (elite) policy.

    According to the survey, South Korea is slightly more "nationalistic" than Japan, but in reality, the government policy in South Korea has been strongly "globalist" for a couple of decades now and has actively courted foreign tourists, students, and residents. Globalization ("Segyehwa") has been literally the ruling ideology of both the rightist and the leftist administrations since the 1990's.

    In Japan, the government has been pretty clear about following the Oregon policy toward Californians (only toward non-Japanese): "Come visit, spend money, but don't stay."

    Replies: @songbird

    Korea is such an interesting case because of their recent history – supposedly at one time, it was common for there to be spot inspections of your school supplies, to see if they were made in Korea, and you might be beaten a bit, if they were not. And, of course, because the North maintains a racial attitude.

    The question of how susceptible Asians in Asia are to a multicult attitude is a fascinating one. Many factors to consider. Some say that the Finns are the most similar to Asians in their psychological make-up (having had more cold selection), and, of course, they have now been subjected to diversity. But, then again, their genetics are different. I believe the serotonin transporter is one gene, the allelic frequency which varies greatly between the two groups.

    If it is only a question of NE Asian men taking brides from SE Asia, then perhaps the dynamic behind it, while not necessarily desirable, is not as nearly cataclysmic, as what is happening in Europe. Men are hypogamous – that has probably always been true.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @songbird

    One interesting invariant reality across the developed world, regardless of race: men are growing more right wing, women more left wing.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Talha

    , @Twinkie
    @songbird


    The question of how susceptible Asians in Asia are to a multicult attitude is a fascinating one.
     
    They are as susceptible as anyone else. If there is a sustained effort by the elites and the major institutions to foster multiculturalism, it will take root and grow. We have seen that in Taiwan and South Korea.
  13. @Twinkie
    @Colin Wright


    Isn’t this more of a political-correctness consciousness survey?
     
    Indeed. All this says is about the stated preferences of the people in each country - it says little about the revealed preferences.

    In my experience, Swedes are far more vociferous about "anti-racism" than American whites are, but are far less tolerant of differences in person (racial or otherwise). Some WN-types always go on about the Northern European individuality versus East Asian collectivism, but I actually found ordinary Scandinavians, in general, to be quite insular and communitarian - rather like ordinary East Asians.

    I tend to think of the obsession with individuality, or more accurately, anti-communitarianism, a rather Celtic (or Anglo-Celtic) trait, inherited later by Americans.

    Brazilians have a different conception of race than Americans do. America's one-drop rule "favors" blackness (one drop of African DNA = black person), but Brazil's is almost the opposite. Brazilians with any amount of European ancestry seem to see themselves as, if not white, then certainly white-ish or "not black." Certainly racism and skin tones as a class marker are not absent in Brazil, but nonetheless I've found Brazilians to be genuinely accepting of people of different skin tones in general (Brazil, for example, has the largest Japanese community outside of Japan and they are well-assimilated).

    So I think Sweden and Brazil being one and two really doesn't tell the whole story.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    Sweden and Brazil are in an interesting juxtaposition in this context, and it will be interesting to see if Swedish responses to this survey change over time. Brazilians have generations of experience living in close proximity to different people, whereas Swedes are only beginning to.

    In the United States, it is fairly common for White people to express lower tolerance for different races the more experience they have with them. Whites who have never lived among Blacks are more likely to answer a survey and say they would have no problem, whereas those with actual experience will often tell you that their experience is the reason they don’t particularly care to be among others.

    There are many of us here in the US who were naive liberals who would express tolerance and equality and then changed our outlook completely after a change of residence.

    What is remarkable is the Brazilians. They have the experience, and yet they still express tolerance. I do not expect to see that among my cousins of Northwestern European ancestry after they become swamped by others. Rather, they, like me, may become more like the Eastern Europeans, like the Hungarians, who retain a realistic sensibility and awareness of what it takes to preserve their existence as a people and protect their homeland.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Buzz Mohawk

    >They have the experience, and yet they still express tolerance.

    O Jetinho never dies, it just morphs. ;)

    We shouldn't be too harsh on them, though: America is quickly imitating all the sucky parts about Brazil without any of the awesome stuff. Bezos' pee buckets AND widespread societal indifference! What's not to like?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    , @Twinkie
    @Buzz Mohawk


    In the United States, it is fairly common for White people to express lower tolerance for different races the more experience they have with them. Whites who have never lived among Blacks are more likely to answer a survey and say they would have no problem, whereas those with actual experience will often tell you that their experience is the reason they don’t particularly care to be among others.
     
    While this may be true in some cases, it’s not universally so. It also depends on what “the other race” is. Blacks on average have enormous social problems, especially compared to middle class and up whites and Asians, so obviously there is bound to be dislike and even hostility, covert or otherwise, but that’s not always the case with others.

    I live in an area that used to be heavily white, but had a substantial population of Koreans and Vietnamese. There was (and still is) not any hostility or dislike toward the latter by the majority whites, who mostly saw them as good people - church-going, law-abiding, and hard-working. There is considerably greater hostility to the huge influx of Indians that has occurred in the past 10 years or so (they are now about half of all “Asians” in the area). But that’s not a surprise given that the latter have low assimilation and have different cultural norms.

    Nonetheless, you are right that no one - including American whites - likes being “swamped.” Then again you know my views regarding immigration and assimilation. I like the former low (none this moment) and the latter high.

  14. 99% of Swedes *say* they tolerate other races as neighbors but studies have shown they start moving away from a residential area when the number of non-Europeans reaches 3 to 4%. The lips and feet say two different things.

  15. @songbird
    I've fascinated by some of these responses.

    I wonder what people in Vietnam consider a different race. Would the Chinese qualify?

    Macau seems pretty unexpected. Maybe, a low number of respondents?

    I would not want to live in Zimbabwe. But I wonder if these numbers would have really increased markedly, if they were surveyed earlier. I mean, I don't think the average native was necessarily that hostile or violent, but the elite were, and that makes it dangerous enough. Bet it would not be high in South Africa - still not a good place to live.

    What is the approach that Singapore takes now? Don't they force some level of integration in apartments or something? Personally, I think a lot of people would be happier living in ethnic neighborhoods. Do they not allow polling there, or is that just for tracking pre-elections?

    Replies: @Twinkie, @nebulafox

    In Singapore, every public housing estate (majority of Singaporeans live in them) has an ethnic quota to fill, and you are only allowed to sell to members of your own race. This has been government policy since the 1960s.

    In practice, ethnic Malays tend to be more often found out near the Malaysian border or toward the east because they are socioeconomically poorer-bigger mosques can be seen in Punggol, Woodlands, Tampines, etc. Additionally, each of the ethnic groups does have a “heritage” district complete with hawker center (Chinese have People’s Park and a largely PRC dominated Chinatown, Indians have Tekka and the surrounding Little India area, Malays have Geylang Serai/Paya Lebar) where they tend to dominate. Also, the various guest worker communities-Thais, Filipinos, Bangladeshis, Indonesians-have their own congregation spots, geographically located in LI ane PL respectively for the latter two.

    Nevertheless, racial ghettoes in the American sense do not exist.

    • Thanks: songbird
  16. @Talha

    Northwestern Europeans sure do come in for a lot of abuse for their putative racism.
     
    Maybe it’s because there’s not much there that you can actually ostracize it since you will be dealing with a small minority and there is not much risk in marginalizing them...? If the numbers were like Burma, you can’t well go after a significant part of the population.

    It’s a bit like how you can prohibit alcohol in a place like Pakistan because not too many people partake, so you can punish the few or just ignore them. Whereas in a place like the US, prohibition caused all sorts of problems since you were going against the habits of a massive part of the population.

    Peace.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    Malaysia cannot ban beer outright because of the ethnic Chinese, and because hawker centers are de facto segregated, it is not necessary anyhow. But they do tax the dickens out of it. You can get two meals for one bottle of beer.

    (Singapore also taxes alcohol heavily. Like many things, Singapore used to be much more strict back in the day. The ethnic Indians have this coconut wine that was flat out banned in the 1970s due to drinking issues. There is one single Tamil shop in Johor where you can still buy it.)

    Just another AA cost, when you think about it. I have heard that more Malay dominated East Coast states have banned alcohol, but I never made it out there.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @nebulafox


    Malaysia cannot ban beer outright because of the ethnic Chinese
     
    Nor should they. Pakistan's ban only applies to Muslims (as the Murree Brewery, in Rawalpindi, explains):
    "Under the laws of Pakistan Muslims are prohibited from consuming alcoholic drinks. Non-Muslims and foreigners require consumption permit issued by Provincial Governments and Islamabad (Capital Territory)."
    https://murreebrewery.com/how-to-buy/

    This is basically the old laws of leave the dhimmis alone in their civil affairs.

    But they do tax the dickens out of it. You can get two meals for one bottle of beer.
     
    Makes sense. Alcohol introduces all sorts of problems into society, problems that the rest of society has to pay for. I have a good friend that used to be an ER attending at UCLA. He estimated that around 75% of everything that came through his doors was related some way, somehow to alcohol.

    The ethnic Indians have this coconut wine that was flat out banned in the 1970s due to drinking issues.
     
    Coconut wine??!! LOOOL! First time I've heard of that one. The pre-Islamic Arabs used to love date wine. I'll tell you one thing about human beings, if left to our own devices we will; 1) eat anything that crawls, 2) ferment anything and drink it, 3) crush/grind up anything and smoke it.

    I have heard that more Malay dominated East Coast states have banned alcohol, but I never made it out there.
     
    Which makes sense since Malaysia is a federation of the various (still-active) sultanates of that region. So local flavors are to be expected in this regard.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  17. @songbird
    @Twinkie

    Korea is such an interesting case because of their recent history - supposedly at one time, it was common for there to be spot inspections of your school supplies, to see if they were made in Korea, and you might be beaten a bit, if they were not. And, of course, because the North maintains a racial attitude.

    The question of how susceptible Asians in Asia are to a multicult attitude is a fascinating one. Many factors to consider. Some say that the Finns are the most similar to Asians in their psychological make-up (having had more cold selection), and, of course, they have now been subjected to diversity. But, then again, their genetics are different. I believe the serotonin transporter is one gene, the allelic frequency which varies greatly between the two groups.

    If it is only a question of NE Asian men taking brides from SE Asia, then perhaps the dynamic behind it, while not necessarily desirable, is not as nearly cataclysmic, as what is happening in Europe. Men are hypogamous - that has probably always been true.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Twinkie

    One interesting invariant reality across the developed world, regardless of race: men are growing more right wing, women more left wing.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @nebulafox

    Think I should clarify: this is for younger singles. Married couples converge more, with normally the wife becoming more right-wing. But what I truly found interesting was how race-invariant this was. In the case of the US, this was particularly visible with Hispanics and Asians, but even among blacks, the dynamic is there. It turns out having a party that reeks of the smiley-face HR department carrying a knife behind its back for you is not something that most normal men like.

    Now, this doesn't automatically translate into political support, especially in the US where the GOP is far too incompetent to capitalize on this. It's much more likely to translate into people simply not voting at all. People vote with their pocketbooks first and foremost, and until the GOP turns away from blind CEO worship at the expense of small businesses, workers, etc (which I think is a lot more likely long-term than the Democrats rejecting corporate wokeism, but short-term, American politics are too geriatric at the top levels for underlying currents to dominate the atmosphere in the open), its appeal to a mass declassed generation is going to be severely limited. But it does show an interesting hint about where future social/cultural issues lie.

    , @Talha
    @nebulafox

    This reminds me of that classic Rockwell painting:
    https://prints.nrm.org/vitruvius/render/600/261001.jpg

    Peace.

  18. I don’t think it means as much as it seems.

    It just means that Northern Europeans and Swedes in particular are kings of doublethink, or stated preferences vs revealed preferences.

    They SAY they don’t care about people of other races around them, but they will perform “white flight” to the suburbs faster than The Flash as soon as one single African or Muslim shows up in their lily-white neighbourhood.

    On the other hand, people in Southern Europe are more direct in their “racism”, but on the other hand they tend to be in practice much more used to living with people of other races, and more tolerant of them too.

  19. I am disappointed they didn’t find it edifying to survey Israel. No doubt the most moral state in the world would have come out on top over those racist blonde goykopfs!

  20. I wonder how they do this survey.

    In political survey cold calls in the US, isn’t the no response rate like 98%?

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @songbird

    When pollsters were calling me a couple of months ago, I'd power-cycle my cable modem to get rid of them.  THAT is how little I want to share my opinions with them.

  21. @songbird
    I wonder how they do this survey.

    In political survey cold calls in the US, isn't the no response rate like 98%?

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    When pollsters were calling me a couple of months ago, I’d power-cycle my cable modem to get rid of them.  THAT is how little I want to share my opinions with them.

  22. @Mark G.
    Sweden's anti-racism and its anti-lockdown policy are actually somewhat related. Its anti-racism had led it into allowing large amounts of immigration. The result is that there are now large immigrant areas in some Swedish cities where the Swedish police have little control. Many people outside of Sweden are not aware of this but the Swedish political leaders certainly are. These political leaders would be reluctant to say it openly but have been reported to say privately that if they had tried to institute a lockdown they wouldn't have been able to enforce it among the large immigrant population in these city areas and that was one of the factors in deciding not to lockdown.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Pop Warner

    “(Swedish) political leaders would be reluctant to say it openly but have been reported to say privately that if they had tried to institute a lockdown they wouldn’t have been able to enforce it among the large immigrant population in these city areas and that was one of the factors in deciding not to lockdown”

    Same in the UK – the most enriched areas have the highest rates as a general rule, although to be fair a lot of white people like to bust the rules too.

  23. @nebulafox
    @songbird

    One interesting invariant reality across the developed world, regardless of race: men are growing more right wing, women more left wing.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Talha

    Think I should clarify: this is for younger singles. Married couples converge more, with normally the wife becoming more right-wing. But what I truly found interesting was how race-invariant this was. In the case of the US, this was particularly visible with Hispanics and Asians, but even among blacks, the dynamic is there. It turns out having a party that reeks of the smiley-face HR department carrying a knife behind its back for you is not something that most normal men like.

    Now, this doesn’t automatically translate into political support, especially in the US where the GOP is far too incompetent to capitalize on this. It’s much more likely to translate into people simply not voting at all. People vote with their pocketbooks first and foremost, and until the GOP turns away from blind CEO worship at the expense of small businesses, workers, etc (which I think is a lot more likely long-term than the Democrats rejecting corporate wokeism, but short-term, American politics are too geriatric at the top levels for underlying currents to dominate the atmosphere in the open), its appeal to a mass declassed generation is going to be severely limited. But it does show an interesting hint about where future social/cultural issues lie.

  24. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Twinkie

    Sweden and Brazil are in an interesting juxtaposition in this context, and it will be interesting to see if Swedish responses to this survey change over time. Brazilians have generations of experience living in close proximity to different people, whereas Swedes are only beginning to.

    In the United States, it is fairly common for White people to express lower tolerance for different races the more experience they have with them. Whites who have never lived among Blacks are more likely to answer a survey and say they would have no problem, whereas those with actual experience will often tell you that their experience is the reason they don't particularly care to be among others.

    There are many of us here in the US who were naive liberals who would express tolerance and equality and then changed our outlook completely after a change of residence.

    What is remarkable is the Brazilians. They have the experience, and yet they still express tolerance. I do not expect to see that among my cousins of Northwestern European ancestry after they become swamped by others. Rather, they, like me, may become more like the Eastern Europeans, like the Hungarians, who retain a realistic sensibility and awareness of what it takes to preserve their existence as a people and protect their homeland.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Twinkie

    >They have the experience, and yet they still express tolerance.

    O Jetinho never dies, it just morphs. 😉

    We shouldn’t be too harsh on them, though: America is quickly imitating all the sucky parts about Brazil without any of the awesome stuff. Bezos’ pee buckets AND widespread societal indifference! What’s not to like?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @nebulafox

    Try to imagine the real as the global reserve currency. Can't do it? Understandable.

    Now try to imagine the dollar as the reserve currency a generation down the road.

  25. @nebulafox
    @Talha

    Malaysia cannot ban beer outright because of the ethnic Chinese, and because hawker centers are de facto segregated, it is not necessary anyhow. But they do tax the dickens out of it. You can get two meals for one bottle of beer.

    (Singapore also taxes alcohol heavily. Like many things, Singapore used to be much more strict back in the day. The ethnic Indians have this coconut wine that was flat out banned in the 1970s due to drinking issues. There is one single Tamil shop in Johor where you can still buy it.)

    Just another AA cost, when you think about it. I have heard that more Malay dominated East Coast states have banned alcohol, but I never made it out there.

    Replies: @Talha

    Malaysia cannot ban beer outright because of the ethnic Chinese

    Nor should they. Pakistan’s ban only applies to Muslims (as the Murree Brewery, in Rawalpindi, explains):
    “Under the laws of Pakistan Muslims are prohibited from consuming alcoholic drinks. Non-Muslims and foreigners require consumption permit issued by Provincial Governments and Islamabad (Capital Territory).”
    https://murreebrewery.com/how-to-buy/

    This is basically the old laws of leave the dhimmis alone in their civil affairs.

    But they do tax the dickens out of it. You can get two meals for one bottle of beer.

    Makes sense. Alcohol introduces all sorts of problems into society, problems that the rest of society has to pay for. I have a good friend that used to be an ER attending at UCLA. He estimated that around 75% of everything that came through his doors was related some way, somehow to alcohol.

    The ethnic Indians have this coconut wine that was flat out banned in the 1970s due to drinking issues.

    Coconut wine??!! LOOOL! First time I’ve heard of that one. The pre-Islamic Arabs used to love date wine. I’ll tell you one thing about human beings, if left to our own devices we will; 1) eat anything that crawls, 2) ferment anything and drink it, 3) crush/grind up anything and smoke it.

    I have heard that more Malay dominated East Coast states have banned alcohol, but I never made it out there.

    Which makes sense since Malaysia is a federation of the various (still-active) sultanates of that region. So local flavors are to be expected in this regard.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Talha


    Alcohol introduces all sorts of problems into society
     
    So does anything human beings consume... in excess. Alcohol in moderation is wonderful - it’s good for your health and is a nice social lubricant. Every Friday and Saturday night, after the kids go to bed, I make an adult beverage each for my wife and me:

    2 shots of Tanqueray Rangpur gin
    A few juniper berry seeds
    1 shot of spearmint syrup (substitute with any Monin flavored syrup if desired)
    4-5 blocks of ice
    3-4 slices of grapefruit
    3-4 wedges of cucumber
    Top off with good quality tonic and stir well.

    It makes my wife relaxed and cheerful, which means it makes me happy. ;)

    So away with your evil oppressive Shariah that would forbid this!

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Talha

  26. >Alcohol introduces all sorts of problems into society

    Oh, trust me, I’m *very* aware of this as someone who has struggled with alcohol and comes from a family full of people who have. People don’t seem to get that alcohol is a drug, and like any drug, potentially addictive.

    But Prohibition in the US backfired massively for a reason. For the purposes of American culture, I’d say it’s better to just take the mystique out of it early and stress more heavily that booze is a drug, IMO. What did Marcus Aurelius say about his predecessor, that he could enjoy the pleasures of life in moderation without excess? I’m not there yet. I’m not sure I’ll ever be, and with my current physical regimen clashing with the realities of age coming up on the horizon, the good times ain’t worth it by a long shot anymore. But that’s real strength, having the ability to partake while remaining fully in control. (Absent religious restrictions and whatnot, of course…)

    >Coconut wine??!!

    They call it “toddy”. More accurately, it is wine extracted from the palm sap of the coconut trees. I think its a pretty Dravidian thing, not found elsewhere in South Asia. The lone toddy shop is right in downtown JB, not far from Sentral. It’s kind of relaxing to watch the old Tamil geezers read papers and talk shop together.

    There’s a joke in Singapore goes like this: three Malays, they do drugs, three Chinese, they gamble, three Indians, they get drunk. One Malay, one Chinese, one Indian, they arrest them all. 😉

    (Even Kingfisher is 8%. Indians don’t joke around… whenever I wanted to get blasted, I’d always go for that because it was cheap and easily available. Though, again, Singapore’s taxes discourage alcohol abuse. The much more potent soju in Korea and vodka in Russia are both really cheap, which is part of the problem in those respective countries.)

    • Replies: @Talha
    @nebulafox


    But Prohibition in the US backfired massively for a reason.
     
    Yeah, can you imagine asking a bunch of Irish cops to enforce a ban on alcohol? IRISH??!! BOOZE??!! What the hell were they thinking?

    (Absent religious restrictions and whatnot, of course…)
     
    If I'm honest with myself, I'd probably be drinking (or at least try it) if not for the religious restriction. That's one of the first things most of our apostates dive immediately into.

    One Malay, one Chinese, one Indian, they arrest them all.
     
    LOL!

    The much more potent soju in Korea and vodka in Russia are both really cheap, which is part of the problem in those respective countries.
     
    Oh boy! Well, I guess it's not as bad as what you get sometimes in the Muslim world where some genius decides to ferment his own moonshine and poisons and kills half his underground drinking buddies. Again, because it doesn't happen very often and is not widespread, when the news breaks out, most of the neighborhood just turns to their kids and says; "See, what have we been telling you...?"

    Don't know how much of a problem poisonous moonshine is in places where you can legally get hard liquor on the cheap.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Lars Porsena, @iffen

    , @RodW
    @nebulafox

    When I travelled in Bali, I once drank a mixture of Anchor beer and palm wine with some local blokes under a palm tree. When we got through one plastic jug full, the nimblest of our group shimmied up the tree and got another one which had been placed to catch the juice.

    The palm wine itself didn’t taste of much, but it had a pleasant petillance like freshly pressed sake.

    The Japanese interviewed were surely expressing an idealised view. They’re largely ignorant of what it means to live with vibrant people, so they imagine that it must be a delightfully mind broadening experience. When they’ve had some direct experience, they sour on it.

  27. @Mark G.
    Sweden's anti-racism and its anti-lockdown policy are actually somewhat related. Its anti-racism had led it into allowing large amounts of immigration. The result is that there are now large immigrant areas in some Swedish cities where the Swedish police have little control. Many people outside of Sweden are not aware of this but the Swedish political leaders certainly are. These political leaders would be reluctant to say it openly but have been reported to say privately that if they had tried to institute a lockdown they wouldn't have been able to enforce it among the large immigrant population in these city areas and that was one of the factors in deciding not to lockdown.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Pop Warner

    That’s exactly what has happened in the US. It’s easy for the press to lie and characterize outbreaks as coming from evil working class white racists who refuse to wear masks, but the outbreaks in Sun Belt (Red) states are concentrated in non-white areas. In Texas the cases are high in Houston and border counties, with almost entirely Hispanic El Paso getting hit the hardest recently.

    Plenty of Unz readers saw the constant articles about large house parties getting broken up in “diverse” areas of cities during lockdown, from March up until the current day. It’s easy for the press and government to use black and brown corpses for their own ends and claim the high rate of infection and death among blacks and hispanics is due to racism, but in truth it’s due to blacks and hispanics largely ignoring quarantine and masks. Trump and white people are blamed for it (as always) and it’s easy to use Sturgis or Trump rallies as scapegoats, but it’s the regular block party or quincenera that really spreads it.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  28. @nebulafox
    @songbird

    One interesting invariant reality across the developed world, regardless of race: men are growing more right wing, women more left wing.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Talha

    This reminds me of that classic Rockwell painting:

    Peace.

  29. @nebulafox
    >Alcohol introduces all sorts of problems into society

    Oh, trust me, I'm *very* aware of this as someone who has struggled with alcohol and comes from a family full of people who have. People don't seem to get that alcohol is a drug, and like any drug, potentially addictive.

    But Prohibition in the US backfired massively for a reason. For the purposes of American culture, I'd say it's better to just take the mystique out of it early and stress more heavily that booze is a drug, IMO. What did Marcus Aurelius say about his predecessor, that he could enjoy the pleasures of life in moderation without excess? I'm not there yet. I'm not sure I'll ever be, and with my current physical regimen clashing with the realities of age coming up on the horizon, the good times ain't worth it by a long shot anymore. But that's real strength, having the ability to partake while remaining fully in control. (Absent religious restrictions and whatnot, of course...)

    >Coconut wine??!!

    They call it "toddy". More accurately, it is wine extracted from the palm sap of the coconut trees. I think its a pretty Dravidian thing, not found elsewhere in South Asia. The lone toddy shop is right in downtown JB, not far from Sentral. It's kind of relaxing to watch the old Tamil geezers read papers and talk shop together.

    There's a joke in Singapore goes like this: three Malays, they do drugs, three Chinese, they gamble, three Indians, they get drunk. One Malay, one Chinese, one Indian, they arrest them all. ;)

    (Even Kingfisher is 8%. Indians don't joke around... whenever I wanted to get blasted, I'd always go for that because it was cheap and easily available. Though, again, Singapore's taxes discourage alcohol abuse. The much more potent soju in Korea and vodka in Russia are both really cheap, which is part of the problem in those respective countries.)

    Replies: @Talha, @RodW

    But Prohibition in the US backfired massively for a reason.

    Yeah, can you imagine asking a bunch of Irish cops to enforce a ban on alcohol? IRISH??!! BOOZE??!! What the hell were they thinking?

    (Absent religious restrictions and whatnot, of course…)

    If I’m honest with myself, I’d probably be drinking (or at least try it) if not for the religious restriction. That’s one of the first things most of our apostates dive immediately into.

    One Malay, one Chinese, one Indian, they arrest them all.

    LOL!

    The much more potent soju in Korea and vodka in Russia are both really cheap, which is part of the problem in those respective countries.

    Oh boy! Well, I guess it’s not as bad as what you get sometimes in the Muslim world where some genius decides to ferment his own moonshine and poisons and kills half his underground drinking buddies. Again, because it doesn’t happen very often and is not widespread, when the news breaks out, most of the neighborhood just turns to their kids and says; “See, what have we been telling you…?”

    Don’t know how much of a problem poisonous moonshine is in places where you can legally get hard liquor on the cheap.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
    @Talha

    Mainly it is methanol (although there are some other fusel alcohols that can make you sick) instead of ethanol that causes people to get poisoned trying to get drunk. During prohibition, it was a real problem. Mainly either because the money was there in moonshine that unscrupulous vendors would try to make a quick buck by substituting poisonous products, or else because the prohibitions quacks were running around intentionally poisoning alcohol to make drinkers sick. This is where 'denatured' alcohol comes from, ethanol mixed with methanol so you can't drink it, so it gets exempted from liquor taxes so it can be used as paint thinner or something. All the legal industrial ethanol had to be denatured during prohibition.

    Since prohibition ended, it's not really a problem in the US. Liquor is expensive here but people are also rich so it doesn't really happen. It's not like it never happens though, but when it does it's something like this:

    https://www.mlive.com/news/2020/08/people-are-dying-from-drinking-hand-sanitizer-cdc-says.html

    The article mentions all those deaths were in New Mexico and Arizona, but it does not mention that they likely all happened on Indian reservations, where sometimes alcohol is illegal and some people are dirt poor alcoholics. I may have heard of this happening a couple times ever with underclass blacks trying to get drunk cheap, or underage kids trying to get drunk illegally.

    In Russia, where hard liquor is supposedly quite cheap (but where lots of people are also dirt poor), it still happens sometimes. But I don't know about where this happening socially in terms of it being some central asian ethnics or if this is actually Russians. This one is from Siberia.

    https://gizmodo.com/at-least-48-dead-in-russia-after-drinking-bath-lotion-l-1790280479

    Almost always when you hear about this is it is because people are drinking hand sanitizer or bath lotion or something you're not actually supposed to drink, because it has alcohol in it, but it ends up being methanol instead of ethanol.

    That article links to this one though, about the Czech Republic, which apparently has problems with actual drinking products being counterfeited/bootlegged and tainted by methanol.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/world/europe/czechs-ban-hard-liquor-sales-after-methanol-poisonings.html

    I'm not aware of practically anyone in the US, at least since prohibition, being poisoned off an actual drinking product being tainted. I guess you can never say never but it is extremely rare and unheard of.

    This is basically all happening with distilled liquor and non-drinking products like denatured paint thinner. Methanol is not a problem with actual fermented beverages like beer, cider or wine. There's never been any methanol poisoning off of any of them. So if someone is distilling his own hard liquor, he could poison himself and his buddies. But if he's just fermenting his own booze and not distilling it and not mixing kool-aid with hand sanitizer, this won't be a problem.

    Even distilling normally doesn't produce these problems... I've heard it's possible but it is quite odd really. Distillation is simple enough and usually free of any dangerous alcohols. It seems to me it's probably mostly people doing things like mixing hand sanitizer or paint thinner to make booze. But I suppose it could happen with a very messed up distillation or if you're distilling a very messed up tainted feed stock.

    Naturally fermented beverages (which max out below 20-30% alcohol, like wine, cider, mead and beer) don't have this danger of poisoning people and pretty safe from a DIY perspective. There's not going to be any methanol in it.

    It is if I'm fair I guess possible to hurt or poison yourself with fermented beverages, but usually only if you did something very very extremely wrong. Even more so than with distillation. It's not even that hard to do right. At the most basic level you just put some fresh fruit juice, sugar, honey, or malted grain into a bucket and let it sit for a few weeks and it's generally very very safe. And if it's not you should be able to tell from the atrocious taste, assuming you know what it should taste like. I've heard of prison inmates getting sick and getting botulism from trying to ferment prison hooch using unwashed raw potato skins, which are not even fermentable. These are some serious idiots who seriously have no idea what they are doing, and doing it with horrible sanitation. If you're literally guessing and just throwing random things into the brew that may or may not even be fermentable or safe to drink anyway, and doing it with the worlds worst sanitation, I guess it can be dangerous.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/how-not-to-die-of-botulism/281649/

    Replies: @Wency

    , @iffen
    @Talha

    Yeah, can you imagine asking a bunch of Irish cops to enforce a ban on alcohol? IRISH??!! BOOZE??!!

    I can't believe that you went there.

    Replies: @Talha

  30. Mr. Epigone says:

    Northwestern Europeans sure do come in for a lot of abuse for their putative racism. It’s really something–a sort of self-imposed anarcho-tyranny on a global scale–that the least racist people on the planet are the most obsessed with scrubbing out any vestiges of racism that might remain in those hard to reach places. That’s the tyranny. Meanwhile, the places where a lot of people want to live around others like themselves are largely above criticism, the former Soviet states somewhat excepted. That’s the anarchy.

    I say:

    Northwestern Europeans — especially White Anglo-Celtic Southerners or White Anglo-Norman Southerners — wear their assumption of superiority so lightly that some forget that when they are patronizing towards Asians or Blacks or Jews or others it is taken for weakness or cowardice. Some White Southern Christians wonder why God just didn’t go ahead and make everybody White Christian Southerners.

    Northern Anglo-Saxon WASPs and JEWS now are the Ruling Class of the American Empire and they must be removed from power and forcibly exiled to sub-Saharan Africa. That SHORT SHARP SHOCK treatment of the evil and treasonous JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire will very quickly snap the other Northwestern European Americans out of their own disgusting greed and cowardice and weakness and cringing foppishness.

    This anti-White crap is top down from the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire and once that evil and treasonous JEW/WASP Ruling Class is dislodged from power and financially liquidated and forcibly exiled to sub-Saharan Africa, that will be the time to settle some scores with the White cowards and fops who have gone along to get along in this deranged and disgusting anti-White culture of lies and avarice and dishonor. Northwestern WASPs might have difficulty understanding honor since they have none and never had any. Look at the horrible treasonites in the Bush Organized Crime Syndicate and ask yourself if any one of them even comprehends honor or decency or integrity.

    Sam Francis was a Southerner who told the truth with honor and clarity and Francis’s concept of ANARCHO-TYRANNY is right on the money and young White people should read Sam Francis and understand ruling classes and how they operate.

    Pop the Fed-induced asset bubbles in stocks and bonds and real estate — commercial and residential — and you’ll see the JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire dislodged from power and then financially liquidated and then forcibly exiled to sub-Saharan Africa.

    The Rancid Republican Party Must Be Electorally Destroyed!

    WHITE CORE AMERICA RISING!

    Tweet from 2015:

  31. Mr. Epigone says:

    Burmans really didn’t want Rohingya neighbors, and one doubts the Rohingya much want Burmans within striking distance, either.

    I say:

    The English thought the Wogs started over the next hill in the next village and then they thought the Wogs begin at Calais.

    David Cameron thought the people in Yorkshire only disliked outsiders but he found out they don’t muck like their fellow Yorkshiremen either.

    Calais is opposite Dover and that brings up Delaware in the USA and that brings up Biden and Biden will beat Trump and become president and hopefully that begins the complete and total destruction of the evil and treasonous Republican Party.

    I love the United States of America and I hate the evil and nasty JEW/WASP Ruling Class of the American Empire.

    Everything is about demography and monetary policy and ruling classes and it will be hard but not impossible to patriotically implode the American Empire and restore the sovereignty and integrity and honor of the USA. Going back to 220 million people like the USA had in 1978 will help tremendously. The departure of the foreigners and the globalizer treasonites will bring joy and strength and power back to the European Christian ancestral core of the USA.

  32. Burmans really didn’t want Rohingya neighbors, and one doubts the Rohingya much want Burmans within striking distance, either.

    Rohinga is a way of not saying Bengali, which identifies them as Bangladeshi, which identifies them as not Burmese. Rohinga are Bangladeshis in Burma.

  33. Old Norwegian joke:

    What does Sweden have that Norway does not have?

    Good neighbours.

    And that is the funniest joke in Norway.

  34. Mr Epigone says:

    Alternatively, it’s like an autoimmune disorder. Whatever the preferred analogy, it’s a perverse universalism we’ve come up with.

    I say:

    What we got here is the assumption of cultural superiority by the Swedes and the JEW/WASP globalizers and the Christianity-replacing religious conviction that the Wogs can be absorbed into the assumed higher culture of the Swedes and the JEW/WASP globalizers without much fuss.

    In other words, these muttonheaded arrogant Swede boobs who got their asses handed to them by the wade-through-blood English colonists a while back in the Delaware River area are about to get wiped out either by the proud and brave True Swedes who will dislodge their evil ruling class and their non-Swede corporate media or by the invaders brought in to Sweden to swamp the historic Swedish nation and the True Swedish people.

    We in the USA allow people like the Redstone(Rothstein) mob and the Roberts(Mirsky) mob to control Viacom and Comcast, so maybe I shouldn’t be too harsh on the Swedes for allowing non-Swedes to control their corporate media.

    The True Swedes will eventually dislodge their treasonous ruling class and expel the foreigners and remove all non-Swedes from positions of power in the corporate media.

    Tweets from 2015:

  35. My apologies if my comment ends up being posted twice.
    I am skeptical of this ranking. In different countries, “neighbor” means entirely different things. Where I live, your interaction with your neighbor is an occasional waving of the hand from inside your car as you pull out of your garage, and that happens only once every six months. I have lived in my house for almost thirty years and I only know the names of one couple among my neighbors, not interacting with the others often enough to remember their names. In some other countries, you and your neighbors regularly bring one another food, baby sit one another’s children, take care of one another when one is sick, women cook food together and men organize things for communal events, and so on. In some countries, housing is very dense and even flimsy, perhaps you share bathrooms, so neighbors are very close physically. I don’t think you can compare attitudes towards neighbors from country to country without capturing these profound differences.

  36. @Talha
    @nebulafox


    But Prohibition in the US backfired massively for a reason.
     
    Yeah, can you imagine asking a bunch of Irish cops to enforce a ban on alcohol? IRISH??!! BOOZE??!! What the hell were they thinking?

    (Absent religious restrictions and whatnot, of course…)
     
    If I'm honest with myself, I'd probably be drinking (or at least try it) if not for the religious restriction. That's one of the first things most of our apostates dive immediately into.

    One Malay, one Chinese, one Indian, they arrest them all.
     
    LOL!

    The much more potent soju in Korea and vodka in Russia are both really cheap, which is part of the problem in those respective countries.
     
    Oh boy! Well, I guess it's not as bad as what you get sometimes in the Muslim world where some genius decides to ferment his own moonshine and poisons and kills half his underground drinking buddies. Again, because it doesn't happen very often and is not widespread, when the news breaks out, most of the neighborhood just turns to their kids and says; "See, what have we been telling you...?"

    Don't know how much of a problem poisonous moonshine is in places where you can legally get hard liquor on the cheap.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Lars Porsena, @iffen

    Mainly it is methanol (although there are some other fusel alcohols that can make you sick) instead of ethanol that causes people to get poisoned trying to get drunk. During prohibition, it was a real problem. Mainly either because the money was there in moonshine that unscrupulous vendors would try to make a quick buck by substituting poisonous products, or else because the prohibitions quacks were running around intentionally poisoning alcohol to make drinkers sick. This is where ‘denatured’ alcohol comes from, ethanol mixed with methanol so you can’t drink it, so it gets exempted from liquor taxes so it can be used as paint thinner or something. All the legal industrial ethanol had to be denatured during prohibition.

    Since prohibition ended, it’s not really a problem in the US. Liquor is expensive here but people are also rich so it doesn’t really happen. It’s not like it never happens though, but when it does it’s something like this:

    https://www.mlive.com/news/2020/08/people-are-dying-from-drinking-hand-sanitizer-cdc-says.html

    The article mentions all those deaths were in New Mexico and Arizona, but it does not mention that they likely all happened on Indian reservations, where sometimes alcohol is illegal and some people are dirt poor alcoholics. I may have heard of this happening a couple times ever with underclass blacks trying to get drunk cheap, or underage kids trying to get drunk illegally.

    In Russia, where hard liquor is supposedly quite cheap (but where lots of people are also dirt poor), it still happens sometimes. But I don’t know about where this happening socially in terms of it being some central asian ethnics or if this is actually Russians. This one is from Siberia.

    https://gizmodo.com/at-least-48-dead-in-russia-after-drinking-bath-lotion-l-1790280479

    Almost always when you hear about this is it is because people are drinking hand sanitizer or bath lotion or something you’re not actually supposed to drink, because it has alcohol in it, but it ends up being methanol instead of ethanol.

    That article links to this one though, about the Czech Republic, which apparently has problems with actual drinking products being counterfeited/bootlegged and tainted by methanol.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/world/europe/czechs-ban-hard-liquor-sales-after-methanol-poisonings.html

    I’m not aware of practically anyone in the US, at least since prohibition, being poisoned off an actual drinking product being tainted. I guess you can never say never but it is extremely rare and unheard of.

    This is basically all happening with distilled liquor and non-drinking products like denatured paint thinner. Methanol is not a problem with actual fermented beverages like beer, cider or wine. There’s never been any methanol poisoning off of any of them. So if someone is distilling his own hard liquor, he could poison himself and his buddies. But if he’s just fermenting his own booze and not distilling it and not mixing kool-aid with hand sanitizer, this won’t be a problem.

    Even distilling normally doesn’t produce these problems… I’ve heard it’s possible but it is quite odd really. Distillation is simple enough and usually free of any dangerous alcohols. It seems to me it’s probably mostly people doing things like mixing hand sanitizer or paint thinner to make booze. But I suppose it could happen with a very messed up distillation or if you’re distilling a very messed up tainted feed stock.

    Naturally fermented beverages (which max out below 20-30% alcohol, like wine, cider, mead and beer) don’t have this danger of poisoning people and pretty safe from a DIY perspective. There’s not going to be any methanol in it.

    It is if I’m fair I guess possible to hurt or poison yourself with fermented beverages, but usually only if you did something very very extremely wrong. Even more so than with distillation. It’s not even that hard to do right. At the most basic level you just put some fresh fruit juice, sugar, honey, or malted grain into a bucket and let it sit for a few weeks and it’s generally very very safe. And if it’s not you should be able to tell from the atrocious taste, assuming you know what it should taste like. I’ve heard of prison inmates getting sick and getting botulism from trying to ferment prison hooch using unwashed raw potato skins, which are not even fermentable. These are some serious idiots who seriously have no idea what they are doing, and doing it with horrible sanitation. If you’re literally guessing and just throwing random things into the brew that may or may not even be fermentable or safe to drink anyway, and doing it with the worlds worst sanitation, I guess it can be dangerous.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/how-not-to-die-of-botulism/281649/

    • Thanks: Talha
    • Replies: @Wency
    @Lars Porsena

    RE: methanol

    There are also seemingly a lot of methanol-related deaths in Latin America that mostly affect the locals drinking dirt-cheap tainted local liquors.

    Last year some reporting of American tourist deaths suggested that methanol might have reached the resorts, but I think this is probably mostly untrue. I think it's just that it's easy to drink too much at all-inclusive resorts, both because the drinks are free, and because they tend to have swim-up bars.

    I got absolutely hammered with my first experience at a swim-up bar, and this was in my 30s, long after I thought I knew how to hold my liquor and cut myself off when I was getting too drunk. I think it's because it's easier to move about in shallow water than to walk on dry land while drunk -- though obviously much more dangerous if you pass out and no one notices. So I thought I was doing fine as I chugged cocktails all afternoon ("man, that bartender has a light pour!"), until I tried stepping out of the pool and realized I was literally falling down drunk.

  37. @Talha
    @nebulafox


    But Prohibition in the US backfired massively for a reason.
     
    Yeah, can you imagine asking a bunch of Irish cops to enforce a ban on alcohol? IRISH??!! BOOZE??!! What the hell were they thinking?

    (Absent religious restrictions and whatnot, of course…)
     
    If I'm honest with myself, I'd probably be drinking (or at least try it) if not for the religious restriction. That's one of the first things most of our apostates dive immediately into.

    One Malay, one Chinese, one Indian, they arrest them all.
     
    LOL!

    The much more potent soju in Korea and vodka in Russia are both really cheap, which is part of the problem in those respective countries.
     
    Oh boy! Well, I guess it's not as bad as what you get sometimes in the Muslim world where some genius decides to ferment his own moonshine and poisons and kills half his underground drinking buddies. Again, because it doesn't happen very often and is not widespread, when the news breaks out, most of the neighborhood just turns to their kids and says; "See, what have we been telling you...?"

    Don't know how much of a problem poisonous moonshine is in places where you can legally get hard liquor on the cheap.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Lars Porsena, @iffen

    Yeah, can you imagine asking a bunch of Irish cops to enforce a ban on alcohol? IRISH??!! BOOZE??!!

    I can’t believe that you went there.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @iffen

    Why? That's like saying Pakistanis aren't known for eating really spicy foods:
    "I did, however, learn a thing or two about drinking like a real Irishman. First, to the hurtful and dangerous stereotype that the Irish imbibe more than anyone else on the planet …well, actually, that’s pretty much true."
    https://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/11-rules-for-drinking-like-a-real-irishman/

    But, I will take this opportunity to apologize to any Irish who abstain from spirits.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Talha

  38. @iffen
    @Talha

    Yeah, can you imagine asking a bunch of Irish cops to enforce a ban on alcohol? IRISH??!! BOOZE??!!

    I can't believe that you went there.

    Replies: @Talha

    Why? That’s like saying Pakistanis aren’t known for eating really spicy foods:
    “I did, however, learn a thing or two about drinking like a real Irishman. First, to the hurtful and dangerous stereotype that the Irish imbibe more than anyone else on the planet …well, actually, that’s pretty much true.”
    https://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/11-rules-for-drinking-like-a-real-irishman/

    But, I will take this opportunity to apologize to any Irish who abstain from spirits.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Talha


    Pakistanis aren’t known for eating really spicy foods
     
    We are pretty crazy regarding this, we even put spices in our fruit salad...don't ask me why.
  39. @Talha
    @iffen

    Why? That's like saying Pakistanis aren't known for eating really spicy foods:
    "I did, however, learn a thing or two about drinking like a real Irishman. First, to the hurtful and dangerous stereotype that the Irish imbibe more than anyone else on the planet …well, actually, that’s pretty much true."
    https://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/11-rules-for-drinking-like-a-real-irishman/

    But, I will take this opportunity to apologize to any Irish who abstain from spirits.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Talha

    Pakistanis aren’t known for eating really spicy foods

    We are pretty crazy regarding this, we even put spices in our fruit salad…don’t ask me why.

  40. @Lars Porsena
    @Talha

    Mainly it is methanol (although there are some other fusel alcohols that can make you sick) instead of ethanol that causes people to get poisoned trying to get drunk. During prohibition, it was a real problem. Mainly either because the money was there in moonshine that unscrupulous vendors would try to make a quick buck by substituting poisonous products, or else because the prohibitions quacks were running around intentionally poisoning alcohol to make drinkers sick. This is where 'denatured' alcohol comes from, ethanol mixed with methanol so you can't drink it, so it gets exempted from liquor taxes so it can be used as paint thinner or something. All the legal industrial ethanol had to be denatured during prohibition.

    Since prohibition ended, it's not really a problem in the US. Liquor is expensive here but people are also rich so it doesn't really happen. It's not like it never happens though, but when it does it's something like this:

    https://www.mlive.com/news/2020/08/people-are-dying-from-drinking-hand-sanitizer-cdc-says.html

    The article mentions all those deaths were in New Mexico and Arizona, but it does not mention that they likely all happened on Indian reservations, where sometimes alcohol is illegal and some people are dirt poor alcoholics. I may have heard of this happening a couple times ever with underclass blacks trying to get drunk cheap, or underage kids trying to get drunk illegally.

    In Russia, where hard liquor is supposedly quite cheap (but where lots of people are also dirt poor), it still happens sometimes. But I don't know about where this happening socially in terms of it being some central asian ethnics or if this is actually Russians. This one is from Siberia.

    https://gizmodo.com/at-least-48-dead-in-russia-after-drinking-bath-lotion-l-1790280479

    Almost always when you hear about this is it is because people are drinking hand sanitizer or bath lotion or something you're not actually supposed to drink, because it has alcohol in it, but it ends up being methanol instead of ethanol.

    That article links to this one though, about the Czech Republic, which apparently has problems with actual drinking products being counterfeited/bootlegged and tainted by methanol.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/world/europe/czechs-ban-hard-liquor-sales-after-methanol-poisonings.html

    I'm not aware of practically anyone in the US, at least since prohibition, being poisoned off an actual drinking product being tainted. I guess you can never say never but it is extremely rare and unheard of.

    This is basically all happening with distilled liquor and non-drinking products like denatured paint thinner. Methanol is not a problem with actual fermented beverages like beer, cider or wine. There's never been any methanol poisoning off of any of them. So if someone is distilling his own hard liquor, he could poison himself and his buddies. But if he's just fermenting his own booze and not distilling it and not mixing kool-aid with hand sanitizer, this won't be a problem.

    Even distilling normally doesn't produce these problems... I've heard it's possible but it is quite odd really. Distillation is simple enough and usually free of any dangerous alcohols. It seems to me it's probably mostly people doing things like mixing hand sanitizer or paint thinner to make booze. But I suppose it could happen with a very messed up distillation or if you're distilling a very messed up tainted feed stock.

    Naturally fermented beverages (which max out below 20-30% alcohol, like wine, cider, mead and beer) don't have this danger of poisoning people and pretty safe from a DIY perspective. There's not going to be any methanol in it.

    It is if I'm fair I guess possible to hurt or poison yourself with fermented beverages, but usually only if you did something very very extremely wrong. Even more so than with distillation. It's not even that hard to do right. At the most basic level you just put some fresh fruit juice, sugar, honey, or malted grain into a bucket and let it sit for a few weeks and it's generally very very safe. And if it's not you should be able to tell from the atrocious taste, assuming you know what it should taste like. I've heard of prison inmates getting sick and getting botulism from trying to ferment prison hooch using unwashed raw potato skins, which are not even fermentable. These are some serious idiots who seriously have no idea what they are doing, and doing it with horrible sanitation. If you're literally guessing and just throwing random things into the brew that may or may not even be fermentable or safe to drink anyway, and doing it with the worlds worst sanitation, I guess it can be dangerous.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/12/how-not-to-die-of-botulism/281649/

    Replies: @Wency

    RE: methanol

    There are also seemingly a lot of methanol-related deaths in Latin America that mostly affect the locals drinking dirt-cheap tainted local liquors.

    Last year some reporting of American tourist deaths suggested that methanol might have reached the resorts, but I think this is probably mostly untrue. I think it’s just that it’s easy to drink too much at all-inclusive resorts, both because the drinks are free, and because they tend to have swim-up bars.

    I got absolutely hammered with my first experience at a swim-up bar, and this was in my 30s, long after I thought I knew how to hold my liquor and cut myself off when I was getting too drunk. I think it’s because it’s easier to move about in shallow water than to walk on dry land while drunk — though obviously much more dangerous if you pass out and no one notices. So I thought I was doing fine as I chugged cocktails all afternoon (“man, that bartender has a light pour!”), until I tried stepping out of the pool and realized I was literally falling down drunk.

  41. Hungary,Bulgaria,Romania,Czechia and Slovakia rank higher than west europe mostly because , in those countries different race ( or ethnicity) means gypsies

  42. There is still another problem with this ranking. In some countries, “neighbors of another race” does not necessarily mean foreigners, and may even normally mean fellow citizens. In others, it means most likely foreigners. Then you are talking about neighbors who don’t speak the language of the country, don’t know its customs, can’t participate in neighborhood activities. To make a meaningful ranking for attitudes towards “race” only, you have to separate that.
    With all these questions about the ranking, I don’t know if the author can credibly use this ranking as a basis, rather than an excuse, for writing the article he wants to write at all.

  43. @Talha
    @nebulafox


    Malaysia cannot ban beer outright because of the ethnic Chinese
     
    Nor should they. Pakistan's ban only applies to Muslims (as the Murree Brewery, in Rawalpindi, explains):
    "Under the laws of Pakistan Muslims are prohibited from consuming alcoholic drinks. Non-Muslims and foreigners require consumption permit issued by Provincial Governments and Islamabad (Capital Territory)."
    https://murreebrewery.com/how-to-buy/

    This is basically the old laws of leave the dhimmis alone in their civil affairs.

    But they do tax the dickens out of it. You can get two meals for one bottle of beer.
     
    Makes sense. Alcohol introduces all sorts of problems into society, problems that the rest of society has to pay for. I have a good friend that used to be an ER attending at UCLA. He estimated that around 75% of everything that came through his doors was related some way, somehow to alcohol.

    The ethnic Indians have this coconut wine that was flat out banned in the 1970s due to drinking issues.
     
    Coconut wine??!! LOOOL! First time I've heard of that one. The pre-Islamic Arabs used to love date wine. I'll tell you one thing about human beings, if left to our own devices we will; 1) eat anything that crawls, 2) ferment anything and drink it, 3) crush/grind up anything and smoke it.

    I have heard that more Malay dominated East Coast states have banned alcohol, but I never made it out there.
     
    Which makes sense since Malaysia is a federation of the various (still-active) sultanates of that region. So local flavors are to be expected in this regard.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Alcohol introduces all sorts of problems into society

    So does anything human beings consume… in excess. Alcohol in moderation is wonderful – it’s good for your health and is a nice social lubricant. Every Friday and Saturday night, after the kids go to bed, I make an adult beverage each for my wife and me:

    2 shots of Tanqueray Rangpur gin
    A few juniper berry seeds
    1 shot of spearmint syrup (substitute with any Monin flavored syrup if desired)
    4-5 blocks of ice
    3-4 slices of grapefruit
    3-4 wedges of cucumber
    Top off with good quality tonic and stir well.

    It makes my wife relaxed and cheerful, which means it makes me happy. 😉

    So away with your evil oppressive Shariah that would forbid this!

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Twinkie

    Dude, when my neighbor kicks off I would seriously like you to buy her house.

    , @Talha
    @Twinkie

    See below since this is getting far off-topic...

    Peace.


    Alcohol in moderation is wonderful – it’s good for your health and is a nice social lubricant.
     
    Sure. The same argument can and was made for marijuana and (I suspect) will be for other drugs in the future; cocaine or heroin being supplied openly in the market by corporations that make sure it gives a good buzz and is addictive enough to bring back customers, but not too much - moderation. It's a good argument. It simply comes down to weighing costs and benefits. For your case, you see a lot of benefits to alcohol, for another family who lost their kid when they were hit by a drunk-driver...not so much.

    "The level of alcohol consumption that minimised harm across health outcomes was zero (95% UI 0·0–0·8) standard drinks per week.
    ...
    Alcohol use is a leading risk factor for global disease burden and causes substantial health loss. We found that the risk of all-cause mortality, and of cancers specifically, rises with increasing levels of consumption, and the level of consumption that minimises health loss is zero."
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31310-2/fulltext

    So away with your evil oppressive Shariah that would forbid this!
     
    Meh. I've seen some people call Shariah evil and oppressive because it doesn't allow them to sodomize their buddy. To each, their own.

    If you've been following what I am saying, then you'll know that the Shariah is really only concerned with prohibiting Muslims from drinking, not non-Muslims. They can own, sell, imbibe alcohol as they please in Muslim-majority lands - it's their liver, after all - and the only restrictions are for things like public drunkenness and what that entails - which plenty of societies prevent for obvious reasons.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

  44. @Buzz Mohawk
    @Twinkie

    Sweden and Brazil are in an interesting juxtaposition in this context, and it will be interesting to see if Swedish responses to this survey change over time. Brazilians have generations of experience living in close proximity to different people, whereas Swedes are only beginning to.

    In the United States, it is fairly common for White people to express lower tolerance for different races the more experience they have with them. Whites who have never lived among Blacks are more likely to answer a survey and say they would have no problem, whereas those with actual experience will often tell you that their experience is the reason they don't particularly care to be among others.

    There are many of us here in the US who were naive liberals who would express tolerance and equality and then changed our outlook completely after a change of residence.

    What is remarkable is the Brazilians. They have the experience, and yet they still express tolerance. I do not expect to see that among my cousins of Northwestern European ancestry after they become swamped by others. Rather, they, like me, may become more like the Eastern Europeans, like the Hungarians, who retain a realistic sensibility and awareness of what it takes to preserve their existence as a people and protect their homeland.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Twinkie

    In the United States, it is fairly common for White people to express lower tolerance for different races the more experience they have with them. Whites who have never lived among Blacks are more likely to answer a survey and say they would have no problem, whereas those with actual experience will often tell you that their experience is the reason they don’t particularly care to be among others.

    While this may be true in some cases, it’s not universally so. It also depends on what “the other race” is. Blacks on average have enormous social problems, especially compared to middle class and up whites and Asians, so obviously there is bound to be dislike and even hostility, covert or otherwise, but that’s not always the case with others.

    I live in an area that used to be heavily white, but had a substantial population of Koreans and Vietnamese. There was (and still is) not any hostility or dislike toward the latter by the majority whites, who mostly saw them as good people – church-going, law-abiding, and hard-working. There is considerably greater hostility to the huge influx of Indians that has occurred in the past 10 years or so (they are now about half of all “Asians” in the area). But that’s not a surprise given that the latter have low assimilation and have different cultural norms.

    Nonetheless, you are right that no one – including American whites – likes being “swamped.” Then again you know my views regarding immigration and assimilation. I like the former low (none this moment) and the latter high.

  45. @songbird
    @Twinkie

    Korea is such an interesting case because of their recent history - supposedly at one time, it was common for there to be spot inspections of your school supplies, to see if they were made in Korea, and you might be beaten a bit, if they were not. And, of course, because the North maintains a racial attitude.

    The question of how susceptible Asians in Asia are to a multicult attitude is a fascinating one. Many factors to consider. Some say that the Finns are the most similar to Asians in their psychological make-up (having had more cold selection), and, of course, they have now been subjected to diversity. But, then again, their genetics are different. I believe the serotonin transporter is one gene, the allelic frequency which varies greatly between the two groups.

    If it is only a question of NE Asian men taking brides from SE Asia, then perhaps the dynamic behind it, while not necessarily desirable, is not as nearly cataclysmic, as what is happening in Europe. Men are hypogamous - that has probably always been true.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Twinkie

    The question of how susceptible Asians in Asia are to a multicult attitude is a fascinating one.

    They are as susceptible as anyone else. If there is a sustained effort by the elites and the major institutions to foster multiculturalism, it will take root and grow. We have seen that in Taiwan and South Korea.

  46. @Twinkie
    @Talha


    Alcohol introduces all sorts of problems into society
     
    So does anything human beings consume... in excess. Alcohol in moderation is wonderful - it’s good for your health and is a nice social lubricant. Every Friday and Saturday night, after the kids go to bed, I make an adult beverage each for my wife and me:

    2 shots of Tanqueray Rangpur gin
    A few juniper berry seeds
    1 shot of spearmint syrup (substitute with any Monin flavored syrup if desired)
    4-5 blocks of ice
    3-4 slices of grapefruit
    3-4 wedges of cucumber
    Top off with good quality tonic and stir well.

    It makes my wife relaxed and cheerful, which means it makes me happy. ;)

    So away with your evil oppressive Shariah that would forbid this!

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Talha

    Dude, when my neighbor kicks off I would seriously like you to buy her house.

    • LOL: Twinkie
  47. @Twinkie
    @Talha


    Alcohol introduces all sorts of problems into society
     
    So does anything human beings consume... in excess. Alcohol in moderation is wonderful - it’s good for your health and is a nice social lubricant. Every Friday and Saturday night, after the kids go to bed, I make an adult beverage each for my wife and me:

    2 shots of Tanqueray Rangpur gin
    A few juniper berry seeds
    1 shot of spearmint syrup (substitute with any Monin flavored syrup if desired)
    4-5 blocks of ice
    3-4 slices of grapefruit
    3-4 wedges of cucumber
    Top off with good quality tonic and stir well.

    It makes my wife relaxed and cheerful, which means it makes me happy. ;)

    So away with your evil oppressive Shariah that would forbid this!

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Talha

    See below since this is getting far off-topic…

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    Alcohol in moderation is wonderful – it’s good for your health and is a nice social lubricant.

    Sure. The same argument can and was made for marijuana and (I suspect) will be for other drugs in the future; cocaine or heroin being supplied openly in the market by corporations that make sure it gives a good buzz and is addictive enough to bring back customers, but not too much – moderation. It’s a good argument. It simply comes down to weighing costs and benefits. For your case, you see a lot of benefits to alcohol, for another family who lost their kid when they were hit by a drunk-driver…not so much.

    “The level of alcohol consumption that minimised harm across health outcomes was zero (95% UI 0·0–0·8) standard drinks per week.

    Alcohol use is a leading risk factor for global disease burden and causes substantial health loss. We found that the risk of all-cause mortality, and of cancers specifically, rises with increasing levels of consumption, and the level of consumption that minimises health loss is zero.”
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31310-2/fulltext

    So away with your evil oppressive Shariah that would forbid this!

    Meh. I’ve seen some people call Shariah evil and oppressive because it doesn’t allow them to sodomize their buddy. To each, their own.

    If you’ve been following what I am saying, then you’ll know that the Shariah is really only concerned with prohibiting Muslims from drinking, not non-Muslims. They can own, sell, imbibe alcohol as they please in Muslim-majority lands – it’s their liver, after all – and the only restrictions are for things like public drunkenness and what that entails – which plenty of societies prevent for obvious reasons.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Talha


    Sure. The same argument can and was made for marijuana and (I suspect) will be for other drugs in the future; cocaine or heroin being supplied openly in the market by corporations that make sure it gives a good buzz and is addictive enough to bring back customers, but not too much – moderation. It’s a good argument. It simply comes down to weighing costs and benefits. For your case, you see a lot of benefits to alcohol, for another family who lost their kid when they were hit by a drunk-driver…not so much.
     
    You went exactly where I thought you would.

    Gun rights people (including I) are used to this line of argument to ban guns - “You think having a handgun or a rifle responsibly is a good thing? You can make the same argument about machine guns and canons! And what about the children who die from gun violence!”


    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/f17a3ca7-be9a-4e85-9055-e92fa42e30cf/joim_2082_f1.gif

    Replies: @Talha

    , @dfordoom
    @Talha


    The same argument can and was made for marijuana and (I suspect) will be for other drugs in the future; cocaine or heroin being supplied openly in the market by corporations that make sure it gives a good buzz and is addictive enough to bring back customers, but not too much – moderation. It’s a good argument. It simply comes down to weighing costs and benefits.
     
    We already have big pharmaceutical companies quite legally pushing psychoactive drugs that lead to dependence. Drugs that arguably have more profound (and in some cases quite harmful) effects on personality than alcohol.

    So yeah, if there's money in it (and there is) then it may well happen.
  48. @Talha
    @Twinkie

    See below since this is getting far off-topic...

    Peace.


    Alcohol in moderation is wonderful – it’s good for your health and is a nice social lubricant.
     
    Sure. The same argument can and was made for marijuana and (I suspect) will be for other drugs in the future; cocaine or heroin being supplied openly in the market by corporations that make sure it gives a good buzz and is addictive enough to bring back customers, but not too much - moderation. It's a good argument. It simply comes down to weighing costs and benefits. For your case, you see a lot of benefits to alcohol, for another family who lost their kid when they were hit by a drunk-driver...not so much.

    "The level of alcohol consumption that minimised harm across health outcomes was zero (95% UI 0·0–0·8) standard drinks per week.
    ...
    Alcohol use is a leading risk factor for global disease burden and causes substantial health loss. We found that the risk of all-cause mortality, and of cancers specifically, rises with increasing levels of consumption, and the level of consumption that minimises health loss is zero."
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31310-2/fulltext

    So away with your evil oppressive Shariah that would forbid this!
     
    Meh. I've seen some people call Shariah evil and oppressive because it doesn't allow them to sodomize their buddy. To each, their own.

    If you've been following what I am saying, then you'll know that the Shariah is really only concerned with prohibiting Muslims from drinking, not non-Muslims. They can own, sell, imbibe alcohol as they please in Muslim-majority lands - it's their liver, after all - and the only restrictions are for things like public drunkenness and what that entails - which plenty of societies prevent for obvious reasons.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

    Sure. The same argument can and was made for marijuana and (I suspect) will be for other drugs in the future; cocaine or heroin being supplied openly in the market by corporations that make sure it gives a good buzz and is addictive enough to bring back customers, but not too much – moderation. It’s a good argument. It simply comes down to weighing costs and benefits. For your case, you see a lot of benefits to alcohol, for another family who lost their kid when they were hit by a drunk-driver…not so much.

    You went exactly where I thought you would.

    Gun rights people (including I) are used to this line of argument to ban guns – “You think having a handgun or a rifle responsibly is a good thing? You can make the same argument about machine guns and canons! And what about the children who die from gun violence!”

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Twinkie

    Sure, but that's not my argument...that argument is what secular societies use to evaluate things. And your argument is a good argument for that paradigm.

    See below...

    Peace.

    My argument for its prohibition in Islam is that it has been reliably transmitted that it is interdicted by the Divine decree. It is within the Divine prerogative to ban anything at all for whatever reason, whether human beings understand its wisdom or not, and that the wisdom behind the prohibition is (thankfully) relatively straightforward:
    "They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: 'In them is evil, and some benefit for men; but the evil is greater than the profit.'..." (2:219)

    We cannot have congruence on the above point because we don't agree on the same epistemic foundations.

    Those who do not believe in the Divine prohibition (even as a minority) should simply have exemptions - again, straightforward.

    The Divine has not prohibited men from arming themselves - and it could be well-argued that it is indeed laudable for men to arm themselves in order to defend themselves and their families.

    Your argument also is why I expect to see legal moderate-cocaine and moderate-heroin in stores within my lifetime. I have no problems with non-Muslims pumping whatever they want into their bodies; knock yourselves out. In fact, I stated:
    "Nor should they" when nebulafox mentioned Malaysia cannot ban alcohol

    What I was mentioning in my response to nebulafox is that an increased tax on things like alcohol makes quite a bit of sense due to the ancillary issues that it introduces into society. I believe this has fairly widespread acceptance, just like how the parks around my area prohibit alcohol of whatever amount or content within their boundary.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  49. @Twinkie
    @Talha


    Sure. The same argument can and was made for marijuana and (I suspect) will be for other drugs in the future; cocaine or heroin being supplied openly in the market by corporations that make sure it gives a good buzz and is addictive enough to bring back customers, but not too much – moderation. It’s a good argument. It simply comes down to weighing costs and benefits. For your case, you see a lot of benefits to alcohol, for another family who lost their kid when they were hit by a drunk-driver…not so much.
     
    You went exactly where I thought you would.

    Gun rights people (including I) are used to this line of argument to ban guns - “You think having a handgun or a rifle responsibly is a good thing? You can make the same argument about machine guns and canons! And what about the children who die from gun violence!”


    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/f17a3ca7-be9a-4e85-9055-e92fa42e30cf/joim_2082_f1.gif

    Replies: @Talha

    Sure, but that’s not my argument…that argument is what secular societies use to evaluate things. And your argument is a good argument for that paradigm.

    See below…

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    My argument for its prohibition in Islam is that it has been reliably transmitted that it is interdicted by the Divine decree. It is within the Divine prerogative to ban anything at all for whatever reason, whether human beings understand its wisdom or not, and that the wisdom behind the prohibition is (thankfully) relatively straightforward:
    “They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: ‘In them is evil, and some benefit for men; but the evil is greater than the profit.’…” (2:219)

    We cannot have congruence on the above point because we don’t agree on the same epistemic foundations.

    Those who do not believe in the Divine prohibition (even as a minority) should simply have exemptions – again, straightforward.

    The Divine has not prohibited men from arming themselves – and it could be well-argued that it is indeed laudable for men to arm themselves in order to defend themselves and their families.

    Your argument also is why I expect to see legal moderate-cocaine and moderate-heroin in stores within my lifetime. I have no problems with non-Muslims pumping whatever they want into their bodies; knock yourselves out. In fact, I stated:
    “Nor should they” when nebulafox mentioned Malaysia cannot ban alcohol

    What I was mentioning in my response to nebulafox is that an increased tax on things like alcohol makes quite a bit of sense due to the ancillary issues that it introduces into society. I believe this has fairly widespread acceptance, just like how the parks around my area prohibit alcohol of whatever amount or content within their boundary.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Talha


    the Divine decree
     
    Well, my God Incarnate turned his Blood into wine for me to drink, so... There is my Divine decree for me.

    And as St. Mark quotes Christ:

    If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. And when he was come into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked him the parable. And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? Understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him: Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats? But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man.

    For from within out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and defile a man.
     
    And I note that you are in a Christian country. I am not in a Muslim one. I wonder why.

    As for this repeated argument:

    Your argument also is why I expect to see legal moderate-cocaine and moderate-heroin in stores within my lifetime.
     
    I see you didn’t read my reply earlier about guns and canons. Cocaine and heroin are not the same as alcohol. They have very different chemistries, potency, addiction potential, and effects. Moreover, alcohol has existed since time immemorial and has been consumed widely by almost all Eurasian cultures, that is to say, it is a marker of settled civilization and agriculture. Its widespread use has been well socialized for millennia.

    I have no problems with non-Muslims pumping whatever they want into their bodies; knock yourselves out.
     
    I care about all my fellow Americans. It’s not great for my country if only certain people are well, but others aren’t, be they Christians or not. Clearly you think differently, and your alien religious colonist mentality and overt tribalism are exactly the reasons why I don’t like the idea of more Muslims in this country, not withstanding your particular public affability. But then again, we all know it isn’t the Christian fundamentalists who are flying airplanes into buildings to kill unbelievers. Since Islam is so very important to you and you care so deeply for Muslims, you should find yourself a nice Muslim country and live there.

    Replies: @Talha

  50. All things in moderation, save moderation.

  51. @Talha
    @Twinkie

    Sure, but that's not my argument...that argument is what secular societies use to evaluate things. And your argument is a good argument for that paradigm.

    See below...

    Peace.

    My argument for its prohibition in Islam is that it has been reliably transmitted that it is interdicted by the Divine decree. It is within the Divine prerogative to ban anything at all for whatever reason, whether human beings understand its wisdom or not, and that the wisdom behind the prohibition is (thankfully) relatively straightforward:
    "They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: 'In them is evil, and some benefit for men; but the evil is greater than the profit.'..." (2:219)

    We cannot have congruence on the above point because we don't agree on the same epistemic foundations.

    Those who do not believe in the Divine prohibition (even as a minority) should simply have exemptions - again, straightforward.

    The Divine has not prohibited men from arming themselves - and it could be well-argued that it is indeed laudable for men to arm themselves in order to defend themselves and their families.

    Your argument also is why I expect to see legal moderate-cocaine and moderate-heroin in stores within my lifetime. I have no problems with non-Muslims pumping whatever they want into their bodies; knock yourselves out. In fact, I stated:
    "Nor should they" when nebulafox mentioned Malaysia cannot ban alcohol

    What I was mentioning in my response to nebulafox is that an increased tax on things like alcohol makes quite a bit of sense due to the ancillary issues that it introduces into society. I believe this has fairly widespread acceptance, just like how the parks around my area prohibit alcohol of whatever amount or content within their boundary.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    the Divine decree

    Well, my God Incarnate turned his Blood into wine for me to drink, so… There is my Divine decree for me.

    And as St. Mark quotes Christ:

    If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. And when he was come into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked him the parable. And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? Understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him: Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats? But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man.

    For from within out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and defile a man.

    And I note that you are in a Christian country. I am not in a Muslim one. I wonder why.

    As for this repeated argument:

    Your argument also is why I expect to see legal moderate-cocaine and moderate-heroin in stores within my lifetime.

    I see you didn’t read my reply earlier about guns and canons. Cocaine and heroin are not the same as alcohol. They have very different chemistries, potency, addiction potential, and effects. Moreover, alcohol has existed since time immemorial and has been consumed widely by almost all Eurasian cultures, that is to say, it is a marker of settled civilization and agriculture. Its widespread use has been well socialized for millennia.

    I have no problems with non-Muslims pumping whatever they want into their bodies; knock yourselves out.

    I care about all my fellow Americans. It’s not great for my country if only certain people are well, but others aren’t, be they Christians or not. Clearly you think differently, and your alien religious colonist mentality and overt tribalism are exactly the reasons why I don’t like the idea of more Muslims in this country, not withstanding your particular public affability. But then again, we all know it isn’t the Christian fundamentalists who are flying airplanes into buildings to kill unbelievers. Since Islam is so very important to you and you care so deeply for Muslims, you should find yourself a nice Muslim country and live there.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Talha
    @Twinkie


    so… There is my Divine decree for me.
     
    Yup - there you go.

    They have very different chemistries, potency, addiction potential, and effects.
     
    You have to convince others about this not me - they are all forbidden as far as I'm concerned. This argument didn't work for marijuana and I suspect it won't work for moderated cocaine or meth or any other drug.

    Its widespread use has been well socialized for millennia.
     
    Times change. Things become more popular, new drugs with unique chemistry are invented.

    I care about all my fellow Americans.
     
    So do I, here is my advice to them:
    1. Stop drinking.
    2. Can't do the above, reduce drinking as much as possible.

    They can heed my advice or not. Up to them. But I have no Divine sanction to prohibit them from harming themselves if they so choose in this regard. That is their right to do so.


    the Christian fundamentalists who are flying airplanes into buildings to kill unbelievers
     
    Why would they, when they can cheer on bombing campaigns in Muslim countries:
    “What’s also sad is that many in the audience at the church applauded right after Johnson said he wants to nuke Syria. In fact, ‘the crowd roared with applause,’ according to a report in the non-partisan Roll Call publication that covers Capitol Hill.”
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/03/02/texas-republican-congressman-quot-nuke-syria-quot/

    you should find yourself a nice Muslim country and live there.
     
    Thanks for your opinion (yet again) on why I should leave the US. If you can convince enough of our fellow citizens that this is a good policy to have vis-a-vis Muslims, you can legally force me to leave. No harm, no foul. I await my official Federal notice in the mail that I need to vacate US territory; I will do so promptly and in orderly fashion because I am a law-abiding citizen.

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie, @iffen

  52. @Twinkie
    @Talha


    the Divine decree
     
    Well, my God Incarnate turned his Blood into wine for me to drink, so... There is my Divine decree for me.

    And as St. Mark quotes Christ:

    If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. And when he was come into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked him the parable. And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? Understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him: Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats? But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man.

    For from within out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and defile a man.
     
    And I note that you are in a Christian country. I am not in a Muslim one. I wonder why.

    As for this repeated argument:

    Your argument also is why I expect to see legal moderate-cocaine and moderate-heroin in stores within my lifetime.
     
    I see you didn’t read my reply earlier about guns and canons. Cocaine and heroin are not the same as alcohol. They have very different chemistries, potency, addiction potential, and effects. Moreover, alcohol has existed since time immemorial and has been consumed widely by almost all Eurasian cultures, that is to say, it is a marker of settled civilization and agriculture. Its widespread use has been well socialized for millennia.

    I have no problems with non-Muslims pumping whatever they want into their bodies; knock yourselves out.
     
    I care about all my fellow Americans. It’s not great for my country if only certain people are well, but others aren’t, be they Christians or not. Clearly you think differently, and your alien religious colonist mentality and overt tribalism are exactly the reasons why I don’t like the idea of more Muslims in this country, not withstanding your particular public affability. But then again, we all know it isn’t the Christian fundamentalists who are flying airplanes into buildings to kill unbelievers. Since Islam is so very important to you and you care so deeply for Muslims, you should find yourself a nice Muslim country and live there.

    Replies: @Talha

    so… There is my Divine decree for me.

    Yup – there you go.

    They have very different chemistries, potency, addiction potential, and effects.

    You have to convince others about this not me – they are all forbidden as far as I’m concerned. This argument didn’t work for marijuana and I suspect it won’t work for moderated cocaine or meth or any other drug.

    Its widespread use has been well socialized for millennia.

    Times change. Things become more popular, new drugs with unique chemistry are invented.

    I care about all my fellow Americans.

    So do I, here is my advice to them:
    1. Stop drinking.
    2. Can’t do the above, reduce drinking as much as possible.

    They can heed my advice or not. Up to them. But I have no Divine sanction to prohibit them from harming themselves if they so choose in this regard. That is their right to do so.

    the Christian fundamentalists who are flying airplanes into buildings to kill unbelievers

    Why would they, when they can cheer on bombing campaigns in Muslim countries:
    “What’s also sad is that many in the audience at the church applauded right after Johnson said he wants to nuke Syria. In fact, ‘the crowd roared with applause,’ according to a report in the non-partisan Roll Call publication that covers Capitol Hill.”
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/03/02/texas-republican-congressman-quot-nuke-syria-quot/

    you should find yourself a nice Muslim country and live there.

    Thanks for your opinion (yet again) on why I should leave the US. If you can convince enough of our fellow citizens that this is a good policy to have vis-a-vis Muslims, you can legally force me to leave. No harm, no foul. I await my official Federal notice in the mail that I need to vacate US territory; I will do so promptly and in orderly fashion because I am a law-abiding citizen.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Talha



    the Christian fundamentalists who are flying airplanes into buildings to kill unbelievers
     
    Why would they, when they can cheer on bombing campaigns in Muslim countries
     
    Good point.

    If you look back at human history it's difficult to find any religion or political ideology or belief system (including atheist belief systems) whose adherents haven't at some time convinced themselves that it was righteous to massacre their enemies. How many people have now been slaughtered in the name of Freedom and Democracy?

    Any group of humans who find themselves having power over others will abuse that power. That's just the way we humans are.

    If libertarians ever gained control of a country I have no doubt that they would oppress their opponents. And if they gained control of a country with a powerful military I have no doubt that they would start slaughtering their enemies in the name of Liberty.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Talha

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Talha


    Thanks for your opinion (yet again) on why I should leave the US. If you can convince enough of our fellow citizens that this is a good policy to have vis-a-vis Muslims, you can legally force me to leave. No harm, no foul.
     
    No, you seem to be an uncommonly decent chap. Our mutual pseudonymity is unfortunate, for I'd like to have met you face to face someday, but I hope that you will stay with us here in the United States in any case.

    Replies: @Talha

    , @Twinkie
    @Talha


    This argument didn’t work for marijuana and I suspect it won’t work for moderated cocaine or meth or any other drug.
     
    First of all, there is currently no serious movement of any kind to legalize cocaine and meth. That's just reductio ad absurdum. That is, again, akin to suggesting that handguns be banned since allowing handguns lead to people owning anti-tank weapons.

    Times change. Things become more popular, new drugs with unique chemistry are invented.
     
    I don't know what "times change" means in this context. You will have to elaborate.

    The effects of alcohol - positive or negative - have been known for a VERY LONG time in human history. It's use has been widespread and regulated - we are talking about thousands of years here. Other narcotics - be they cannabis, cocaine, or heroin - have much more recent history and only selective usage geographically. They are also very different things. I can go very in-depth in many different ways they are different from alcohol. But that's not necessary, because the onus should be on those who claim they are the same as alcohol to demonstrate that. And they can't. Neither can you if you are honest about the science.

    Stop drinking.
     
    Why? Because Lancet says so?

    Actual research shows a J-curve. Again:
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/f17a3ca7-be9a-4e85-9055-e92fa42e30cf/joim_2082_f1.gif

    Most people would benefit from modest alcohol consumption.

    Why would they, when they can cheer on bombing campaigns in Muslim countries
     
    That's "what-about-ism." The morality of suicide bombing and other Islamic terrorist tactics is not incumbent upon military actions of others.

    Islamists are free to build drones and military hardware, put uniforms on their combatants, and attack the United States. There is such a thing as international laws on warfare. Even in ancient times, there were certain constraints and conventions that were followed in war - even amongst bitter enemies.

    If you can convince enough of our fellow citizens that this is a good policy to have vis-a-vis Muslims, you can legally force me to leave.
     
    I have zero interest in such a policy. In fact, I would consider it unconstitutional and would fight such a policy. But it says a lot about you that you think that's fine.

    No harm, no foul. I await my official Federal notice in the mail that I need to vacate US territory; I will do so promptly and in orderly fashion because I am a law-abiding citizen.
     
    What this tells me is that you don't understand one of America's basic tenets - protection of the (electoral) minority. In your mind, if the country becomes 51% Muslim, they (you) can simply outlaw other religions by a majority vote or otherwise persecute non-Muslims with Dhimmitude, "no harm no foul."

    That's a horrifying prospect to someone like me who believes in a constitutional republic and abhors the mob tyranny of a pure democracy (something largely shared by the Founders of this great country).

    Note that I wrote very clearly that I don't want ANY MORE Muslim immigrants in the country. I also wrote elsewhere that I don't want any more East Asian immigrants (or any other for that matter) for the foreseeable future. I can elaborate on why I hold those views, but the important distinction here is that my view on current and future immigration is very distinct from the equality of our current citizens whatever their religious views.

    But keep trying to passive-aggressively portray me as some sort of an eliminationist.

    Replies: @Talha, @V. K. Ovelund

    , @iffen
    @Talha

    you can legally force me to leave.

    No they can't.

    Replies: @Talha

  53. @Talha
    @Twinkie


    so… There is my Divine decree for me.
     
    Yup - there you go.

    They have very different chemistries, potency, addiction potential, and effects.
     
    You have to convince others about this not me - they are all forbidden as far as I'm concerned. This argument didn't work for marijuana and I suspect it won't work for moderated cocaine or meth or any other drug.

    Its widespread use has been well socialized for millennia.
     
    Times change. Things become more popular, new drugs with unique chemistry are invented.

    I care about all my fellow Americans.
     
    So do I, here is my advice to them:
    1. Stop drinking.
    2. Can't do the above, reduce drinking as much as possible.

    They can heed my advice or not. Up to them. But I have no Divine sanction to prohibit them from harming themselves if they so choose in this regard. That is their right to do so.


    the Christian fundamentalists who are flying airplanes into buildings to kill unbelievers
     
    Why would they, when they can cheer on bombing campaigns in Muslim countries:
    “What’s also sad is that many in the audience at the church applauded right after Johnson said he wants to nuke Syria. In fact, ‘the crowd roared with applause,’ according to a report in the non-partisan Roll Call publication that covers Capitol Hill.”
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/03/02/texas-republican-congressman-quot-nuke-syria-quot/

    you should find yourself a nice Muslim country and live there.
     
    Thanks for your opinion (yet again) on why I should leave the US. If you can convince enough of our fellow citizens that this is a good policy to have vis-a-vis Muslims, you can legally force me to leave. No harm, no foul. I await my official Federal notice in the mail that I need to vacate US territory; I will do so promptly and in orderly fashion because I am a law-abiding citizen.

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie, @iffen

    the Christian fundamentalists who are flying airplanes into buildings to kill unbelievers

    Why would they, when they can cheer on bombing campaigns in Muslim countries

    Good point.

    If you look back at human history it’s difficult to find any religion or political ideology or belief system (including atheist belief systems) whose adherents haven’t at some time convinced themselves that it was righteous to massacre their enemies. How many people have now been slaughtered in the name of Freedom and Democracy?

    Any group of humans who find themselves having power over others will abuse that power. That’s just the way we humans are.

    If libertarians ever gained control of a country I have no doubt that they would oppress their opponents. And if they gained control of a country with a powerful military I have no doubt that they would start slaughtering their enemies in the name of Liberty.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    Any group of humans who find themselves having power over others will abuse that power. That’s just the way we humans are.
     
    The true test of a religion isn't what the bad people in it do - yes, people of all religions have committed evil.

    The true test is what kind of a society and a civilization a religion builds.

    Christianity is the undisputed king among religions in this regard. YOU live in and benefit from a Christian civilization - the most prosperous, free, and advanced one the history of mankind has ever witnessed.

    Note that Talha is here. We didn't move to Pakistan. Talha is like those liberals who vote with their feet and abandon a liberal city, move to a conservative suburb, and promptly agitate for policies that ruined the city. No amount of his surface affability changes that dynamic... which is why he passive-aggressively engages in a straw man to paint me as some sort of an eliminationist.

    He is here, because 1) it's better here and 2) he is a religious colonist who wants to turn America Muslim.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Talha
    @dfordoom

    Sorry, I'm getting to this one so late (should have responded earlier).


    If you look back at human history it’s difficult to find any religion or political ideology or belief system (including atheist belief systems) whose adherents haven’t at some time convinced themselves that it was righteous to massacre their enemies.
     
    Yup, but it's really when you dig into the details where things get interesting.

    See below (not to bug others)...since this is still quite off topic.

    Peace.

    So when it comes down to massacres, people tend to get tribal. For instance, look at this survey that was done maybe a decade ago about various society’s views on violence by Gallup:
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx

    They were asked very specific questions like the acceptability of targeting and killing civilians (by state actors):
    https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/ADGC/bzdvtb6ptuymkc1fzm_log.png

    Then you ask the same question by non-state actors (ie. militias, terrorists, etc.):
    https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/ADGC/yrawgoykakayfhwm4ayuqq.png

    I personally don’t find any difference in the moral implications of whether civilians are targeted for killing by a state or non-state actor, but it seems some people do. And the break down occurs along the lines of people who have the capacity to massacre one way versus the other people who have the capacity to massacre another way.

    Here are the numbers per country for approval of military targeting (key word here is "targeting", this is beyond collateral damage which is unintentional) of civilians or non-state targeting of civilians. The US and Israel are illustrative (and Bangladesh is kind of surprising, but at least they are consistent), but let's look at Australia. As expected, it is a first world nation with modern military and modern arms, thus it has about a 1/4 approval for justifying targeting and killing civilians - which is what Australia metes out to others.
    https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/ADGC/72u544rfbkswkwegc9nhwa.png

    But the numbers decline over a 15 point spread when asked about attacks that they are on the receiving end of:
    https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/ADGC/lf0hd_fk_k6whjgixphe-q.png
  54. @Talha
    @Twinkie


    so… There is my Divine decree for me.
     
    Yup - there you go.

    They have very different chemistries, potency, addiction potential, and effects.
     
    You have to convince others about this not me - they are all forbidden as far as I'm concerned. This argument didn't work for marijuana and I suspect it won't work for moderated cocaine or meth or any other drug.

    Its widespread use has been well socialized for millennia.
     
    Times change. Things become more popular, new drugs with unique chemistry are invented.

    I care about all my fellow Americans.
     
    So do I, here is my advice to them:
    1. Stop drinking.
    2. Can't do the above, reduce drinking as much as possible.

    They can heed my advice or not. Up to them. But I have no Divine sanction to prohibit them from harming themselves if they so choose in this regard. That is their right to do so.


    the Christian fundamentalists who are flying airplanes into buildings to kill unbelievers
     
    Why would they, when they can cheer on bombing campaigns in Muslim countries:
    “What’s also sad is that many in the audience at the church applauded right after Johnson said he wants to nuke Syria. In fact, ‘the crowd roared with applause,’ according to a report in the non-partisan Roll Call publication that covers Capitol Hill.”
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/03/02/texas-republican-congressman-quot-nuke-syria-quot/

    you should find yourself a nice Muslim country and live there.
     
    Thanks for your opinion (yet again) on why I should leave the US. If you can convince enough of our fellow citizens that this is a good policy to have vis-a-vis Muslims, you can legally force me to leave. No harm, no foul. I await my official Federal notice in the mail that I need to vacate US territory; I will do so promptly and in orderly fashion because I am a law-abiding citizen.

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie, @iffen

    Thanks for your opinion (yet again) on why I should leave the US. If you can convince enough of our fellow citizens that this is a good policy to have vis-a-vis Muslims, you can legally force me to leave. No harm, no foul.

    No, you seem to be an uncommonly decent chap. Our mutual pseudonymity is unfortunate, for I’d like to have met you face to face someday, but I hope that you will stay with us here in the United States in any case.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Thanks, much appreciated.


    I’d like to have met you face to face someday
     
    Likewise, there are some people here at UNZ that I wouldn't mind taking out to lunch for some nice Lamb Mandi.

    I hope that you will stay with us here in the United States in any case.
     
    I don't really have any plans to move. I just buried my father in California...and now that line "Land where my fathers died" hits me with a significance it never had before whenever I hear it. In truth, my wife is a white convert so she is a native. I wouldn't mind leaving as much as she wants to stay put...who listens to their husbands these days?

    Peace.

    Traditional Muslims like myself aren't really worried about moving overseas - it would be more of an inconvenience than anything else (depending on where one goes); language, customs, tax codes, bureaucratic navigation all has to be relearned, which is more difficult as you age. But then, you eventually grow old and end up chilling at the mosque with your buddies like these guys as you wait for your Lord to call you back:
    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/28/d5/61/28d561977b9e541c6f728b0dc68d078c.jpg
    https://footstepsofprophet.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/ppl.png

    Those that don't feel entitled to much in the world aren't much upset when they lose it:
    https://twitter.com/MuslimScholars_/status/1321885950964862979

    The ones that will fight tooth and nail will be the liberal Muslim types, they talk a lot about how they are oppressed here, but would cling and beg not to be tossed with the third world masses and be the first to beg to be let back in.

    Replies: @Yahya K.

  55. @Talha
    @Twinkie

    See below since this is getting far off-topic...

    Peace.


    Alcohol in moderation is wonderful – it’s good for your health and is a nice social lubricant.
     
    Sure. The same argument can and was made for marijuana and (I suspect) will be for other drugs in the future; cocaine or heroin being supplied openly in the market by corporations that make sure it gives a good buzz and is addictive enough to bring back customers, but not too much - moderation. It's a good argument. It simply comes down to weighing costs and benefits. For your case, you see a lot of benefits to alcohol, for another family who lost their kid when they were hit by a drunk-driver...not so much.

    "The level of alcohol consumption that minimised harm across health outcomes was zero (95% UI 0·0–0·8) standard drinks per week.
    ...
    Alcohol use is a leading risk factor for global disease burden and causes substantial health loss. We found that the risk of all-cause mortality, and of cancers specifically, rises with increasing levels of consumption, and the level of consumption that minimises health loss is zero."
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31310-2/fulltext

    So away with your evil oppressive Shariah that would forbid this!
     
    Meh. I've seen some people call Shariah evil and oppressive because it doesn't allow them to sodomize their buddy. To each, their own.

    If you've been following what I am saying, then you'll know that the Shariah is really only concerned with prohibiting Muslims from drinking, not non-Muslims. They can own, sell, imbibe alcohol as they please in Muslim-majority lands - it's their liver, after all - and the only restrictions are for things like public drunkenness and what that entails - which plenty of societies prevent for obvious reasons.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

    The same argument can and was made for marijuana and (I suspect) will be for other drugs in the future; cocaine or heroin being supplied openly in the market by corporations that make sure it gives a good buzz and is addictive enough to bring back customers, but not too much – moderation. It’s a good argument. It simply comes down to weighing costs and benefits.

    We already have big pharmaceutical companies quite legally pushing psychoactive drugs that lead to dependence. Drugs that arguably have more profound (and in some cases quite harmful) effects on personality than alcohol.

    So yeah, if there’s money in it (and there is) then it may well happen.

  56. @Talha
    @Twinkie


    so… There is my Divine decree for me.
     
    Yup - there you go.

    They have very different chemistries, potency, addiction potential, and effects.
     
    You have to convince others about this not me - they are all forbidden as far as I'm concerned. This argument didn't work for marijuana and I suspect it won't work for moderated cocaine or meth or any other drug.

    Its widespread use has been well socialized for millennia.
     
    Times change. Things become more popular, new drugs with unique chemistry are invented.

    I care about all my fellow Americans.
     
    So do I, here is my advice to them:
    1. Stop drinking.
    2. Can't do the above, reduce drinking as much as possible.

    They can heed my advice or not. Up to them. But I have no Divine sanction to prohibit them from harming themselves if they so choose in this regard. That is their right to do so.


    the Christian fundamentalists who are flying airplanes into buildings to kill unbelievers
     
    Why would they, when they can cheer on bombing campaigns in Muslim countries:
    “What’s also sad is that many in the audience at the church applauded right after Johnson said he wants to nuke Syria. In fact, ‘the crowd roared with applause,’ according to a report in the non-partisan Roll Call publication that covers Capitol Hill.”
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/03/02/texas-republican-congressman-quot-nuke-syria-quot/

    you should find yourself a nice Muslim country and live there.
     
    Thanks for your opinion (yet again) on why I should leave the US. If you can convince enough of our fellow citizens that this is a good policy to have vis-a-vis Muslims, you can legally force me to leave. No harm, no foul. I await my official Federal notice in the mail that I need to vacate US territory; I will do so promptly and in orderly fashion because I am a law-abiding citizen.

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie, @iffen

    This argument didn’t work for marijuana and I suspect it won’t work for moderated cocaine or meth or any other drug.

    First of all, there is currently no serious movement of any kind to legalize cocaine and meth. That’s just reductio ad absurdum. That is, again, akin to suggesting that handguns be banned since allowing handguns lead to people owning anti-tank weapons.

    Times change. Things become more popular, new drugs with unique chemistry are invented.

    I don’t know what “times change” means in this context. You will have to elaborate.

    The effects of alcohol – positive or negative – have been known for a VERY LONG time in human history. It’s use has been widespread and regulated – we are talking about thousands of years here. Other narcotics – be they cannabis, cocaine, or heroin – have much more recent history and only selective usage geographically. They are also very different things. I can go very in-depth in many different ways they are different from alcohol. But that’s not necessary, because the onus should be on those who claim they are the same as alcohol to demonstrate that. And they can’t. Neither can you if you are honest about the science.

    Stop drinking.

    Why? Because Lancet says so?

    Actual research shows a J-curve. Again:

    Most people would benefit from modest alcohol consumption.

    Why would they, when they can cheer on bombing campaigns in Muslim countries

    That’s “what-about-ism.” The morality of suicide bombing and other Islamic terrorist tactics is not incumbent upon military actions of others.

    Islamists are free to build drones and military hardware, put uniforms on their combatants, and attack the United States. There is such a thing as international laws on warfare. Even in ancient times, there were certain constraints and conventions that were followed in war – even amongst bitter enemies.

    If you can convince enough of our fellow citizens that this is a good policy to have vis-a-vis Muslims, you can legally force me to leave.

    I have zero interest in such a policy. In fact, I would consider it unconstitutional and would fight such a policy. But it says a lot about you that you think that’s fine.

    No harm, no foul. I await my official Federal notice in the mail that I need to vacate US territory; I will do so promptly and in orderly fashion because I am a law-abiding citizen.

    What this tells me is that you don’t understand one of America’s basic tenets – protection of the (electoral) minority. In your mind, if the country becomes 51% Muslim, they (you) can simply outlaw other religions by a majority vote or otherwise persecute non-Muslims with Dhimmitude, “no harm no foul.”

    That’s a horrifying prospect to someone like me who believes in a constitutional republic and abhors the mob tyranny of a pure democracy (something largely shared by the Founders of this great country).

    Note that I wrote very clearly that I don’t want ANY MORE Muslim immigrants in the country. I also wrote elsewhere that I don’t want any more East Asian immigrants (or any other for that matter) for the foreseeable future. I can elaborate on why I hold those views, but the important distinction here is that my view on current and future immigration is very distinct from the equality of our current citizens whatever their religious views.

    But keep trying to passive-aggressively portray me as some sort of an eliminationist.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Talha
    @Twinkie


    That’s just reductio ad absurdum.
     
    I don't believe it is. In my lifetime there was a time they would have laughed if you told people the marijuana was going to have a nationwide discussion/debate for legalization and win. And if you told people when the legal cases were being adjudicated for decriminalizing sodomy that people would live to see the day when men could legally marry other men, they may have also thought you were talking crazy...but here we are.

    Rest, below...

    Peace.


    I don’t know what “times change” means in this context. You will have to elaborate.
     
    Just what it means. When a small number of people are toking weed; not much of a problem - when the police officer's own kid is selling weed in the high school...times have changed, expect the law to catch up. Right now, there is selective application of the law on the books anyway; in one of my past jobs, I knew a lawyer that used to work in Hollywood and wanted to try his trade at a dotcom start up. He told us of the big Hollywood parties he used to attend where drugs were full on display (along with plenty of young topless females hanging around the pool). They had security provided by the local police who knew exactly what was going on, but were supposed to ignore it. Walter White is a cultural icon, not a pariah.

    Actual research shows a J-curve.
     
    You mean the research you like, as opposed to the one you want to wave away with "Because Lancet says so?" And since I have neither a degree in statistics nor medicine, I am not qualified to judge between which research had better methods and is more accurate.

    That’s “what-about-ism.”
     
    It would certainly be if I was defending terrorist actions like plowing planes into buildings, which I don't and never have.

    I was pointing out the fact that we have some bloodthirsty Christians as well that have no problems cheering on massacres and that, due to the political situation in the US, these people do affect policies that end with bombs being dropped on people in the Muslim world.


    There is such a thing as international laws on warfare.
     
    Yeah, terrorists generally ignore these.

    Even in ancient times, there were certain constraints and conventions that were followed in war – even amongst bitter enemies.
     
    Yes and terrorists avoid these as well (as well as Shariah prohibitions on targeting women, children, elderly, etc.)...which is probably why they earn the label "terrorists".

    But it says a lot about you that you think that’s fine.
     
    Just because I'm willing to accept and comply with a law that takes things away from me doesn't mean I would advocate the same for others. I have never stated anywhere that I would advocate people being forced out of the US due to their religion, but I'm willing to accept it if that's what the majority of Americans decide for me.

    protection of the (electoral) minority.
     
    I believe I do.

    In your mind, if the country becomes 51% Muslim, they (you) can simply outlaw other religions by a majority vote or otherwise persecute non-Muslims with Dhimmitude, “no harm no foul.”
     
    If others have been following what I have been stating about protecting the rights of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority countries to things like liquor despite the fact that it is considered morally reprehensible and damaging to the vast majority of the populace, then I simply don't see how it follows that I would suddenly turn around and advocate a Muslim majority taking away far more fundamental rights in the US like outlawing other religions or persecuting non-Muslims. I simply don't advocate or support that.

    I don’t want ANY MORE Muslim immigrants in the country.
     
    I'm totally down for this. More and more of this simply keeps Islam in the foreign/exotic category and delays Islam from going local faster. I'd much rather the Muslim community in the US be composed of native-born people who converted like my wife or her sister or Ustadh AbdurRehman Murphy (who left us for Texas, unfortunately):
    https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5a2403c7ace864ba32064780/1533182589616-4IED9GIVSDOGW5TUQCGU/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kHM888A2cEOL-16x2Y7wW2UUqsxRUqqbr1mOJYKfIPR7LoDQ9mXPOjoJoqy81S2I8N_N4V1vUb5AoIIIbLZhVYxCRW4BPu10St3TBAUQYVKc623qwjx4pyjZayAfbhKOpN3Bh0nk03Z9QEwfcrpht7T1d0dXNPLnr-wcUHE94nbu/arm.png
    https://www.qalam.institute/abdelrahman-murphy

    Or Chris Abdur-Rahman Blauvelt:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUo9H9_hyBU

    Or Ustadh Nuh Saunders:
    https://twitter.com/NuhSaunders/status/1082212311518064640

    These people can simply dismiss the "go back home" argument.


    passive-aggressively portray me as some sort of an eliminationist.
     
    I wasn't, I was simply outlining your legal options.

    As far as tone, I think you should look back on how you initiated this conversation with me. Perhaps where you come from calling someone's beliefs as evil and oppressive are a way to start a friendly conversation.

    To me, you seem to have been interested in picking a fight from the get-go, I'd rather just explain my beliefs and leave it at that. And since a fight or debate is something I am simply not interested right now, this will be my last response to you on this subject. Feel free to respond, but don't expect one back.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    First of all, there is currently no serious movement of any kind to legalize cocaine and meth.
     
    Wait for it.

    You might not have to wait long.
  57. @dfordoom
    @Talha



    the Christian fundamentalists who are flying airplanes into buildings to kill unbelievers
     
    Why would they, when they can cheer on bombing campaigns in Muslim countries
     
    Good point.

    If you look back at human history it's difficult to find any religion or political ideology or belief system (including atheist belief systems) whose adherents haven't at some time convinced themselves that it was righteous to massacre their enemies. How many people have now been slaughtered in the name of Freedom and Democracy?

    Any group of humans who find themselves having power over others will abuse that power. That's just the way we humans are.

    If libertarians ever gained control of a country I have no doubt that they would oppress their opponents. And if they gained control of a country with a powerful military I have no doubt that they would start slaughtering their enemies in the name of Liberty.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Talha

    Any group of humans who find themselves having power over others will abuse that power. That’s just the way we humans are.

    The true test of a religion isn’t what the bad people in it do – yes, people of all religions have committed evil.

    The true test is what kind of a society and a civilization a religion builds.

    Christianity is the undisputed king among religions in this regard. YOU live in and benefit from a Christian civilization – the most prosperous, free, and advanced one the history of mankind has ever witnessed.

    Note that Talha is here. We didn’t move to Pakistan. Talha is like those liberals who vote with their feet and abandon a liberal city, move to a conservative suburb, and promptly agitate for policies that ruined the city. No amount of his surface affability changes that dynamic… which is why he passive-aggressively engages in a straw man to paint me as some sort of an eliminationist.

    He is here, because 1) it’s better here and 2) he is a religious colonist who wants to turn America Muslim.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    The true test is what kind of a society and a civilization a religion builds.
     
    One could argue that western civilisation really started to move forward rapidly as it became more secular.

    The things that you admire about western civilisation ("the most prosperous, free, and advanced" society in history) are largely the results of the secularisation of the West. It appears that secularisation builds prosperous, free, and advanced societies.

    Do immigrants head to the US because they think it's a Christian society? Or do they head there because it's a prosperous, free, and advanced secular society?

    We certainly get plenty of immigrants wanting to come to Australia.I doubt if you could find a more secular society than Australia.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Talha

  58. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    Any group of humans who find themselves having power over others will abuse that power. That’s just the way we humans are.
     
    The true test of a religion isn't what the bad people in it do - yes, people of all religions have committed evil.

    The true test is what kind of a society and a civilization a religion builds.

    Christianity is the undisputed king among religions in this regard. YOU live in and benefit from a Christian civilization - the most prosperous, free, and advanced one the history of mankind has ever witnessed.

    Note that Talha is here. We didn't move to Pakistan. Talha is like those liberals who vote with their feet and abandon a liberal city, move to a conservative suburb, and promptly agitate for policies that ruined the city. No amount of his surface affability changes that dynamic... which is why he passive-aggressively engages in a straw man to paint me as some sort of an eliminationist.

    He is here, because 1) it's better here and 2) he is a religious colonist who wants to turn America Muslim.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The true test is what kind of a society and a civilization a religion builds.

    One could argue that western civilisation really started to move forward rapidly as it became more secular.

    The things that you admire about western civilisation (“the most prosperous, free, and advanced” society in history) are largely the results of the secularisation of the West. It appears that secularisation builds prosperous, free, and advanced societies.

    Do immigrants head to the US because they think it’s a Christian society? Or do they head there because it’s a prosperous, free, and advanced secular society?

    We certainly get plenty of immigrants wanting to come to Australia.I doubt if you could find a more secular society than Australia.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    The things that you admire about western civilisation (“the most prosperous, free, and advanced” society in history) are largely the results of the secularisation of the West. It appears that secularisation builds prosperous, free, and advanced societies.
     
    First of all, that’s what secularists would like to claim, but history doesn’t bear that out. The oldest university in the world was founded as a Christian institution as were almost all the universities in ore-modern times.

    And even if you were to believe in secularization as the cause of Western advancement, that;s only a proximate cause that begs a further question - what led to that secularization? Why is it, so magically, that WEIRD countries all hail from the Western Christian civilization?

    Try Joe Henrich’s latest book: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/09/joseph-henrich-explores-weird-societies/

    https://www.amazon.com/WEIRDest-People-World-Psychologically-Particularly-ebook/dp/B07RZFCPMD/

    The Roman Catholic Church was the genesis of Western modernity and all that flowed from it.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    , @Talha
    @dfordoom


    Do immigrants head to the US because they think it’s a Christian society? Or do they head there because it’s a prosperous, free, and advanced secular society?
     
    They certainly don't move to, say, Guatemala which can be argued to be more Christian (by demographics) than either the US or most of Europe.

    Peace.
  59. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    The true test is what kind of a society and a civilization a religion builds.
     
    One could argue that western civilisation really started to move forward rapidly as it became more secular.

    The things that you admire about western civilisation ("the most prosperous, free, and advanced" society in history) are largely the results of the secularisation of the West. It appears that secularisation builds prosperous, free, and advanced societies.

    Do immigrants head to the US because they think it's a Christian society? Or do they head there because it's a prosperous, free, and advanced secular society?

    We certainly get plenty of immigrants wanting to come to Australia.I doubt if you could find a more secular society than Australia.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Talha

    The things that you admire about western civilisation (“the most prosperous, free, and advanced” society in history) are largely the results of the secularisation of the West. It appears that secularisation builds prosperous, free, and advanced societies.

    First of all, that’s what secularists would like to claim, but history doesn’t bear that out. The oldest university in the world was founded as a Christian institution as were almost all the universities in ore-modern times.

    And even if you were to believe in secularization as the cause of Western advancement, that;s only a proximate cause that begs a further question – what led to that secularization? Why is it, so magically, that WEIRD countries all hail from the Western Christian civilization?

    Try Joe Henrich’s latest book: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/09/joseph-henrich-explores-weird-societies/

    The Roman Catholic Church was the genesis of Western modernity and all that flowed from it.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    The oldest university in the world was founded as a Christian institution as were almost all the universities in ore-modern times.
     
    Mediæval universities weren't exactly places that valued free enquiry. As recently as 1811 Shelley was expelled from Oxford for atheism. The idea of universities as places that value free enquiry is a 19th century secular concept.

    And even if you were to believe in secularization as the cause of Western advancement, that;s only a proximate cause that begs a further question – what led to that secularization? Why is it, so magically, that WEIRD countries all hail from the Western Christian civilization?
     
    Western civilisation also has its roots in pagan classical Mediterranean civilisation (and also in pagan northern European cultures). That might be a more important factor than Christianity. I'm not saying it is a more important factor, but it might be.

    It seems likely that the peculiar genius of western civilisation is actually pre-Christian.

    If I were a fanatical secularist I might even argue that Christianity represented an obstacle that the West had to overcome before it could start progressing again.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Yahya K., @nebulafox

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Twinkie

    The Roman Catholic Church was the genesis of Western modernity and all that flowed from it.

    Great book on that:

    https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280

  60. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    The true test is what kind of a society and a civilization a religion builds.
     
    One could argue that western civilisation really started to move forward rapidly as it became more secular.

    The things that you admire about western civilisation ("the most prosperous, free, and advanced" society in history) are largely the results of the secularisation of the West. It appears that secularisation builds prosperous, free, and advanced societies.

    Do immigrants head to the US because they think it's a Christian society? Or do they head there because it's a prosperous, free, and advanced secular society?

    We certainly get plenty of immigrants wanting to come to Australia.I doubt if you could find a more secular society than Australia.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Talha

    Do immigrants head to the US because they think it’s a Christian society? Or do they head there because it’s a prosperous, free, and advanced secular society?

    They certainly don’t move to, say, Guatemala which can be argued to be more Christian (by demographics) than either the US or most of Europe.

    Peace.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  61. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    The things that you admire about western civilisation (“the most prosperous, free, and advanced” society in history) are largely the results of the secularisation of the West. It appears that secularisation builds prosperous, free, and advanced societies.
     
    First of all, that’s what secularists would like to claim, but history doesn’t bear that out. The oldest university in the world was founded as a Christian institution as were almost all the universities in ore-modern times.

    And even if you were to believe in secularization as the cause of Western advancement, that;s only a proximate cause that begs a further question - what led to that secularization? Why is it, so magically, that WEIRD countries all hail from the Western Christian civilization?

    Try Joe Henrich’s latest book: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/09/joseph-henrich-explores-weird-societies/

    https://www.amazon.com/WEIRDest-People-World-Psychologically-Particularly-ebook/dp/B07RZFCPMD/

    The Roman Catholic Church was the genesis of Western modernity and all that flowed from it.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    The oldest university in the world was founded as a Christian institution as were almost all the universities in ore-modern times.

    Mediæval universities weren’t exactly places that valued free enquiry. As recently as 1811 Shelley was expelled from Oxford for atheism. The idea of universities as places that value free enquiry is a 19th century secular concept.

    And even if you were to believe in secularization as the cause of Western advancement, that;s only a proximate cause that begs a further question – what led to that secularization? Why is it, so magically, that WEIRD countries all hail from the Western Christian civilization?

    Western civilisation also has its roots in pagan classical Mediterranean civilisation (and also in pagan northern European cultures). That might be a more important factor than Christianity. I’m not saying it is a more important factor, but it might be.

    It seems likely that the peculiar genius of western civilisation is actually pre-Christian.

    If I were a fanatical secularist I might even argue that Christianity represented an obstacle that the West had to overcome before it could start progressing again.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    Mediæval universities weren’t exactly places that valued free enquiry. As recently as 1811 Shelley was expelled from Oxford for atheism. The idea of universities as places that value free enquiry is a 19th century secular concept.
     
    You are engaging in a straw man. First of all, I didn't bring up the Catholic Christian foundation of universities to extol "free enquiry." Second of all, repeating secularist prejudice and conceit - a counterfactual, if widely shared, one at that - doesn't advance the argument. Why don't you read this?

    https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/education/catholic-contributions/the-catholic-church-and-the-creation-of-the-university.html

    Here is a taste:

    The papacy played a central if not exclusive role in the establishment and encouragement of the universities. Naturally, the granting of a charter to a university was one indication of this papal role. Some 81 universities had been established by the time of the Reformation. Of these 33 possessed a papal charter, 15 a royal or imperial one, 20 possessed both, and 13 had none. In addition, it was the accepted view that a university could not award degrees without the approbation of pope, king, or emperor. Pope Innocent IV officially granted this privilege to Oxford University, for example, in 1254.
     
    As for this:

    Western civilisation also has its roots in pagan classical Mediterranean civilisation (and also in pagan northern European cultures). That might be a more important factor than Christianity. I’m not saying it is a more important factor, but it might be.

     

    That's historical "retconning" by later secularists. Why don't you give Joseph Henrich's book a try if you want to "update your priors" instead of simply repeating secularist propaganda? He's hardly the only one to make that argument, but is merely the latest amongst many historians (Henrich's angle is that he takes an anthropological and socio-cultural approach).

    GAZETTE: How did WEIRD societies originate?

    HENRICH: It goes back medieval European history and to a set of prohibitions, taboos, and prescriptions about the family that were developed by one particular branch of Christianity. This branch, which evolved into the Roman Catholic Church, established, during late antiquity in the early Middle Ages, a series of taboos on cousin marriage, a campaign against polygamous marriage, and new inheritance customs, where individuals could inherit as individuals rather than after someone dies having a property divided among a network of relatives or going laterally out to cousins. As a result, all of these restructured European families — from kindreds, clans, and other formations that anthropologists have documented around the world — formed into monogamous nuclear families. In the book, I provide evidence suggesting that it’s this particular family structure and variation and the variants of it that lead to particular ways of thinking that are more individualistic, analytic, and impersonal.
     
    Ancient Greek and Roman societies were not very "WEIRD." They were nepotistic and clannish - like many other ancient polities - with lots of inbreeding (not only cousin marriages, but also uncles marrying nieces - there is a rather thorough "petition" to Rome that survives - it was made by a former centurion in the Roman army who lists his personal history and martial accomplishments, including that his brother gave a daughter for him to marry).

    Contrary to secularist mythmaking of non-religious "freethinkers" demolishing Christian "superstition" and founding modernity, much that undergirds the modern and Western societies emerged out of the medieval period.

    If you are serious about understanding the philosophical transformations that underlie modernity, read Etienne Gilson's classic masterpiece "The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy."

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Yahya K.
    @dfordoom


    It seems likely that the peculiar genius of western civilisation is actually pre-Christian
     
    Pre-Christian West certainly had its role in Western civilization's achievements. Aristotle and Plato set the intellectual tone that would later define the West. Things like the scientific method developed from their ideas of science, as incomplete as they were.

    But if you look at Charles Murray's inventory of human accomplishment, it is clear that most of the West's accomplishment came after 1400 A.D. Pre-Christian West (Greece and Rome) had made great strides, but they were mostly concentrated among a few achievers and achievements (Euclid, Aristotle etc.). Post-1400 West, on the other hand, had a variety of achievements and significant figures ranging from Machiavelli to Newton.

    From Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment:
    http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ed0MVuJWsAAOQAl.png

    Western civilisation also has its roots in pagan classical Mediterranean civilisation (and also in pagan northern European cultures). That might be a more important factor than Christianity. I’m not saying it is a more important factor, but it might be.
     
    How big the relative impact Christianity had on Western achievement is hard to quantify and therefore left to judgement. But a good question to ask is: did other regions of the world who adopted Christianity experience the same results as the West? Looking at places like Latin America and the Philippines, the answer seems to be no. That doesn't mean Christianity didn’t aid the West, but it's almost definitely not the only causal variable in explaining their achievements post-1400.

    As a general rule, whenever there is an extraordinary outcome, there is almost always a confluence of 4-5+ variables coming together at the same time to create a non-linear outcome. So in the example of Western achievement from 1400-2000, which is by any standard an extraordinary event (see chart above), there is a variety at factors at play, not just one, or even two.

    As with any other historical event, it's hard to determine which factors played a casual role, but if I had to guess it would be a combination of a) increasing urbanization, b) out-breeding patterns, c) freedom of thought and action, d) increasing wealth.

    Two of these happened because of Christianity (a, b), one despite it (c.), and the other was not related (d).

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    , @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    >It seems likely that the peculiar genius of western civilisation is actually pre-Christian.

    I'm going to make an unconventional argument and state that relative to modern society, the differences in how humans viewed the world in ancient and medieval times were quite minimal even as civilization collapsed beyond all recognition in Europe. For example, the notion that military success was innately correlated with divine favor changed very little with the rise of monotheism. That did not mean that ancient/medieval people did not believe their own actions didn't impact their fate-they just didn't think that was the whole story. It is an extra layer of causation that we've only recently discarded as a species: in some parts of the world, that is. In other parts of the world, that view still remains.

    What human beings have been doing in the last 400 years, and especially in the last 200, is a much more radical break than anything that came before, IMO. That's where Western divergence really becomes apparent, even if some of the underlying factors had been hibernating for a while. It's really funny to watch because I also happen to believe that the rooted inclinations of human beings haven't changed all that much, even if the manifestations and norms and knowledge has changed beyond all recognition. Ordinary people remain ordinary people, even if they don't have to worry about bubonic plague or can communicate with someone halfway around the world now.

    Still, I do think that Eastern Christianity makes an interesting comparison point to the West, that points to some kernel of divergence in the Middle Ages: the Roman state there didn't collapse in the 5th Century. The emperors remained on the throne in Constantinople, and while the trends of ruralization and decreasing literacy were still there during the 7th Century collapse, they weren't as absolute as in the West. Although the power of the Byzantine emperor was never as all-encompassing as the regime's propaganda made it out to be, it's still unlikely that a Gregory VII figure that could have made the argument that spiritual and temporal power were completely divorced (with all the unintended consequences that brought over the next 1000 years) would have lasted long, and none ever came. When Byzantium finally fell, Russia became the guardian of Orthodox Christianity: and there, the Tsar remained as much a spiritual figure as a political one. This stuck: even under Communism, peasants would write to Lenin and Stalin in the same way they used to write to the Tsars.

    Similarly, look at how the Ming Dynasty came to power on the back of millenarian religious sentiment in China, or the rival caliphal claims of various Islamic powers. The fundamental *tension* that there was some kind of divergence in authority did not exist in any of them. I don't think by itself that was the reason the West became so dominant: history is never that simple. But I do think that kernel being planted led to certain outcomes becoming possibilities when combined with the right set of circumstances. Cheap Bibles becoming normative and a cause of the Reformation, for example. If it were cheap Qu'rans or cheap Upanishads instead, there wouldn't have been room for the two pillars of society to collide against each other, because they were fundamentally intertwined.

    Replies: @Talha

  62. @Twinkie
    @Talha


    This argument didn’t work for marijuana and I suspect it won’t work for moderated cocaine or meth or any other drug.
     
    First of all, there is currently no serious movement of any kind to legalize cocaine and meth. That's just reductio ad absurdum. That is, again, akin to suggesting that handguns be banned since allowing handguns lead to people owning anti-tank weapons.

    Times change. Things become more popular, new drugs with unique chemistry are invented.
     
    I don't know what "times change" means in this context. You will have to elaborate.

    The effects of alcohol - positive or negative - have been known for a VERY LONG time in human history. It's use has been widespread and regulated - we are talking about thousands of years here. Other narcotics - be they cannabis, cocaine, or heroin - have much more recent history and only selective usage geographically. They are also very different things. I can go very in-depth in many different ways they are different from alcohol. But that's not necessary, because the onus should be on those who claim they are the same as alcohol to demonstrate that. And they can't. Neither can you if you are honest about the science.

    Stop drinking.
     
    Why? Because Lancet says so?

    Actual research shows a J-curve. Again:
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/f17a3ca7-be9a-4e85-9055-e92fa42e30cf/joim_2082_f1.gif

    Most people would benefit from modest alcohol consumption.

    Why would they, when they can cheer on bombing campaigns in Muslim countries
     
    That's "what-about-ism." The morality of suicide bombing and other Islamic terrorist tactics is not incumbent upon military actions of others.

    Islamists are free to build drones and military hardware, put uniforms on their combatants, and attack the United States. There is such a thing as international laws on warfare. Even in ancient times, there were certain constraints and conventions that were followed in war - even amongst bitter enemies.

    If you can convince enough of our fellow citizens that this is a good policy to have vis-a-vis Muslims, you can legally force me to leave.
     
    I have zero interest in such a policy. In fact, I would consider it unconstitutional and would fight such a policy. But it says a lot about you that you think that's fine.

    No harm, no foul. I await my official Federal notice in the mail that I need to vacate US territory; I will do so promptly and in orderly fashion because I am a law-abiding citizen.
     
    What this tells me is that you don't understand one of America's basic tenets - protection of the (electoral) minority. In your mind, if the country becomes 51% Muslim, they (you) can simply outlaw other religions by a majority vote or otherwise persecute non-Muslims with Dhimmitude, "no harm no foul."

    That's a horrifying prospect to someone like me who believes in a constitutional republic and abhors the mob tyranny of a pure democracy (something largely shared by the Founders of this great country).

    Note that I wrote very clearly that I don't want ANY MORE Muslim immigrants in the country. I also wrote elsewhere that I don't want any more East Asian immigrants (or any other for that matter) for the foreseeable future. I can elaborate on why I hold those views, but the important distinction here is that my view on current and future immigration is very distinct from the equality of our current citizens whatever their religious views.

    But keep trying to passive-aggressively portray me as some sort of an eliminationist.

    Replies: @Talha, @V. K. Ovelund

    That’s just reductio ad absurdum.

    I don’t believe it is. In my lifetime there was a time they would have laughed if you told people the marijuana was going to have a nationwide discussion/debate for legalization and win. And if you told people when the legal cases were being adjudicated for decriminalizing sodomy that people would live to see the day when men could legally marry other men, they may have also thought you were talking crazy…but here we are.

    Rest, below…

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    I don’t know what “times change” means in this context. You will have to elaborate.

    Just what it means. When a small number of people are toking weed; not much of a problem – when the police officer’s own kid is selling weed in the high school…times have changed, expect the law to catch up. Right now, there is selective application of the law on the books anyway; in one of my past jobs, I knew a lawyer that used to work in Hollywood and wanted to try his trade at a dotcom start up. He told us of the big Hollywood parties he used to attend where drugs were full on display (along with plenty of young topless females hanging around the pool). They had security provided by the local police who knew exactly what was going on, but were supposed to ignore it. Walter White is a cultural icon, not a pariah.

    Actual research shows a J-curve.

    You mean the research you like, as opposed to the one you want to wave away with “Because Lancet says so?” And since I have neither a degree in statistics nor medicine, I am not qualified to judge between which research had better methods and is more accurate.

    That’s “what-about-ism.”

    It would certainly be if I was defending terrorist actions like plowing planes into buildings, which I don’t and never have.

    I was pointing out the fact that we have some bloodthirsty Christians as well that have no problems cheering on massacres and that, due to the political situation in the US, these people do affect policies that end with bombs being dropped on people in the Muslim world.

    There is such a thing as international laws on warfare.

    Yeah, terrorists generally ignore these.

    Even in ancient times, there were certain constraints and conventions that were followed in war – even amongst bitter enemies.

    Yes and terrorists avoid these as well (as well as Shariah prohibitions on targeting women, children, elderly, etc.)…which is probably why they earn the label “terrorists”.

    But it says a lot about you that you think that’s fine.

    Just because I’m willing to accept and comply with a law that takes things away from me doesn’t mean I would advocate the same for others. I have never stated anywhere that I would advocate people being forced out of the US due to their religion, but I’m willing to accept it if that’s what the majority of Americans decide for me.

    protection of the (electoral) minority.

    I believe I do.

    In your mind, if the country becomes 51% Muslim, they (you) can simply outlaw other religions by a majority vote or otherwise persecute non-Muslims with Dhimmitude, “no harm no foul.”

    If others have been following what I have been stating about protecting the rights of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority countries to things like liquor despite the fact that it is considered morally reprehensible and damaging to the vast majority of the populace, then I simply don’t see how it follows that I would suddenly turn around and advocate a Muslim majority taking away far more fundamental rights in the US like outlawing other religions or persecuting non-Muslims. I simply don’t advocate or support that.

    I don’t want ANY MORE Muslim immigrants in the country.

    I’m totally down for this. More and more of this simply keeps Islam in the foreign/exotic category and delays Islam from going local faster. I’d much rather the Muslim community in the US be composed of native-born people who converted like my wife or her sister or Ustadh AbdurRehman Murphy (who left us for Texas, unfortunately):https://www.qalam.institute/abdelrahman-murphy

    Or Chris Abdur-Rahman Blauvelt:

    Or Ustadh Nuh Saunders:

    These people can simply dismiss the “go back home” argument.

    passive-aggressively portray me as some sort of an eliminationist.

    I wasn’t, I was simply outlining your legal options.

    As far as tone, I think you should look back on how you initiated this conversation with me. Perhaps where you come from calling someone’s beliefs as evil and oppressive are a way to start a friendly conversation.

    To me, you seem to have been interested in picking a fight from the get-go, I’d rather just explain my beliefs and leave it at that. And since a fight or debate is something I am simply not interested right now, this will be my last response to you on this subject. Feel free to respond, but don’t expect one back.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Talha


    In my lifetime there was a time they would have laughed if you told people the marijuana was going to have a nationwide discussion/debate for legalization and win.
     
    What's fascinating about cultural and social change is that it happens really really fast.

    In late 1950s America movies still had to show married couples sleeping in separate beds and if you made a movie that showed nipples you could expect to be prosecuted for obscenity. America went from that to Deep Throat in fifteen years.

    I think such changes always happen fast. England in the 1650s under the Commonwealth was rigidly puritanical. Within twenty years Nell Gwynn (not just the King's mistress but quite openly and unashamedly a prostitute) was a pop culture icon who was cheered in the streets by the common people.

    It's not just that dramatic changes can happen in a single lifetime. They can happen in a decade or so.

    Maybe such changes happen so quickly that no effective resistance to them is possible. By the time the Moral Majority got started in 1979 most of the battles it was formed to fight had already been lost.

    Replies: @Talha, @Twinkie

    , @Twinkie
    @Talha


    In my lifetime...
     
    Just because we have homosexual "marriage" now doesn't mean marriages with dogs or brothers marrying sisters will be legalized in the future. Slippery slope arguments are reasonable... within reason.

    You are quite correct that enforcement of narcotic use has been selective, arbitrary, and ineffective, but that has nothing to do with the differences between alcohol and narcotics, whether chemically, biologically, or for matter socio-historically. South Korea and Japan, for example, both allow (heavy) consumption of alcohol and yet are very effective in curbing narcotic use.

    You mean the research you like, as opposed to the one you want to wave away with “Because Lancet says so?” And since I have neither a degree in statistics nor medicine, I am not qualified to judge between which research had better methods and is more accurate.
     
    Don't project. If you knew anything about the Lancet, you'd know that it has been heavily politicized in the recent decades and injects a lot of political agenda into its articles.

    Here is where that graph I cited comes from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02082.x

    It's a thoroughly researched and reviewed article that enumerates both the risks and benefits of alcohol use, with extensive citations. If you are actually serious about learning the health effects of alcohol, I suggest you read it.

    I was pointing out the fact that we have some bloodthirsty Christians as well that have no problems cheering on massacres
     
    Cheering for a military action ain't the same as hijacking and flying airplanes into buildings. Be earnest - you brought it up to create a moral equivalency where it does not exist.

    Shariah prohibitions on targeting women, children, elderly, etc.
     
    And yet a very sizable fraction of Muslims in the world seem to approve such barbaric methods as suicide bombings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Suicide_bombings

    I have never stated anywhere that I would advocate people being forced out of the US due to their religion
     
    Neither have I, so why would you bring that up and hoist it upon me, but to tar me with a straw man and portray yourself as a victim?

    These people can simply dismiss the “go back home” argument.
     
    And you keep hammering on that straw man. Despite your publicly affable persona, I do not think you argue honestly... which was why I described your line of argument as passive-aggressive.

    what I have been stating about protecting the rights of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority countries to things like liquor
     
    Dhimmitude that requires a permit to engage in a perfectly normal behavior? No thanks.

    As far as tone, I think you should look back on how you initiated this conversation with me. Perhaps where you come from calling someone’s beliefs as evil and oppressive are a way to start a friendly conversation.
     
    I suggest YOU read my original comment again. See the recipe for a cocktail and allusions to marital bliss (with a smiley, no less)? That was a light-hearted and jokey comment with a gentle ribbing about not wanting that taken away.

    You assumed hostility where it did not exist and went passive-aggressive.

    Feel free to respond, but don’t expect one back.
     
    You wrote that before... right before you came back with more "arguments." But this time, I really want you to take your toys and go home to mommy.

    I am not interested in "fighting" you. That wouldn't be much of a fight. I am, however, generally interested in debating people with whom I disagree here. I assume most commenters are here to carry out debates, arguments, and conversations. Not hurl slogans and say "I had my say and I am not going to listen to you."

    Replies: @Talha

  63. @Talha
    @Twinkie


    That’s just reductio ad absurdum.
     
    I don't believe it is. In my lifetime there was a time they would have laughed if you told people the marijuana was going to have a nationwide discussion/debate for legalization and win. And if you told people when the legal cases were being adjudicated for decriminalizing sodomy that people would live to see the day when men could legally marry other men, they may have also thought you were talking crazy...but here we are.

    Rest, below...

    Peace.


    I don’t know what “times change” means in this context. You will have to elaborate.
     
    Just what it means. When a small number of people are toking weed; not much of a problem - when the police officer's own kid is selling weed in the high school...times have changed, expect the law to catch up. Right now, there is selective application of the law on the books anyway; in one of my past jobs, I knew a lawyer that used to work in Hollywood and wanted to try his trade at a dotcom start up. He told us of the big Hollywood parties he used to attend where drugs were full on display (along with plenty of young topless females hanging around the pool). They had security provided by the local police who knew exactly what was going on, but were supposed to ignore it. Walter White is a cultural icon, not a pariah.

    Actual research shows a J-curve.
     
    You mean the research you like, as opposed to the one you want to wave away with "Because Lancet says so?" And since I have neither a degree in statistics nor medicine, I am not qualified to judge between which research had better methods and is more accurate.

    That’s “what-about-ism.”
     
    It would certainly be if I was defending terrorist actions like plowing planes into buildings, which I don't and never have.

    I was pointing out the fact that we have some bloodthirsty Christians as well that have no problems cheering on massacres and that, due to the political situation in the US, these people do affect policies that end with bombs being dropped on people in the Muslim world.


    There is such a thing as international laws on warfare.
     
    Yeah, terrorists generally ignore these.

    Even in ancient times, there were certain constraints and conventions that were followed in war – even amongst bitter enemies.
     
    Yes and terrorists avoid these as well (as well as Shariah prohibitions on targeting women, children, elderly, etc.)...which is probably why they earn the label "terrorists".

    But it says a lot about you that you think that’s fine.
     
    Just because I'm willing to accept and comply with a law that takes things away from me doesn't mean I would advocate the same for others. I have never stated anywhere that I would advocate people being forced out of the US due to their religion, but I'm willing to accept it if that's what the majority of Americans decide for me.

    protection of the (electoral) minority.
     
    I believe I do.

    In your mind, if the country becomes 51% Muslim, they (you) can simply outlaw other religions by a majority vote or otherwise persecute non-Muslims with Dhimmitude, “no harm no foul.”
     
    If others have been following what I have been stating about protecting the rights of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority countries to things like liquor despite the fact that it is considered morally reprehensible and damaging to the vast majority of the populace, then I simply don't see how it follows that I would suddenly turn around and advocate a Muslim majority taking away far more fundamental rights in the US like outlawing other religions or persecuting non-Muslims. I simply don't advocate or support that.

    I don’t want ANY MORE Muslim immigrants in the country.
     
    I'm totally down for this. More and more of this simply keeps Islam in the foreign/exotic category and delays Islam from going local faster. I'd much rather the Muslim community in the US be composed of native-born people who converted like my wife or her sister or Ustadh AbdurRehman Murphy (who left us for Texas, unfortunately):
    https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5a2403c7ace864ba32064780/1533182589616-4IED9GIVSDOGW5TUQCGU/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kHM888A2cEOL-16x2Y7wW2UUqsxRUqqbr1mOJYKfIPR7LoDQ9mXPOjoJoqy81S2I8N_N4V1vUb5AoIIIbLZhVYxCRW4BPu10St3TBAUQYVKc623qwjx4pyjZayAfbhKOpN3Bh0nk03Z9QEwfcrpht7T1d0dXNPLnr-wcUHE94nbu/arm.png
    https://www.qalam.institute/abdelrahman-murphy

    Or Chris Abdur-Rahman Blauvelt:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUo9H9_hyBU

    Or Ustadh Nuh Saunders:
    https://twitter.com/NuhSaunders/status/1082212311518064640

    These people can simply dismiss the "go back home" argument.


    passive-aggressively portray me as some sort of an eliminationist.
     
    I wasn't, I was simply outlining your legal options.

    As far as tone, I think you should look back on how you initiated this conversation with me. Perhaps where you come from calling someone's beliefs as evil and oppressive are a way to start a friendly conversation.

    To me, you seem to have been interested in picking a fight from the get-go, I'd rather just explain my beliefs and leave it at that. And since a fight or debate is something I am simply not interested right now, this will be my last response to you on this subject. Feel free to respond, but don't expect one back.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    In my lifetime there was a time they would have laughed if you told people the marijuana was going to have a nationwide discussion/debate for legalization and win.

    What’s fascinating about cultural and social change is that it happens really really fast.

    In late 1950s America movies still had to show married couples sleeping in separate beds and if you made a movie that showed nipples you could expect to be prosecuted for obscenity. America went from that to Deep Throat in fifteen years.

    I think such changes always happen fast. England in the 1650s under the Commonwealth was rigidly puritanical. Within twenty years Nell Gwynn (not just the King’s mistress but quite openly and unashamedly a prostitute) was a pop culture icon who was cheered in the streets by the common people.

    It’s not just that dramatic changes can happen in a single lifetime. They can happen in a decade or so.

    Maybe such changes happen so quickly that no effective resistance to them is possible. By the time the Moral Majority got started in 1979 most of the battles it was formed to fight had already been lost.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @dfordoom

    Some great examples I hadn't thought of because they were before my time, but yeah...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q072NuYL92c

    I guess I'm just fascinated by what I've seen move within my own lifetime and it seems so bizarre when I think back on it. As I said; given what I have seen with my own eyes, I simply cannot see why some of these other things can't become legal within my lifetime.

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    What’s fascinating about cultural and social change is that it happens really really fast... I think such changes always happen fast.
     
    Literally, yes and no.

    Cultural changes can occur very rapidly particularly when elites adopt new practices and customs and enforce the new norms strenuously. But those changes happen in spurts with generally lengthy periods of cultural stability. And even when the elites try, sometimes resistance can be quite fierce (Razib Khan is fond of citing the case of Prussia where the royal family adopted Calvinism, but the populace remained Lutheran).

    Northern England, too, for example, remained staunchly Catholic for a long time and the English crown had to engage in ruthless military campaigns to bring the area to Protestantism.

    Don't forget that with the changes that successfully occurred quickly, there is a selection bias at work for us as later spectators. We don't know or pay attention to many attempts at cultural changes that failed.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  64. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Talha


    Thanks for your opinion (yet again) on why I should leave the US. If you can convince enough of our fellow citizens that this is a good policy to have vis-a-vis Muslims, you can legally force me to leave. No harm, no foul.
     
    No, you seem to be an uncommonly decent chap. Our mutual pseudonymity is unfortunate, for I'd like to have met you face to face someday, but I hope that you will stay with us here in the United States in any case.

    Replies: @Talha

    Thanks, much appreciated.

    I’d like to have met you face to face someday

    Likewise, there are some people here at UNZ that I wouldn’t mind taking out to lunch for some nice Lamb Mandi.

    I hope that you will stay with us here in the United States in any case.

    I don’t really have any plans to move. I just buried my father in California…and now that line “Land where my fathers died” hits me with a significance it never had before whenever I hear it. In truth, my wife is a white convert so she is a native. I wouldn’t mind leaving as much as she wants to stay put…who listens to their husbands these days?

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    Traditional Muslims like myself aren’t really worried about moving overseas – it would be more of an inconvenience than anything else (depending on where one goes); language, customs, tax codes, bureaucratic navigation all has to be relearned, which is more difficult as you age. But then, you eventually grow old and end up chilling at the mosque with your buddies like these guys as you wait for your Lord to call you back:https://footstepsofprophet.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/ppl.png

    Those that don’t feel entitled to much in the world aren’t much upset when they lose it:

    The ones that will fight tooth and nail will be the liberal Muslim types, they talk a lot about how they are oppressed here, but would cling and beg not to be tossed with the third world masses and be the first to beg to be let back in.

    • Replies: @Yahya K.
    @Talha


    The ones that will fight tooth and nail will be the liberal Muslim types, they talk a lot about how they are oppressed here, but would cling and beg not to be tossed with the third world masses and be the first to beg to be let back in.
     
    Yeah, it can be a bit annoying at times to live in the 3rd world, because of how much it is dominated by the peasantry (and all the dysfunction and lack of sophistication this entails). And I'll admit that I was once a snobby upperclassman looking down my nose on the peasants. But after living here in the west for a while, I more and more appreciate the contributions the peasants make to 3rd world culture.

    And to a certain extent, I find that in much of the third world, the peasants define the culture, not the elites. At least that is the case in Egypt*, which is sort of the OG peasant nation. Almost all the cultural output is made from the bottom. Of course, it helps that most of our rulers post-1952 were/are from the peasantry. But I think overall, Egyptian culture is driven from the bottom-up, not the top-down.

    I also think you'll find that Western culture, as the West sinks lower, will increasingly be defined by their version of the peasantry (ghetto blacks or north africans etc.), rather than by anything the elites do. As much as people here would hate that happening, the great masses of people, including in Europe, simply like gangster rap more than Mozart or Beethoven.

    Anyway, it's not too bad as far as things go. There is much charm in peasant culture.

    Salam.



    *Here is a fun song by working-class Egyptian singer, Shaaban Abdel-Rehim

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHRVdyAEWtA&ab_channel=alimakaa

    Replies: @Twinkie, @songbird, @Talha

  65. @dfordoom
    @Talha


    In my lifetime there was a time they would have laughed if you told people the marijuana was going to have a nationwide discussion/debate for legalization and win.
     
    What's fascinating about cultural and social change is that it happens really really fast.

    In late 1950s America movies still had to show married couples sleeping in separate beds and if you made a movie that showed nipples you could expect to be prosecuted for obscenity. America went from that to Deep Throat in fifteen years.

    I think such changes always happen fast. England in the 1650s under the Commonwealth was rigidly puritanical. Within twenty years Nell Gwynn (not just the King's mistress but quite openly and unashamedly a prostitute) was a pop culture icon who was cheered in the streets by the common people.

    It's not just that dramatic changes can happen in a single lifetime. They can happen in a decade or so.

    Maybe such changes happen so quickly that no effective resistance to them is possible. By the time the Moral Majority got started in 1979 most of the battles it was formed to fight had already been lost.

    Replies: @Talha, @Twinkie

    Some great examples I hadn’t thought of because they were before my time, but yeah…

    I guess I’m just fascinated by what I’ve seen move within my own lifetime and it seems so bizarre when I think back on it. As I said; given what I have seen with my own eyes, I simply cannot see why some of these other things can’t become legal within my lifetime.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Talha


    Some great examples I hadn’t thought of because they were before my time, but yeah…
     
    Well Nell Gwynn was a bit before my time as well!

    As I said; given what I have seen with my own eyes, I simply cannot see why some of these other things can’t become legal within my lifetime.
     
    The fascinating/scary thing is that there's just no way to predict what will come next. The transsexual thing was something so bizarre that when it started almost all conservatives thought that this time the SJWs had gone too far, that there was no way that it wouldn't provoke a backlash. But there was no backlash at all. It went from being an impossibly bizarre idea to being totally mainstream in less than a decade.

    My feeling is that the Silent Majority that social conservatives rely on so much just doesn't exist any more. It's not that it's become a Silent Minority - it's become a minuscule and totally irrelevant minority that SJWs can simply ignore entirely. The transsexual thing also shows that Christians (or the overwhelming majority of Christians) are never ever going to draw a line in the sand. No matter how horrifyingly extreme and weird the next issue on the sexual battlefront might be Christians will meekly surrender.

    It's notable that in Britain the only resistance to the LGBT agenda has come from Muslims.

    Replies: @Talha, @Talha, @Audacious Epigone, @V. K. Ovelund

  66. Yahya K. says:
    @Talha
    @V. K. Ovelund

    Thanks, much appreciated.


    I’d like to have met you face to face someday
     
    Likewise, there are some people here at UNZ that I wouldn't mind taking out to lunch for some nice Lamb Mandi.

    I hope that you will stay with us here in the United States in any case.
     
    I don't really have any plans to move. I just buried my father in California...and now that line "Land where my fathers died" hits me with a significance it never had before whenever I hear it. In truth, my wife is a white convert so she is a native. I wouldn't mind leaving as much as she wants to stay put...who listens to their husbands these days?

    Peace.

    Traditional Muslims like myself aren't really worried about moving overseas - it would be more of an inconvenience than anything else (depending on where one goes); language, customs, tax codes, bureaucratic navigation all has to be relearned, which is more difficult as you age. But then, you eventually grow old and end up chilling at the mosque with your buddies like these guys as you wait for your Lord to call you back:
    https://i.pinimg.com/originals/28/d5/61/28d561977b9e541c6f728b0dc68d078c.jpg
    https://footstepsofprophet.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/ppl.png

    Those that don't feel entitled to much in the world aren't much upset when they lose it:
    https://twitter.com/MuslimScholars_/status/1321885950964862979

    The ones that will fight tooth and nail will be the liberal Muslim types, they talk a lot about how they are oppressed here, but would cling and beg not to be tossed with the third world masses and be the first to beg to be let back in.

    Replies: @Yahya K.

    The ones that will fight tooth and nail will be the liberal Muslim types, they talk a lot about how they are oppressed here, but would cling and beg not to be tossed with the third world masses and be the first to beg to be let back in.

    Yeah, it can be a bit annoying at times to live in the 3rd world, because of how much it is dominated by the peasantry (and all the dysfunction and lack of sophistication this entails). And I’ll admit that I was once a snobby upperclassman looking down my nose on the peasants. But after living here in the west for a while, I more and more appreciate the contributions the peasants make to 3rd world culture.

    And to a certain extent, I find that in much of the third world, the peasants define the culture, not the elites. At least that is the case in Egypt*, which is sort of the OG peasant nation. Almost all the cultural output is made from the bottom. Of course, it helps that most of our rulers post-1952 were/are from the peasantry. But I think overall, Egyptian culture is driven from the bottom-up, not the top-down.

    I also think you’ll find that Western culture, as the West sinks lower, will increasingly be defined by their version of the peasantry (ghetto blacks or north africans etc.), rather than by anything the elites do. As much as people here would hate that happening, the great masses of people, including in Europe, simply like gangster rap more than Mozart or Beethoven.

    Anyway, it’s not too bad as far as things go. There is much charm in peasant culture.

    Salam.

    *Here is a fun song by working-class Egyptian singer, Shaaban Abdel-Rehim

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Yahya K.


    But after living here in the west for a while, I more and more appreciate the contributions the peasants make to 3rd world culture.
     
    But do you appreciate them enough to live amidst them?

    I also think you’ll find that Western culture, as the West sinks lower, will increasingly be defined by their version of the peasantry (ghetto blacks or north africans etc.), rather than by anything the elites do.
     
    Historical trends are often very stochastic and only "make sense" retrospectively. It's certainly not preordained that the West would "sink lower."

    I don't think the American middle class and upper middle class culture, and certainly not the culture in the super zip codes, is (or will be) defined by "ghetto blacks." What's happening in the U.S. is a strong trend toward economic and cultural bifurcation. In the last 50 years, the ranks of the poor have grown, but so have the ranks of the well-off (what's hollowing out is the middle, especially the non-college-educated middle). And, yes, on the bottom rung, many downscale whites are starting to behave like blacks with low marriage rates, high rates of out-of-wedlock births, drug use, welfare usage, etc. But the also growing upscale segment of the population is most certainly not going "ghetto black" - it might ritualistically support BLM, but their personal behaviors are in fact quite traditionally bourgeois.

    http://squaredawayblog.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/marriage-rates-by-class.jpg

    https://i0.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/smmchart2.png

    https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/figure12-w640.png

    Und so weiter.

    Replies: @Yahya K.

    , @songbird
    @Yahya K.

    I've heard some competing theories to explain why Hollywood movies seem to be getting stupider:
    -they are made for international audiences, and because many countries don't dub, need to use simple words
    -demographic changes in the US (most of the people going into theaters aren't even white anymore)

    The second one is kind of interesting because there are a variety of Latin American broadcasts that one can pick up in America. I'm no expert, but to me, Mexican television seems more conservative - perhaps not in every sense, but it is more religious, with more traditional gender roles. So, one would think movies would be getting more conservative, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

    I'm often shocked at Chinese movies. How coarse they seem to be on a certain level, despite the Chinese in a way being a sophisticated civilization - I've guessed that might be the people moving off the farms.

    While I think there are probably multiple reasons why movies are getting dumber, the really scary one to me is this: the people making movies are getting dumber. That it is dysgenic trends, even without considering ethnic changes.

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom

    , @Talha
    @Yahya K.


    And I’ll admit that I was once a snobby upperclassman looking down my nose on the peasants.
     
    Yeah, never a good attitude to have:
    "Love the poor, for I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say in his supplication: ‘O Allah, cause me to live poor and cause me to die poor, and gather me among the poor (on the Day of Resurrection).'" - reported in Ibn Majah

    Wa salaam

    One thing I have seen is that modern society has certainly raised the living standards of many people, but for those that haven't been able to reach that middle class level - a constantly moving goal post - it hasn't provided a good avenue to live a dignified life.

    This is where the loss of religion in many modern societies will lead down undignified paths for the poor...as you pointed out.


    I find that in much of the third world, the peasants define the culture, not the elites.
     
    Good point. This often helps contain certain problems in society that stem from decadent elite culture. The poor aren't without their own social problems that plague them, but some of the worst ones come from those with a lot of money and a lot of power.

    There is much charm in peasant culture.
     
    I agree.

    I remember on my trip to Hajj, I saw some extraordinary acts of generosity mostly from the poor whereas the richer folks were very snobbish. It was like this when I visited Egypt also and was invited into the homes of some poorer folks; they way they prepared and piled up the food (that they probably had to save up a few months to do) for you - just incredible.

    One thing I really like about the way Sufi tariqahs operate is that they are often the nexus of poor and the rich, the elite and the downtrodden. You sometimes see higher ups come to seek advice or a prayer from the shaykh who comes from the poor. You see both sitting in their gatherings of dhikr.

    I one thing I have noticed during my interactions with the poor; if you treat them with a level of honor and dignity from the start, they will mostly reciprocate or even surprise you with their generosity.

    I remember this office building I used to work at that had a business that employed a lot of young black males. They often looked pretty tough and stand-offish, but if you were riding in that elevator with them and initiated a genuine greeting, most would respond in a very cheerful way.

    In my time I used to frequent spots in South Central LA, I had a similar experience. Some guys act hard because they want to make sure you understand from the get-go that they will not brook disrespect. Give respect from the outset and I found that it will be reciprocated. For a man that lives in those areas who doesn't have much else, he still has that dignity - you try to take that from him, you try to take all that he is likely to have in the world, and he will make sure you regret it.

  67. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    The oldest university in the world was founded as a Christian institution as were almost all the universities in ore-modern times.
     
    Mediæval universities weren't exactly places that valued free enquiry. As recently as 1811 Shelley was expelled from Oxford for atheism. The idea of universities as places that value free enquiry is a 19th century secular concept.

    And even if you were to believe in secularization as the cause of Western advancement, that;s only a proximate cause that begs a further question – what led to that secularization? Why is it, so magically, that WEIRD countries all hail from the Western Christian civilization?
     
    Western civilisation also has its roots in pagan classical Mediterranean civilisation (and also in pagan northern European cultures). That might be a more important factor than Christianity. I'm not saying it is a more important factor, but it might be.

    It seems likely that the peculiar genius of western civilisation is actually pre-Christian.

    If I were a fanatical secularist I might even argue that Christianity represented an obstacle that the West had to overcome before it could start progressing again.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Yahya K., @nebulafox

    Mediæval universities weren’t exactly places that valued free enquiry. As recently as 1811 Shelley was expelled from Oxford for atheism. The idea of universities as places that value free enquiry is a 19th century secular concept.

    You are engaging in a straw man. First of all, I didn’t bring up the Catholic Christian foundation of universities to extol “free enquiry.” Second of all, repeating secularist prejudice and conceit – a counterfactual, if widely shared, one at that – doesn’t advance the argument. Why don’t you read this?

    https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/education/catholic-contributions/the-catholic-church-and-the-creation-of-the-university.html

    Here is a taste:

    The papacy played a central if not exclusive role in the establishment and encouragement of the universities. Naturally, the granting of a charter to a university was one indication of this papal role. Some 81 universities had been established by the time of the Reformation. Of these 33 possessed a papal charter, 15 a royal or imperial one, 20 possessed both, and 13 had none. In addition, it was the accepted view that a university could not award degrees without the approbation of pope, king, or emperor. Pope Innocent IV officially granted this privilege to Oxford University, for example, in 1254.

    As for this:

    Western civilisation also has its roots in pagan classical Mediterranean civilisation (and also in pagan northern European cultures). That might be a more important factor than Christianity. I’m not saying it is a more important factor, but it might be.

    That’s historical “retconning” by later secularists. Why don’t you give Joseph Henrich’s book a try if you want to “update your priors” instead of simply repeating secularist propaganda? He’s hardly the only one to make that argument, but is merely the latest amongst many historians (Henrich’s angle is that he takes an anthropological and socio-cultural approach).

    GAZETTE: How did WEIRD societies originate?

    HENRICH: It goes back medieval European history and to a set of prohibitions, taboos, and prescriptions about the family that were developed by one particular branch of Christianity. This branch, which evolved into the Roman Catholic Church, established, during late antiquity in the early Middle Ages, a series of taboos on cousin marriage, a campaign against polygamous marriage, and new inheritance customs, where individuals could inherit as individuals rather than after someone dies having a property divided among a network of relatives or going laterally out to cousins. As a result, all of these restructured European families — from kindreds, clans, and other formations that anthropologists have documented around the world — formed into monogamous nuclear families. In the book, I provide evidence suggesting that it’s this particular family structure and variation and the variants of it that lead to particular ways of thinking that are more individualistic, analytic, and impersonal.

    Ancient Greek and Roman societies were not very “WEIRD.” They were nepotistic and clannish – like many other ancient polities – with lots of inbreeding (not only cousin marriages, but also uncles marrying nieces – there is a rather thorough “petition” to Rome that survives – it was made by a former centurion in the Roman army who lists his personal history and martial accomplishments, including that his brother gave a daughter for him to marry).

    Contrary to secularist mythmaking of non-religious “freethinkers” demolishing Christian “superstition” and founding modernity, much that undergirds the modern and Western societies emerged out of the medieval period.

    If you are serious about understanding the philosophical transformations that underlie modernity, read Etienne Gilson’s classic masterpiece “The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy.”

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    You are engaging in a straw man. First of all, I didn’t bring up the Catholic Christian foundation of universities to extol “free enquiry.”
     
    You're the one who made the claim that the West is "the most prosperous, free, and advanced" society in history and then brought up the mediæval foundations of universities in the course of the same discussion about the supposed contribution of Christianity to the building of a prosperous, free, and advanced society. So it's entirely relevant for me to point out that the mediæval universities made little or no contribution to the building of "the most prosperous, free, and advanced" society.

    Contrary to secularist mythmaking of non-religious “freethinkers” demolishing Christian “superstition” and founding modernity, much that undergirds the modern and Western societies emerged out of the medieval period.
     
    And much that undergirds the modern and Western societies goes back to classical antiquity. And pre-Christian pagan northern Europe.

    I do not subscribe to the view that the mediæval period was an age of barbarism. Not do I believe that Christianity made no contribution to the building of modern western civilisation. What I was suggesting was that the particular features of western civilisation that you singled out for admiration (being prosperous, free and advanced) were probably not among the contributions that Christianity made. And certainly not among the contributions that Catholicism made.

    It's difficult to evade the fact that as Christianity started to decline the West became rapidly more free, more prosperous and more advanced. And as the decline of Christianity accelerated the move towards freedom, prosperity and advancement accelerated.

    Of course there is more to being a functional society than being free, prosperous and advanced. The United States today is free, prosperous and advanced but whether it's a functional society is debatable. It's possible that being free, prosperous and advanced comes at a very high price. But you're the one who singled out being free, prosperous and advanced as things to admire in our modern western societies.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  68. Yahya K. says:
    @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    The oldest university in the world was founded as a Christian institution as were almost all the universities in ore-modern times.
     
    Mediæval universities weren't exactly places that valued free enquiry. As recently as 1811 Shelley was expelled from Oxford for atheism. The idea of universities as places that value free enquiry is a 19th century secular concept.

    And even if you were to believe in secularization as the cause of Western advancement, that;s only a proximate cause that begs a further question – what led to that secularization? Why is it, so magically, that WEIRD countries all hail from the Western Christian civilization?
     
    Western civilisation also has its roots in pagan classical Mediterranean civilisation (and also in pagan northern European cultures). That might be a more important factor than Christianity. I'm not saying it is a more important factor, but it might be.

    It seems likely that the peculiar genius of western civilisation is actually pre-Christian.

    If I were a fanatical secularist I might even argue that Christianity represented an obstacle that the West had to overcome before it could start progressing again.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Yahya K., @nebulafox

    It seems likely that the peculiar genius of western civilisation is actually pre-Christian

    Pre-Christian West certainly had its role in Western civilization’s achievements. Aristotle and Plato set the intellectual tone that would later define the West. Things like the scientific method developed from their ideas of science, as incomplete as they were.

    But if you look at Charles Murray’s inventory of human accomplishment, it is clear that most of the West’s accomplishment came after 1400 A.D. Pre-Christian West (Greece and Rome) had made great strides, but they were mostly concentrated among a few achievers and achievements (Euclid, Aristotle etc.). Post-1400 West, on the other hand, had a variety of achievements and significant figures ranging from Machiavelli to Newton.

    From Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment:

    Western civilisation also has its roots in pagan classical Mediterranean civilisation (and also in pagan northern European cultures). That might be a more important factor than Christianity. I’m not saying it is a more important factor, but it might be.

    How big the relative impact Christianity had on Western achievement is hard to quantify and therefore left to judgement. But a good question to ask is: did other regions of the world who adopted Christianity experience the same results as the West? Looking at places like Latin America and the Philippines, the answer seems to be no. That doesn’t mean Christianity didn’t aid the West, but it’s almost definitely not the only causal variable in explaining their achievements post-1400.

    As a general rule, whenever there is an extraordinary outcome, there is almost always a confluence of 4-5+ variables coming together at the same time to create a non-linear outcome. So in the example of Western achievement from 1400-2000, which is by any standard an extraordinary event (see chart above), there is a variety at factors at play, not just one, or even two.

    As with any other historical event, it’s hard to determine which factors played a casual role, but if I had to guess it would be a combination of a) increasing urbanization, b) out-breeding patterns, c) freedom of thought and action, d) increasing wealth.

    Two of these happened because of Christianity (a, b), one despite it (c.), and the other was not related (d).

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Yahya K.

    There's no doubt that Christianity played a huge role in the development of Europe. Everything from a sense of universality, loss of tribalism to knowledge being preserved by monasteries...quite a bit of stuff. I think it is fairly obvious that some parts of Europe had a lot of civilizational features beforehand so, in those areas, one could say that Christianity was an interruption, but in large swathes of Europe where people were not living lives anywhere close to the, there is little doubt that Christianity played a huge role in bringing a change to those societies. I have a book outlining the history of Sweden and you can see the unmistakable trajectory - it takes a while (for instance read the very brutal Swedish participation in the Thirty Years War), but you see it taking form.

    Wa salaam.

    , @dfordoom
    @Yahya K.


    it is clear that most of the West’s accomplishment came after 1400 A.D.
     
    Yep. Scientific and technological progress (and maybe artistic progress although that is much much more difficult to define) was very slow in both the ancient and mediæval worlds. It was happening, but very slowly. Which could suggest that neither the pagan classical nor the mediæval Catholic civilisations provided fertile soil for such advancement.

    There used to be a popular theory that it was Protestantism that allowed Europe to start advancing rapidly. I suspect that the Reformation was a factor because it fatally undermined the foundations of Christianity and the authority of all Christian churches. It created an atmosphere of doubt and scepticism - bad for society in some ways but very good for scientific and technological progress.

    As a general rule, whenever there is an extraordinary outcome, there is almost always a confluence of 4-5+ variables coming together at the same time to create a non-linear outcome
     
    That may well be true. In fact it's very likely.

    As with any other historical event, it’s hard to determine which factors played a causal role, but if I had to guess it would be a combination of a) increasing urbanization, b) out-breeding patterns, c) freedom of thought and action, d) increasing wealth.

    Two of these happened because of Christianity (a, b), one despite it (c.), and the other was not related (d).
     
    Was urbanisation a result of Christianity?

    There's another popular theory that the big factor in the sudden rapid progress of Europe after the 14th century was the Black Death. The collapse in population led to much higher wages and much greater economic opportunities.

    Replies: @songbird

    , @Twinkie
    @Yahya K.


    Charles Murray’s inventory of human accomplishment
     
    Murray's methodology has some serious problems. For one thing, it tends to favor known figures - which of course operates on a HUGE selection bias (and largely ignores or de-emphasizes unknown inventors and inventions, especially outside the West) and, for another, it also suffers from recency bias (what seems significant to us today). But it's a good starting point for a discussion. And of course the effort itself is particularly Western-scientific in approach.

    Pre-Christian West certainly had its role in Western civilization’s achievements. Aristotle and Plato set the intellectual tone that would later define the West.
     
    I don't disagree (and Catholics are often accused of "worshipping that pagan, Aristotle"), but ancient Greek achievements were brilliant, but very isolated and temporal sparks that, frankly, went nowhere, because they did not affect the social structure at large. Ancient Greek societies remained as clannish, corrupt, and backward (from our modern perspective) as other ancient societies. Ancient Romans were outstanding empire builders and engineers, but they did not advance the frontiers of human knowledge the way later Europeans did so decisively. That's because, as Henrich would argue, their societies were as human beings had been from time immemorial, but merely larger and perhaps more complex. They simply were much better at the same "game" other ancient societies played. They were in no way "WEIRD" and their prominence in secularist mythology of pagan beginnings of the modern West is an ideological "retconning."

    Post-1400 West, on the other hand, had a variety of achievements and significant figures ranging from Machiavelli to Newton.
     
    As is rather obvious to most, lasting scientific breakthroughs and achievements take a very LONG time to percolate. Individuals might be brilliant and inventive, but do not affect their societies in dramatic ways unless and until there is a network of knowledge-generating and -spreading infrastructure in place to take advantage of, and leverage, individual brilliance. This, by the way, another reason I suspect the Chinese - despite having early advantages of many powerful inventions that pre-date European ones - never entered into an scientific revolution as the West did (even setting aside obvious things such as paper, compass, and gun powder, the Chinese, for example, had sealed bulkheads in their ships - attested to as early as the 12th Century - that Europeans didn't have until much later when it finally became widespread in the 19th Century). And more on that below.

    As a general rule, whenever there is an extraordinary outcome, there is almost always a confluence of 4-5+ variables coming together at the same time to create a non-linear outcome.
     
    I would phrase slightly differently. First of all, there are many "necessary, but not sufficient" conditions to such an extraordinary outcome as the Western European global dominance, some of which took centuries to accumulate and "percolate." Secondly, such an outcome appears dramatic and surprising only because they are exponential (or multiplicative) in nature rather than geometric in growth. Differences appear very small at first, but accumulate explosively over time until it goes "bang."

    if I had to guess it would be a combination of a) increasing urbanization, b) out-breeding patterns, c) freedom of thought and action, d) increasing wealth.

    Two of these happened because of Christianity (a, b), one despite it (c.), and the other was not related (d).
     
    Increasing urbanization and wealth (your factors a) and d)) are more symptoms than causal agents of this phenomenon. At best, they are proximate causes that beg a further question of what led to the urbanization and wealth.

    I believe the crucial factors - at least among those you cited - were b) and c) (but again, phrased slightly differently). Although one can quibble with some of the details, I think Henrich and others are largely right that the Catholic Church's intolerance of cousin marriages and polygamy (particularly for the elites of the time) dramatically changed social organization in what we today call the West. It altered a very long-standing human organization (and allegiance to) extended family structure (clans, tribes) and revolutionized social psychology of Westerners. Again, for those who are interested in the nuts and bolts of the argument and the historical evidences, I would urge them to follow the link I provided above and do some reading.

    As for "c) freedom of thought and action," I would re-conceptualize that as "organized and systemic pursuit of knowledge" as well as "protection from interference." Here I do think you are wrong to follow the secularist mythmaking in believing that the Catholic Church (or Christianity in general) stood in opposition. On the contrary, many popes, cardinals, bishops, and clergy were keen on increasing human knowledge and were patrons of learning, the arts, and medicine. I already discussed briefly above the fact that the papacy and the Catholic Church in general were crucial in founding many leading universities that laid the groundwork for the Western scientific revolution. Indeed the whole concept of a university is a medieval Catholic invention (universitas magistorum et scholarium) - there is a reason why my diplomas are all in Latin!

    Moreover, these diplomas confer "immunities and privileges" - terms that may make the modern reader scratch his head, but had very specific meaning in the medieval period. Far from being opponents of knowledge advancement, Church-sponsored and -privileged universities gave protection to those engaged in scientific research (however imperfectly by the modern standards of academic freedom). In those days, "doctors and students" of science had the most fear from persecutions of the lay people or the local rulers of the city where they were located (a remnant tradition of this still exists in the form of the communal tension university professors and students have with "townies" and local governments to this day). The Church conferred clergy-like immunities and privileges to those at the university, so that they had the protection of the Church and could appeal to it when thusly persecuted by the locals. So instead of being "tried" by the local mob or the secular court of the local government, these early scientists had a right of appeal to the bishop in the area (who - being much more educated - was generally far more sympathetic to such appeals than the locals).

    Most people these days buy into the secularist and anti-Christian mythmaking (not surprising given the dominance of left) and are completely unaware of the actual dynamic that the Church played in establishing what we today call "academic freedom" (likewise, those ignorant of history often bring up events such as the Spanish Inquisition, because they don't realize that this was a device, with which the Spanish crown sought to secure and extend its power, rather than something driven by the Church - indeed, one of the notable components of the Spanish Inquisition was punishing by death any appeal to the Church when accused by the Inquisition).

    So not "despite" - the Catholic Church actively (again, if imperfectly by today's standards) encouraged systematic scholarship and helped to lay the foundations of later scientific breakthroughs in the West, and were, in fact, direct sponsor of many universities.
  69. @Talha
    @Twinkie


    That’s just reductio ad absurdum.
     
    I don't believe it is. In my lifetime there was a time they would have laughed if you told people the marijuana was going to have a nationwide discussion/debate for legalization and win. And if you told people when the legal cases were being adjudicated for decriminalizing sodomy that people would live to see the day when men could legally marry other men, they may have also thought you were talking crazy...but here we are.

    Rest, below...

    Peace.


    I don’t know what “times change” means in this context. You will have to elaborate.
     
    Just what it means. When a small number of people are toking weed; not much of a problem - when the police officer's own kid is selling weed in the high school...times have changed, expect the law to catch up. Right now, there is selective application of the law on the books anyway; in one of my past jobs, I knew a lawyer that used to work in Hollywood and wanted to try his trade at a dotcom start up. He told us of the big Hollywood parties he used to attend where drugs were full on display (along with plenty of young topless females hanging around the pool). They had security provided by the local police who knew exactly what was going on, but were supposed to ignore it. Walter White is a cultural icon, not a pariah.

    Actual research shows a J-curve.
     
    You mean the research you like, as opposed to the one you want to wave away with "Because Lancet says so?" And since I have neither a degree in statistics nor medicine, I am not qualified to judge between which research had better methods and is more accurate.

    That’s “what-about-ism.”
     
    It would certainly be if I was defending terrorist actions like plowing planes into buildings, which I don't and never have.

    I was pointing out the fact that we have some bloodthirsty Christians as well that have no problems cheering on massacres and that, due to the political situation in the US, these people do affect policies that end with bombs being dropped on people in the Muslim world.


    There is such a thing as international laws on warfare.
     
    Yeah, terrorists generally ignore these.

    Even in ancient times, there were certain constraints and conventions that were followed in war – even amongst bitter enemies.
     
    Yes and terrorists avoid these as well (as well as Shariah prohibitions on targeting women, children, elderly, etc.)...which is probably why they earn the label "terrorists".

    But it says a lot about you that you think that’s fine.
     
    Just because I'm willing to accept and comply with a law that takes things away from me doesn't mean I would advocate the same for others. I have never stated anywhere that I would advocate people being forced out of the US due to their religion, but I'm willing to accept it if that's what the majority of Americans decide for me.

    protection of the (electoral) minority.
     
    I believe I do.

    In your mind, if the country becomes 51% Muslim, they (you) can simply outlaw other religions by a majority vote or otherwise persecute non-Muslims with Dhimmitude, “no harm no foul.”
     
    If others have been following what I have been stating about protecting the rights of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority countries to things like liquor despite the fact that it is considered morally reprehensible and damaging to the vast majority of the populace, then I simply don't see how it follows that I would suddenly turn around and advocate a Muslim majority taking away far more fundamental rights in the US like outlawing other religions or persecuting non-Muslims. I simply don't advocate or support that.

    I don’t want ANY MORE Muslim immigrants in the country.
     
    I'm totally down for this. More and more of this simply keeps Islam in the foreign/exotic category and delays Islam from going local faster. I'd much rather the Muslim community in the US be composed of native-born people who converted like my wife or her sister or Ustadh AbdurRehman Murphy (who left us for Texas, unfortunately):
    https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5a2403c7ace864ba32064780/1533182589616-4IED9GIVSDOGW5TUQCGU/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kHM888A2cEOL-16x2Y7wW2UUqsxRUqqbr1mOJYKfIPR7LoDQ9mXPOjoJoqy81S2I8N_N4V1vUb5AoIIIbLZhVYxCRW4BPu10St3TBAUQYVKc623qwjx4pyjZayAfbhKOpN3Bh0nk03Z9QEwfcrpht7T1d0dXNPLnr-wcUHE94nbu/arm.png
    https://www.qalam.institute/abdelrahman-murphy

    Or Chris Abdur-Rahman Blauvelt:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUo9H9_hyBU

    Or Ustadh Nuh Saunders:
    https://twitter.com/NuhSaunders/status/1082212311518064640

    These people can simply dismiss the "go back home" argument.


    passive-aggressively portray me as some sort of an eliminationist.
     
    I wasn't, I was simply outlining your legal options.

    As far as tone, I think you should look back on how you initiated this conversation with me. Perhaps where you come from calling someone's beliefs as evil and oppressive are a way to start a friendly conversation.

    To me, you seem to have been interested in picking a fight from the get-go, I'd rather just explain my beliefs and leave it at that. And since a fight or debate is something I am simply not interested right now, this will be my last response to you on this subject. Feel free to respond, but don't expect one back.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    In my lifetime…

    Just because we have homosexual “marriage” now doesn’t mean marriages with dogs or brothers marrying sisters will be legalized in the future. Slippery slope arguments are reasonable… within reason.

    You are quite correct that enforcement of narcotic use has been selective, arbitrary, and ineffective, but that has nothing to do with the differences between alcohol and narcotics, whether chemically, biologically, or for matter socio-historically. South Korea and Japan, for example, both allow (heavy) consumption of alcohol and yet are very effective in curbing narcotic use.

    You mean the research you like, as opposed to the one you want to wave away with “Because Lancet says so?” And since I have neither a degree in statistics nor medicine, I am not qualified to judge between which research had better methods and is more accurate.

    Don’t project. If you knew anything about the Lancet, you’d know that it has been heavily politicized in the recent decades and injects a lot of political agenda into its articles.

    Here is where that graph I cited comes from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02082.x

    It’s a thoroughly researched and reviewed article that enumerates both the risks and benefits of alcohol use, with extensive citations. If you are actually serious about learning the health effects of alcohol, I suggest you read it.

    I was pointing out the fact that we have some bloodthirsty Christians as well that have no problems cheering on massacres

    Cheering for a military action ain’t the same as hijacking and flying airplanes into buildings. Be earnest – you brought it up to create a moral equivalency where it does not exist.

    Shariah prohibitions on targeting women, children, elderly, etc.

    And yet a very sizable fraction of Muslims in the world seem to approve such barbaric methods as suicide bombings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Suicide_bombings

    I have never stated anywhere that I would advocate people being forced out of the US due to their religion

    Neither have I, so why would you bring that up and hoist it upon me, but to tar me with a straw man and portray yourself as a victim?

    These people can simply dismiss the “go back home” argument.

    And you keep hammering on that straw man. Despite your publicly affable persona, I do not think you argue honestly… which was why I described your line of argument as passive-aggressive.

    what I have been stating about protecting the rights of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority countries to things like liquor

    Dhimmitude that requires a permit to engage in a perfectly normal behavior? No thanks.

    As far as tone, I think you should look back on how you initiated this conversation with me. Perhaps where you come from calling someone’s beliefs as evil and oppressive are a way to start a friendly conversation.

    I suggest YOU read my original comment again. See the recipe for a cocktail and allusions to marital bliss (with a smiley, no less)? That was a light-hearted and jokey comment with a gentle ribbing about not wanting that taken away.

    You assumed hostility where it did not exist and went passive-aggressive.

    Feel free to respond, but don’t expect one back.

    You wrote that before… right before you came back with more “arguments.” But this time, I really want you to take your toys and go home to mommy.

    I am not interested in “fighting” you. That wouldn’t be much of a fight. I am, however, generally interested in debating people with whom I disagree here. I assume most commenters are here to carry out debates, arguments, and conversations. Not hurl slogans and say “I had my say and I am not going to listen to you.”

    • Thanks: Talha
    • Replies: @Talha
    @Twinkie


    You assumed hostility where it did not exist
     
    If that is the case, then my apologies for mistaking your initial intention.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Twinkie

  70. @dfordoom
    @Talha


    In my lifetime there was a time they would have laughed if you told people the marijuana was going to have a nationwide discussion/debate for legalization and win.
     
    What's fascinating about cultural and social change is that it happens really really fast.

    In late 1950s America movies still had to show married couples sleeping in separate beds and if you made a movie that showed nipples you could expect to be prosecuted for obscenity. America went from that to Deep Throat in fifteen years.

    I think such changes always happen fast. England in the 1650s under the Commonwealth was rigidly puritanical. Within twenty years Nell Gwynn (not just the King's mistress but quite openly and unashamedly a prostitute) was a pop culture icon who was cheered in the streets by the common people.

    It's not just that dramatic changes can happen in a single lifetime. They can happen in a decade or so.

    Maybe such changes happen so quickly that no effective resistance to them is possible. By the time the Moral Majority got started in 1979 most of the battles it was formed to fight had already been lost.

    Replies: @Talha, @Twinkie

    What’s fascinating about cultural and social change is that it happens really really fast… I think such changes always happen fast.

    Literally, yes and no.

    Cultural changes can occur very rapidly particularly when elites adopt new practices and customs and enforce the new norms strenuously. But those changes happen in spurts with generally lengthy periods of cultural stability. And even when the elites try, sometimes resistance can be quite fierce (Razib Khan is fond of citing the case of Prussia where the royal family adopted Calvinism, but the populace remained Lutheran).

    Northern England, too, for example, remained staunchly Catholic for a long time and the English crown had to engage in ruthless military campaigns to bring the area to Protestantism.

    Don’t forget that with the changes that successfully occurred quickly, there is a selection bias at work for us as later spectators. We don’t know or pay attention to many attempts at cultural changes that failed.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    Cultural changes can occur very rapidly particularly when elites adopt new practices and customs and enforce the new norms strenuously. But those changes happen in spurts with generally lengthy periods of cultural stability.
     
    Yes, I agree completely with that.

    Sometimes there's a trigger - an apparently unrelated political or economic crisis, or a disastrous war. In the case of 17th century England the Civil War and the shock at the murder of the King, combined with the excessive zeal of the Puritans, acted as obvious triggers for a backlash against everything the Puritans stood for. The First World War was a very obvious trigger.

    The problem with the West in the past century has been the succession of such crises - the First World War, the Great Depression, WW2, the Vietnam War, the Oil Crisis of the '70s, etc. And we now live in an age in which 24/7 cable news and social media provides an endless series of crises (most of them imaginary but people still believe they're crises) which could serve as triggers.

    I think Vietnam was a major trigger. Rightly or wrongly it discredited every institution that seemed to be associated with the "Establishment" - the military, the CIA, the government, the police, even the churches (who obviously were not responsible for the war but they were seen as being part of the Establishment).

    But whether a trigger is actually needed is something that could be debated.
  71. @Yahya K.
    @Talha


    The ones that will fight tooth and nail will be the liberal Muslim types, they talk a lot about how they are oppressed here, but would cling and beg not to be tossed with the third world masses and be the first to beg to be let back in.
     
    Yeah, it can be a bit annoying at times to live in the 3rd world, because of how much it is dominated by the peasantry (and all the dysfunction and lack of sophistication this entails). And I'll admit that I was once a snobby upperclassman looking down my nose on the peasants. But after living here in the west for a while, I more and more appreciate the contributions the peasants make to 3rd world culture.

    And to a certain extent, I find that in much of the third world, the peasants define the culture, not the elites. At least that is the case in Egypt*, which is sort of the OG peasant nation. Almost all the cultural output is made from the bottom. Of course, it helps that most of our rulers post-1952 were/are from the peasantry. But I think overall, Egyptian culture is driven from the bottom-up, not the top-down.

    I also think you'll find that Western culture, as the West sinks lower, will increasingly be defined by their version of the peasantry (ghetto blacks or north africans etc.), rather than by anything the elites do. As much as people here would hate that happening, the great masses of people, including in Europe, simply like gangster rap more than Mozart or Beethoven.

    Anyway, it's not too bad as far as things go. There is much charm in peasant culture.

    Salam.



    *Here is a fun song by working-class Egyptian singer, Shaaban Abdel-Rehim

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHRVdyAEWtA&ab_channel=alimakaa

    Replies: @Twinkie, @songbird, @Talha

    But after living here in the west for a while, I more and more appreciate the contributions the peasants make to 3rd world culture.

    But do you appreciate them enough to live amidst them?

    I also think you’ll find that Western culture, as the West sinks lower, will increasingly be defined by their version of the peasantry (ghetto blacks or north africans etc.), rather than by anything the elites do.

    Historical trends are often very stochastic and only “make sense” retrospectively. It’s certainly not preordained that the West would “sink lower.”

    I don’t think the American middle class and upper middle class culture, and certainly not the culture in the super zip codes, is (or will be) defined by “ghetto blacks.” What’s happening in the U.S. is a strong trend toward economic and cultural bifurcation. In the last 50 years, the ranks of the poor have grown, but so have the ranks of the well-off (what’s hollowing out is the middle, especially the non-college-educated middle). And, yes, on the bottom rung, many downscale whites are starting to behave like blacks with low marriage rates, high rates of out-of-wedlock births, drug use, welfare usage, etc. But the also growing upscale segment of the population is most certainly not going “ghetto black” – it might ritualistically support BLM, but their personal behaviors are in fact quite traditionally bourgeois.

    Und so weiter.

    • Replies: @Yahya K.
    @Twinkie


    But do you appreciate them enough to live amidst them?

     

    Hmm... depends how you define "amidst". In specific terms, I would not like to live in one of the poorer parts of Egypt. Have you seen the sort of housing poor people live in in Egypt? It's Dickensian:

    http://i.redd.it/7kwn4a0n3mj21.jpg

    I would like to think that if a lower class person moved in next door, I would be welcoming and open-minded. But I am not about to leave the suburbs for poorer areas.

    But in general, I don't mind living in a poor country. I grew up in a gated compound in the outskirts of Cairo, and I intend to return there after I finish my studies here. I have the opportunity to live in richer countries like Saudi Arabia (my father is Saudi), or even immigrate to the US or Canada, but I'm happy to live in Egypt. Partly because the standard of living there is decent enough in certain areas, and partly because I would see it as an injustice to leave. Poor countries need all the educated people they can get/keep. We've had enough brain drain already.

    Historical trends are often very stochastic and only “make sense” retrospectively. It’s certainly not preordained that the West would “sink lower.”

     

    Just shooting from the hip. But you are right. There is a lot more nuance involved. I've read some of "Coming Apart" and understand that there is a widening gap between upper (half) class whites and lower (half) class whites in terms of marriage rates, behavior, income, IQ, etc.

    It's interesting to see that lower class whites are most similar to blacks in terms of behavior, socio-economics etc., while upper class whites are most different. Sort of ironic if you think about it, considering that upper class whites are mostly pro-black, while lower class whites are mostly indifferent/hostile to blacks.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @nebulafox

  72. @Talha
    @Twinkie


    so… There is my Divine decree for me.
     
    Yup - there you go.

    They have very different chemistries, potency, addiction potential, and effects.
     
    You have to convince others about this not me - they are all forbidden as far as I'm concerned. This argument didn't work for marijuana and I suspect it won't work for moderated cocaine or meth or any other drug.

    Its widespread use has been well socialized for millennia.
     
    Times change. Things become more popular, new drugs with unique chemistry are invented.

    I care about all my fellow Americans.
     
    So do I, here is my advice to them:
    1. Stop drinking.
    2. Can't do the above, reduce drinking as much as possible.

    They can heed my advice or not. Up to them. But I have no Divine sanction to prohibit them from harming themselves if they so choose in this regard. That is their right to do so.


    the Christian fundamentalists who are flying airplanes into buildings to kill unbelievers
     
    Why would they, when they can cheer on bombing campaigns in Muslim countries:
    “What’s also sad is that many in the audience at the church applauded right after Johnson said he wants to nuke Syria. In fact, ‘the crowd roared with applause,’ according to a report in the non-partisan Roll Call publication that covers Capitol Hill.”
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/03/02/texas-republican-congressman-quot-nuke-syria-quot/

    you should find yourself a nice Muslim country and live there.
     
    Thanks for your opinion (yet again) on why I should leave the US. If you can convince enough of our fellow citizens that this is a good policy to have vis-a-vis Muslims, you can legally force me to leave. No harm, no foul. I await my official Federal notice in the mail that I need to vacate US territory; I will do so promptly and in orderly fashion because I am a law-abiding citizen.

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund, @Twinkie, @iffen

    you can legally force me to leave.

    No they can’t.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @iffen

    Correct...not yet anyways. It's all about numbers.

    Peace.

    Replies: @iffen

  73. Yahya K. says:
    @Twinkie
    @Yahya K.


    But after living here in the west for a while, I more and more appreciate the contributions the peasants make to 3rd world culture.
     
    But do you appreciate them enough to live amidst them?

    I also think you’ll find that Western culture, as the West sinks lower, will increasingly be defined by their version of the peasantry (ghetto blacks or north africans etc.), rather than by anything the elites do.
     
    Historical trends are often very stochastic and only "make sense" retrospectively. It's certainly not preordained that the West would "sink lower."

    I don't think the American middle class and upper middle class culture, and certainly not the culture in the super zip codes, is (or will be) defined by "ghetto blacks." What's happening in the U.S. is a strong trend toward economic and cultural bifurcation. In the last 50 years, the ranks of the poor have grown, but so have the ranks of the well-off (what's hollowing out is the middle, especially the non-college-educated middle). And, yes, on the bottom rung, many downscale whites are starting to behave like blacks with low marriage rates, high rates of out-of-wedlock births, drug use, welfare usage, etc. But the also growing upscale segment of the population is most certainly not going "ghetto black" - it might ritualistically support BLM, but their personal behaviors are in fact quite traditionally bourgeois.

    http://squaredawayblog.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/marriage-rates-by-class.jpg

    https://i0.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/smmchart2.png

    https://ifstudies.org/ifs-admin/resources/figure12-w640.png

    Und so weiter.

    Replies: @Yahya K.

    But do you appreciate them enough to live amidst them?

    Hmm… depends how you define “amidst”. In specific terms, I would not like to live in one of the poorer parts of Egypt. Have you seen the sort of housing poor people live in in Egypt? It’s Dickensian:

    I would like to think that if a lower class person moved in next door, I would be welcoming and open-minded. But I am not about to leave the suburbs for poorer areas.

    But in general, I don’t mind living in a poor country. I grew up in a gated compound in the outskirts of Cairo, and I intend to return there after I finish my studies here. I have the opportunity to live in richer countries like Saudi Arabia (my father is Saudi), or even immigrate to the US or Canada, but I’m happy to live in Egypt. Partly because the standard of living there is decent enough in certain areas, and partly because I would see it as an injustice to leave. Poor countries need all the educated people they can get/keep. We’ve had enough brain drain already.

    Historical trends are often very stochastic and only “make sense” retrospectively. It’s certainly not preordained that the West would “sink lower.”

    Just shooting from the hip. But you are right. There is a lot more nuance involved. I’ve read some of “Coming Apart” and understand that there is a widening gap between upper (half) class whites and lower (half) class whites in terms of marriage rates, behavior, income, IQ, etc.

    It’s interesting to see that lower class whites are most similar to blacks in terms of behavior, socio-economics etc., while upper class whites are most different. Sort of ironic if you think about it, considering that upper class whites are mostly pro-black, while lower class whites are mostly indifferent/hostile to blacks.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Yahya K.


    I don’t mind living in a poor country.
     
    I don’t mind poor people (ironically my second home is in a poor rural area). What I mind are disorderly people. The country poor who live near my farm house may lack education and have plebeian tastes, but are not disorderly people. For that matter, when I was little, much of East Asia was quite poor, but lacked social pathologies and was quite orderly. Even now you can leave your belongings in congested urban areas and not have them stolen. It shocks even people from Scandinavia.

    Sadly, in many parts of the world, including in the West, poverty and social chaos go hand in hand.


    upper class whites are mostly pro-black
     
    Rhetorically, yes. But revealed preferences - residential and marriage patterns - say otherwise.
    , @nebulafox
    @Yahya K.

    >Sort of ironic if you think about it, considering that upper class whites are mostly pro-black

    It's all so much virtue signalling, and even many blacks are aware of that.

    >while lower class whites are mostly indifferent/hostile to blacks.

    It is not the 1960s anymore, and bien-pensants have wildly outdated views on how lower class whites view race. It helped that in military-heavy areas, a lot of guys got married to Korean or Filipina or Vietnamese or Thai women in the 1970s and 1980s, so the parents had to interact with the non-white daughter-in-law if they wanted to have their son over for dinner. Familiarity breeds ease, grandkids breed downright popularity.

    But they'll never get to the point that upper-middle class America demands. Moreover, they cannot afford to. If you can't afford to buy your way into an affluent suburb, you aren't going to be open to BLM arguments on rioting or think that the reason prisons are over half black is because the police are swarming with closet Klansmen. If mass immigration endangers your job security in a non-public sector protected role, you are unlikely to view UMC arguments on how you are a racist for not being open to more with anything other than hostility. If you live with economic insecurity as a daily reality, you aren't going to have the time or inclination to despise your own skin color, or really become an ideologue of any sort. Virtue signalling is all about showing off *status*.

    Replies: @Yahya K.

  74. @Yahya K.
    @Twinkie


    But do you appreciate them enough to live amidst them?

     

    Hmm... depends how you define "amidst". In specific terms, I would not like to live in one of the poorer parts of Egypt. Have you seen the sort of housing poor people live in in Egypt? It's Dickensian:

    http://i.redd.it/7kwn4a0n3mj21.jpg

    I would like to think that if a lower class person moved in next door, I would be welcoming and open-minded. But I am not about to leave the suburbs for poorer areas.

    But in general, I don't mind living in a poor country. I grew up in a gated compound in the outskirts of Cairo, and I intend to return there after I finish my studies here. I have the opportunity to live in richer countries like Saudi Arabia (my father is Saudi), or even immigrate to the US or Canada, but I'm happy to live in Egypt. Partly because the standard of living there is decent enough in certain areas, and partly because I would see it as an injustice to leave. Poor countries need all the educated people they can get/keep. We've had enough brain drain already.

    Historical trends are often very stochastic and only “make sense” retrospectively. It’s certainly not preordained that the West would “sink lower.”

     

    Just shooting from the hip. But you are right. There is a lot more nuance involved. I've read some of "Coming Apart" and understand that there is a widening gap between upper (half) class whites and lower (half) class whites in terms of marriage rates, behavior, income, IQ, etc.

    It's interesting to see that lower class whites are most similar to blacks in terms of behavior, socio-economics etc., while upper class whites are most different. Sort of ironic if you think about it, considering that upper class whites are mostly pro-black, while lower class whites are mostly indifferent/hostile to blacks.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @nebulafox

    I don’t mind living in a poor country.

    I don’t mind poor people (ironically my second home is in a poor rural area). What I mind are disorderly people. The country poor who live near my farm house may lack education and have plebeian tastes, but are not disorderly people. For that matter, when I was little, much of East Asia was quite poor, but lacked social pathologies and was quite orderly. Even now you can leave your belongings in congested urban areas and not have them stolen. It shocks even people from Scandinavia.

    Sadly, in many parts of the world, including in the West, poverty and social chaos go hand in hand.

    upper class whites are mostly pro-black

    Rhetorically, yes. But revealed preferences – residential and marriage patterns – say otherwise.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  75. @Twinkie
    @Talha


    In my lifetime...
     
    Just because we have homosexual "marriage" now doesn't mean marriages with dogs or brothers marrying sisters will be legalized in the future. Slippery slope arguments are reasonable... within reason.

    You are quite correct that enforcement of narcotic use has been selective, arbitrary, and ineffective, but that has nothing to do with the differences between alcohol and narcotics, whether chemically, biologically, or for matter socio-historically. South Korea and Japan, for example, both allow (heavy) consumption of alcohol and yet are very effective in curbing narcotic use.

    You mean the research you like, as opposed to the one you want to wave away with “Because Lancet says so?” And since I have neither a degree in statistics nor medicine, I am not qualified to judge between which research had better methods and is more accurate.
     
    Don't project. If you knew anything about the Lancet, you'd know that it has been heavily politicized in the recent decades and injects a lot of political agenda into its articles.

    Here is where that graph I cited comes from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02082.x

    It's a thoroughly researched and reviewed article that enumerates both the risks and benefits of alcohol use, with extensive citations. If you are actually serious about learning the health effects of alcohol, I suggest you read it.

    I was pointing out the fact that we have some bloodthirsty Christians as well that have no problems cheering on massacres
     
    Cheering for a military action ain't the same as hijacking and flying airplanes into buildings. Be earnest - you brought it up to create a moral equivalency where it does not exist.

    Shariah prohibitions on targeting women, children, elderly, etc.
     
    And yet a very sizable fraction of Muslims in the world seem to approve such barbaric methods as suicide bombings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism#Suicide_bombings

    I have never stated anywhere that I would advocate people being forced out of the US due to their religion
     
    Neither have I, so why would you bring that up and hoist it upon me, but to tar me with a straw man and portray yourself as a victim?

    These people can simply dismiss the “go back home” argument.
     
    And you keep hammering on that straw man. Despite your publicly affable persona, I do not think you argue honestly... which was why I described your line of argument as passive-aggressive.

    what I have been stating about protecting the rights of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority countries to things like liquor
     
    Dhimmitude that requires a permit to engage in a perfectly normal behavior? No thanks.

    As far as tone, I think you should look back on how you initiated this conversation with me. Perhaps where you come from calling someone’s beliefs as evil and oppressive are a way to start a friendly conversation.
     
    I suggest YOU read my original comment again. See the recipe for a cocktail and allusions to marital bliss (with a smiley, no less)? That was a light-hearted and jokey comment with a gentle ribbing about not wanting that taken away.

    You assumed hostility where it did not exist and went passive-aggressive.

    Feel free to respond, but don’t expect one back.
     
    You wrote that before... right before you came back with more "arguments." But this time, I really want you to take your toys and go home to mommy.

    I am not interested in "fighting" you. That wouldn't be much of a fight. I am, however, generally interested in debating people with whom I disagree here. I assume most commenters are here to carry out debates, arguments, and conversations. Not hurl slogans and say "I had my say and I am not going to listen to you."

    Replies: @Talha

    You assumed hostility where it did not exist

    If that is the case, then my apologies for mistaking your initial intention.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Talha

    Talha, I assume you meant well by that apology and I appreciate it. However, I would like to note that I am not a fan of conditional apologies ("If...") that are in vogue these days.

    My take on apologies is that, regardless how the other party felt, if one felt that one was wrong, he ought to apologize manfully and unconditionally. If he felt that he was not, he should steadfastly hold on to his position on the matter regardless of "feelings."

    Conditional apologies - a particularly popular and egregious example is "If you felt offended, then I am sorry" - strike me as, well, passive-aggressive, the true message of which seems to be "Well, I didn't really do anything wrong, but you seem angry and, while that's really on you, I don't want to suffer the consequences of that anger and I want to look like the bigger person."

    In any case, this is a pet peeve of mine... when people begin apologies with "If..."

    Replies: @Talha

  76. @iffen
    @Talha

    you can legally force me to leave.

    No they can't.

    Replies: @Talha

    Correct…not yet anyways. It’s all about numbers.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Talha

    Correct…not yet anyways. It’s all about numbers.

    You have a point, but I am not ready to give up completely on the idea that we will have rule of law.

    Replies: @Talha

  77. @Yahya K.
    @Talha


    The ones that will fight tooth and nail will be the liberal Muslim types, they talk a lot about how they are oppressed here, but would cling and beg not to be tossed with the third world masses and be the first to beg to be let back in.
     
    Yeah, it can be a bit annoying at times to live in the 3rd world, because of how much it is dominated by the peasantry (and all the dysfunction and lack of sophistication this entails). And I'll admit that I was once a snobby upperclassman looking down my nose on the peasants. But after living here in the west for a while, I more and more appreciate the contributions the peasants make to 3rd world culture.

    And to a certain extent, I find that in much of the third world, the peasants define the culture, not the elites. At least that is the case in Egypt*, which is sort of the OG peasant nation. Almost all the cultural output is made from the bottom. Of course, it helps that most of our rulers post-1952 were/are from the peasantry. But I think overall, Egyptian culture is driven from the bottom-up, not the top-down.

    I also think you'll find that Western culture, as the West sinks lower, will increasingly be defined by their version of the peasantry (ghetto blacks or north africans etc.), rather than by anything the elites do. As much as people here would hate that happening, the great masses of people, including in Europe, simply like gangster rap more than Mozart or Beethoven.

    Anyway, it's not too bad as far as things go. There is much charm in peasant culture.

    Salam.



    *Here is a fun song by working-class Egyptian singer, Shaaban Abdel-Rehim

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHRVdyAEWtA&ab_channel=alimakaa

    Replies: @Twinkie, @songbird, @Talha

    I’ve heard some competing theories to explain why Hollywood movies seem to be getting stupider:
    -they are made for international audiences, and because many countries don’t dub, need to use simple words
    -demographic changes in the US (most of the people going into theaters aren’t even white anymore)

    The second one is kind of interesting because there are a variety of Latin American broadcasts that one can pick up in America. I’m no expert, but to me, Mexican television seems more conservative – perhaps not in every sense, but it is more religious, with more traditional gender roles. So, one would think movies would be getting more conservative, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

    I’m often shocked at Chinese movies. How coarse they seem to be on a certain level, despite the Chinese in a way being a sophisticated civilization – I’ve guessed that might be the people moving off the farms.

    While I think there are probably multiple reasons why movies are getting dumber, the really scary one to me is this: the people making movies are getting dumber. That it is dysgenic trends, even without considering ethnic changes.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @songbird


    I’m often shocked at Chinese movies.
     
    Try Japanese cinema, especially the classics. Very well done.

    Peace.

    Replies: @songbird, @dfordoom

    , @dfordoom
    @songbird


    While I think there are probably multiple reasons why movies are getting dumber, the really scary one to me is this: the people making movies are getting dumber.
     
    Based on the very very rare occasions when I've listened to modern film-makers being interviewed I think that's highly likely.

    It's also possible that audiences (of all races) are getting dumber.

    Of course it's also possible that audiences never did want arty pretentious films, or the dreary Message Films that Hollywood used to inflict on them. They just wanted mindless fun.

    My experiences with younger people lead me to believe that the average white person is significantly dumber (or at least significantly less educated) than was the case forty years ago. The sheer overwhelming ignorance of most people under 40 is staggering.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @V. K. Ovelund

  78. @Yahya K.
    @dfordoom


    It seems likely that the peculiar genius of western civilisation is actually pre-Christian
     
    Pre-Christian West certainly had its role in Western civilization's achievements. Aristotle and Plato set the intellectual tone that would later define the West. Things like the scientific method developed from their ideas of science, as incomplete as they were.

    But if you look at Charles Murray's inventory of human accomplishment, it is clear that most of the West's accomplishment came after 1400 A.D. Pre-Christian West (Greece and Rome) had made great strides, but they were mostly concentrated among a few achievers and achievements (Euclid, Aristotle etc.). Post-1400 West, on the other hand, had a variety of achievements and significant figures ranging from Machiavelli to Newton.

    From Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment:
    http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ed0MVuJWsAAOQAl.png

    Western civilisation also has its roots in pagan classical Mediterranean civilisation (and also in pagan northern European cultures). That might be a more important factor than Christianity. I’m not saying it is a more important factor, but it might be.
     
    How big the relative impact Christianity had on Western achievement is hard to quantify and therefore left to judgement. But a good question to ask is: did other regions of the world who adopted Christianity experience the same results as the West? Looking at places like Latin America and the Philippines, the answer seems to be no. That doesn't mean Christianity didn’t aid the West, but it's almost definitely not the only causal variable in explaining their achievements post-1400.

    As a general rule, whenever there is an extraordinary outcome, there is almost always a confluence of 4-5+ variables coming together at the same time to create a non-linear outcome. So in the example of Western achievement from 1400-2000, which is by any standard an extraordinary event (see chart above), there is a variety at factors at play, not just one, or even two.

    As with any other historical event, it's hard to determine which factors played a casual role, but if I had to guess it would be a combination of a) increasing urbanization, b) out-breeding patterns, c) freedom of thought and action, d) increasing wealth.

    Two of these happened because of Christianity (a, b), one despite it (c.), and the other was not related (d).

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    There’s no doubt that Christianity played a huge role in the development of Europe. Everything from a sense of universality, loss of tribalism to knowledge being preserved by monasteries…quite a bit of stuff. I think it is fairly obvious that some parts of Europe had a lot of civilizational features beforehand so, in those areas, one could say that Christianity was an interruption, but in large swathes of Europe where people were not living lives anywhere close to the, there is little doubt that Christianity played a huge role in bringing a change to those societies. I have a book outlining the history of Sweden and you can see the unmistakable trajectory – it takes a while (for instance read the very brutal Swedish participation in the Thirty Years War), but you see it taking form.

    Wa salaam.

  79. @nebulafox
    >Alcohol introduces all sorts of problems into society

    Oh, trust me, I'm *very* aware of this as someone who has struggled with alcohol and comes from a family full of people who have. People don't seem to get that alcohol is a drug, and like any drug, potentially addictive.

    But Prohibition in the US backfired massively for a reason. For the purposes of American culture, I'd say it's better to just take the mystique out of it early and stress more heavily that booze is a drug, IMO. What did Marcus Aurelius say about his predecessor, that he could enjoy the pleasures of life in moderation without excess? I'm not there yet. I'm not sure I'll ever be, and with my current physical regimen clashing with the realities of age coming up on the horizon, the good times ain't worth it by a long shot anymore. But that's real strength, having the ability to partake while remaining fully in control. (Absent religious restrictions and whatnot, of course...)

    >Coconut wine??!!

    They call it "toddy". More accurately, it is wine extracted from the palm sap of the coconut trees. I think its a pretty Dravidian thing, not found elsewhere in South Asia. The lone toddy shop is right in downtown JB, not far from Sentral. It's kind of relaxing to watch the old Tamil geezers read papers and talk shop together.

    There's a joke in Singapore goes like this: three Malays, they do drugs, three Chinese, they gamble, three Indians, they get drunk. One Malay, one Chinese, one Indian, they arrest them all. ;)

    (Even Kingfisher is 8%. Indians don't joke around... whenever I wanted to get blasted, I'd always go for that because it was cheap and easily available. Though, again, Singapore's taxes discourage alcohol abuse. The much more potent soju in Korea and vodka in Russia are both really cheap, which is part of the problem in those respective countries.)

    Replies: @Talha, @RodW

    When I travelled in Bali, I once drank a mixture of Anchor beer and palm wine with some local blokes under a palm tree. When we got through one plastic jug full, the nimblest of our group shimmied up the tree and got another one which had been placed to catch the juice.

    The palm wine itself didn’t taste of much, but it had a pleasant petillance like freshly pressed sake.

    The Japanese interviewed were surely expressing an idealised view. They’re largely ignorant of what it means to live with vibrant people, so they imagine that it must be a delightfully mind broadening experience. When they’ve had some direct experience, they sour on it.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund
  80. @songbird
    @Yahya K.

    I've heard some competing theories to explain why Hollywood movies seem to be getting stupider:
    -they are made for international audiences, and because many countries don't dub, need to use simple words
    -demographic changes in the US (most of the people going into theaters aren't even white anymore)

    The second one is kind of interesting because there are a variety of Latin American broadcasts that one can pick up in America. I'm no expert, but to me, Mexican television seems more conservative - perhaps not in every sense, but it is more religious, with more traditional gender roles. So, one would think movies would be getting more conservative, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

    I'm often shocked at Chinese movies. How coarse they seem to be on a certain level, despite the Chinese in a way being a sophisticated civilization - I've guessed that might be the people moving off the farms.

    While I think there are probably multiple reasons why movies are getting dumber, the really scary one to me is this: the people making movies are getting dumber. That it is dysgenic trends, even without considering ethnic changes.

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom

    I’m often shocked at Chinese movies.

    Try Japanese cinema, especially the classics. Very well done.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Talha

    I've managed to watch a few Japanese movies this year. Some of them had me scratching my head a bit over all the fuss, though I did enjoy others. Still a lot of famous ones I haven't seen. Two criticisms I'd make of the modern stuff. With live-action, they've followed a bad trend and engage in shaky cam. They also have gay characters, though I suppose it is not so quite in your face - it doesn't seem as political.

    Replies: @Talha

    , @dfordoom
    @Talha



    I’m often shocked at Chinese movies.
     
    Try Japanese cinema, especially the classics. Very well done.
     
    On the other hand if you ever venture into the weird and wonderful world of 1970s Japanese exploitation movies you'll be amazed at the crudity of the humour. The Japanese seem to love toilet jokes even more than the English.

    It's worth remembering that the English gave the world both Shakespeare and Benny Hill. Both are accurate reflections of English culture.

    Replies: @Talha

  81. @Yahya K.
    @Talha


    The ones that will fight tooth and nail will be the liberal Muslim types, they talk a lot about how they are oppressed here, but would cling and beg not to be tossed with the third world masses and be the first to beg to be let back in.
     
    Yeah, it can be a bit annoying at times to live in the 3rd world, because of how much it is dominated by the peasantry (and all the dysfunction and lack of sophistication this entails). And I'll admit that I was once a snobby upperclassman looking down my nose on the peasants. But after living here in the west for a while, I more and more appreciate the contributions the peasants make to 3rd world culture.

    And to a certain extent, I find that in much of the third world, the peasants define the culture, not the elites. At least that is the case in Egypt*, which is sort of the OG peasant nation. Almost all the cultural output is made from the bottom. Of course, it helps that most of our rulers post-1952 were/are from the peasantry. But I think overall, Egyptian culture is driven from the bottom-up, not the top-down.

    I also think you'll find that Western culture, as the West sinks lower, will increasingly be defined by their version of the peasantry (ghetto blacks or north africans etc.), rather than by anything the elites do. As much as people here would hate that happening, the great masses of people, including in Europe, simply like gangster rap more than Mozart or Beethoven.

    Anyway, it's not too bad as far as things go. There is much charm in peasant culture.

    Salam.



    *Here is a fun song by working-class Egyptian singer, Shaaban Abdel-Rehim

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHRVdyAEWtA&ab_channel=alimakaa

    Replies: @Twinkie, @songbird, @Talha

    And I’ll admit that I was once a snobby upperclassman looking down my nose on the peasants.

    Yeah, never a good attitude to have:
    “Love the poor, for I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say in his supplication: ‘O Allah, cause me to live poor and cause me to die poor, and gather me among the poor (on the Day of Resurrection).’” – reported in Ibn Majah

    Wa salaam

    [MORE]

    One thing I have seen is that modern society has certainly raised the living standards of many people, but for those that haven’t been able to reach that middle class level – a constantly moving goal post – it hasn’t provided a good avenue to live a dignified life.

    This is where the loss of religion in many modern societies will lead down undignified paths for the poor…as you pointed out.

    I find that in much of the third world, the peasants define the culture, not the elites.

    Good point. This often helps contain certain problems in society that stem from decadent elite culture. The poor aren’t without their own social problems that plague them, but some of the worst ones come from those with a lot of money and a lot of power.

    There is much charm in peasant culture.

    I agree.

    I remember on my trip to Hajj, I saw some extraordinary acts of generosity mostly from the poor whereas the richer folks were very snobbish. It was like this when I visited Egypt also and was invited into the homes of some poorer folks; they way they prepared and piled up the food (that they probably had to save up a few months to do) for you – just incredible.

    One thing I really like about the way Sufi tariqahs operate is that they are often the nexus of poor and the rich, the elite and the downtrodden. You sometimes see higher ups come to seek advice or a prayer from the shaykh who comes from the poor. You see both sitting in their gatherings of dhikr.

    I one thing I have noticed during my interactions with the poor; if you treat them with a level of honor and dignity from the start, they will mostly reciprocate or even surprise you with their generosity.

    I remember this office building I used to work at that had a business that employed a lot of young black males. They often looked pretty tough and stand-offish, but if you were riding in that elevator with them and initiated a genuine greeting, most would respond in a very cheerful way.

    In my time I used to frequent spots in South Central LA, I had a similar experience. Some guys act hard because they want to make sure you understand from the get-go that they will not brook disrespect. Give respect from the outset and I found that it will be reciprocated. For a man that lives in those areas who doesn’t have much else, he still has that dignity – you try to take that from him, you try to take all that he is likely to have in the world, and he will make sure you regret it.

    • Thanks: Yahya K.
  82. @dfordoom
    @Talha



    the Christian fundamentalists who are flying airplanes into buildings to kill unbelievers
     
    Why would they, when they can cheer on bombing campaigns in Muslim countries
     
    Good point.

    If you look back at human history it's difficult to find any religion or political ideology or belief system (including atheist belief systems) whose adherents haven't at some time convinced themselves that it was righteous to massacre their enemies. How many people have now been slaughtered in the name of Freedom and Democracy?

    Any group of humans who find themselves having power over others will abuse that power. That's just the way we humans are.

    If libertarians ever gained control of a country I have no doubt that they would oppress their opponents. And if they gained control of a country with a powerful military I have no doubt that they would start slaughtering their enemies in the name of Liberty.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Talha

    Sorry, I’m getting to this one so late (should have responded earlier).

    If you look back at human history it’s difficult to find any religion or political ideology or belief system (including atheist belief systems) whose adherents haven’t at some time convinced themselves that it was righteous to massacre their enemies.

    Yup, but it’s really when you dig into the details where things get interesting.

    See below (not to bug others)…since this is still quite off topic.

    Peace.

    [MORE]

    So when it comes down to massacres, people tend to get tribal. For instance, look at this survey that was done maybe a decade ago about various society’s views on violence by Gallup:
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx

    They were asked very specific questions like the acceptability of targeting and killing civilians (by state actors):

    Then you ask the same question by non-state actors (ie. militias, terrorists, etc.):

    I personally don’t find any difference in the moral implications of whether civilians are targeted for killing by a state or non-state actor, but it seems some people do. And the break down occurs along the lines of people who have the capacity to massacre one way versus the other people who have the capacity to massacre another way.

    Here are the numbers per country for approval of military targeting (key word here is “targeting”, this is beyond collateral damage which is unintentional) of civilians or non-state targeting of civilians. The US and Israel are illustrative (and Bangladesh is kind of surprising, but at least they are consistent), but let’s look at Australia. As expected, it is a first world nation with modern military and modern arms, thus it has about a 1/4 approval for justifying targeting and killing civilians – which is what Australia metes out to others.

    But the numbers decline over a 15 point spread when asked about attacks that they are on the receiving end of:

    • Thanks: dfordoom
  83. @Talha
    @iffen

    Correct...not yet anyways. It's all about numbers.

    Peace.

    Replies: @iffen

    Correct…not yet anyways. It’s all about numbers.

    You have a point, but I am not ready to give up completely on the idea that we will have rule of law.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @iffen

    I'm with you big guy. But technically, it would still be rule of law...maybe not the one that you or I would necessary endorse.

    Peace.

    Replies: @iffen

  84. @Twinkie
    @Talha


    This argument didn’t work for marijuana and I suspect it won’t work for moderated cocaine or meth or any other drug.
     
    First of all, there is currently no serious movement of any kind to legalize cocaine and meth. That's just reductio ad absurdum. That is, again, akin to suggesting that handguns be banned since allowing handguns lead to people owning anti-tank weapons.

    Times change. Things become more popular, new drugs with unique chemistry are invented.
     
    I don't know what "times change" means in this context. You will have to elaborate.

    The effects of alcohol - positive or negative - have been known for a VERY LONG time in human history. It's use has been widespread and regulated - we are talking about thousands of years here. Other narcotics - be they cannabis, cocaine, or heroin - have much more recent history and only selective usage geographically. They are also very different things. I can go very in-depth in many different ways they are different from alcohol. But that's not necessary, because the onus should be on those who claim they are the same as alcohol to demonstrate that. And they can't. Neither can you if you are honest about the science.

    Stop drinking.
     
    Why? Because Lancet says so?

    Actual research shows a J-curve. Again:
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/f17a3ca7-be9a-4e85-9055-e92fa42e30cf/joim_2082_f1.gif

    Most people would benefit from modest alcohol consumption.

    Why would they, when they can cheer on bombing campaigns in Muslim countries
     
    That's "what-about-ism." The morality of suicide bombing and other Islamic terrorist tactics is not incumbent upon military actions of others.

    Islamists are free to build drones and military hardware, put uniforms on their combatants, and attack the United States. There is such a thing as international laws on warfare. Even in ancient times, there were certain constraints and conventions that were followed in war - even amongst bitter enemies.

    If you can convince enough of our fellow citizens that this is a good policy to have vis-a-vis Muslims, you can legally force me to leave.
     
    I have zero interest in such a policy. In fact, I would consider it unconstitutional and would fight such a policy. But it says a lot about you that you think that's fine.

    No harm, no foul. I await my official Federal notice in the mail that I need to vacate US territory; I will do so promptly and in orderly fashion because I am a law-abiding citizen.
     
    What this tells me is that you don't understand one of America's basic tenets - protection of the (electoral) minority. In your mind, if the country becomes 51% Muslim, they (you) can simply outlaw other religions by a majority vote or otherwise persecute non-Muslims with Dhimmitude, "no harm no foul."

    That's a horrifying prospect to someone like me who believes in a constitutional republic and abhors the mob tyranny of a pure democracy (something largely shared by the Founders of this great country).

    Note that I wrote very clearly that I don't want ANY MORE Muslim immigrants in the country. I also wrote elsewhere that I don't want any more East Asian immigrants (or any other for that matter) for the foreseeable future. I can elaborate on why I hold those views, but the important distinction here is that my view on current and future immigration is very distinct from the equality of our current citizens whatever their religious views.

    But keep trying to passive-aggressively portray me as some sort of an eliminationist.

    Replies: @Talha, @V. K. Ovelund

    First of all, there is currently no serious movement of any kind to legalize cocaine and meth.

    Wait for it.

    You might not have to wait long.

  85. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    The oldest university in the world was founded as a Christian institution as were almost all the universities in ore-modern times.
     
    Mediæval universities weren't exactly places that valued free enquiry. As recently as 1811 Shelley was expelled from Oxford for atheism. The idea of universities as places that value free enquiry is a 19th century secular concept.

    And even if you were to believe in secularization as the cause of Western advancement, that;s only a proximate cause that begs a further question – what led to that secularization? Why is it, so magically, that WEIRD countries all hail from the Western Christian civilization?
     
    Western civilisation also has its roots in pagan classical Mediterranean civilisation (and also in pagan northern European cultures). That might be a more important factor than Christianity. I'm not saying it is a more important factor, but it might be.

    It seems likely that the peculiar genius of western civilisation is actually pre-Christian.

    If I were a fanatical secularist I might even argue that Christianity represented an obstacle that the West had to overcome before it could start progressing again.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @Yahya K., @nebulafox

    >It seems likely that the peculiar genius of western civilisation is actually pre-Christian.

    I’m going to make an unconventional argument and state that relative to modern society, the differences in how humans viewed the world in ancient and medieval times were quite minimal even as civilization collapsed beyond all recognition in Europe. For example, the notion that military success was innately correlated with divine favor changed very little with the rise of monotheism. That did not mean that ancient/medieval people did not believe their own actions didn’t impact their fate-they just didn’t think that was the whole story. It is an extra layer of causation that we’ve only recently discarded as a species: in some parts of the world, that is. In other parts of the world, that view still remains.

    What human beings have been doing in the last 400 years, and especially in the last 200, is a much more radical break than anything that came before, IMO. That’s where Western divergence really becomes apparent, even if some of the underlying factors had been hibernating for a while. It’s really funny to watch because I also happen to believe that the rooted inclinations of human beings haven’t changed all that much, even if the manifestations and norms and knowledge has changed beyond all recognition. Ordinary people remain ordinary people, even if they don’t have to worry about bubonic plague or can communicate with someone halfway around the world now.

    Still, I do think that Eastern Christianity makes an interesting comparison point to the West, that points to some kernel of divergence in the Middle Ages: the Roman state there didn’t collapse in the 5th Century. The emperors remained on the throne in Constantinople, and while the trends of ruralization and decreasing literacy were still there during the 7th Century collapse, they weren’t as absolute as in the West. Although the power of the Byzantine emperor was never as all-encompassing as the regime’s propaganda made it out to be, it’s still unlikely that a Gregory VII figure that could have made the argument that spiritual and temporal power were completely divorced (with all the unintended consequences that brought over the next 1000 years) would have lasted long, and none ever came. When Byzantium finally fell, Russia became the guardian of Orthodox Christianity: and there, the Tsar remained as much a spiritual figure as a political one. This stuck: even under Communism, peasants would write to Lenin and Stalin in the same way they used to write to the Tsars.

    Similarly, look at how the Ming Dynasty came to power on the back of millenarian religious sentiment in China, or the rival caliphal claims of various Islamic powers. The fundamental *tension* that there was some kind of divergence in authority did not exist in any of them. I don’t think by itself that was the reason the West became so dominant: history is never that simple. But I do think that kernel being planted led to certain outcomes becoming possibilities when combined with the right set of circumstances. Cheap Bibles becoming normative and a cause of the Reformation, for example. If it were cheap Qu’rans or cheap Upanishads instead, there wouldn’t have been room for the two pillars of society to collide against each other, because they were fundamentally intertwined.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @nebulafox

    That was a nice analysis, thanks. Good points to ponder over. No doubt that the Western trajectory was unique and unprecedented (sure there were some similarities with past events and other historic phenomena) - especially in the last few hundred years.

    Peace.

  86. @iffen
    @Talha

    Correct…not yet anyways. It’s all about numbers.

    You have a point, but I am not ready to give up completely on the idea that we will have rule of law.

    Replies: @Talha

    I’m with you big guy. But technically, it would still be rule of law…maybe not the one that you or I would necessary endorse.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Talha

    But technically, it would still be rule of law…

    The only way that citizens could be deprived of citizenship is through an amendment to the constitution. The possibility that Twinkie and like-minded rightwing fascists could seize political power in enough states to allow such a change to the Constitution approaches zero. What is very possible is that whites will be handicapped politically by the totalitarian left. So you don't have much to worry about.

    Replies: @Talha

  87. @Yahya K.
    @Twinkie


    But do you appreciate them enough to live amidst them?

     

    Hmm... depends how you define "amidst". In specific terms, I would not like to live in one of the poorer parts of Egypt. Have you seen the sort of housing poor people live in in Egypt? It's Dickensian:

    http://i.redd.it/7kwn4a0n3mj21.jpg

    I would like to think that if a lower class person moved in next door, I would be welcoming and open-minded. But I am not about to leave the suburbs for poorer areas.

    But in general, I don't mind living in a poor country. I grew up in a gated compound in the outskirts of Cairo, and I intend to return there after I finish my studies here. I have the opportunity to live in richer countries like Saudi Arabia (my father is Saudi), or even immigrate to the US or Canada, but I'm happy to live in Egypt. Partly because the standard of living there is decent enough in certain areas, and partly because I would see it as an injustice to leave. Poor countries need all the educated people they can get/keep. We've had enough brain drain already.

    Historical trends are often very stochastic and only “make sense” retrospectively. It’s certainly not preordained that the West would “sink lower.”

     

    Just shooting from the hip. But you are right. There is a lot more nuance involved. I've read some of "Coming Apart" and understand that there is a widening gap between upper (half) class whites and lower (half) class whites in terms of marriage rates, behavior, income, IQ, etc.

    It's interesting to see that lower class whites are most similar to blacks in terms of behavior, socio-economics etc., while upper class whites are most different. Sort of ironic if you think about it, considering that upper class whites are mostly pro-black, while lower class whites are mostly indifferent/hostile to blacks.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @nebulafox

    >Sort of ironic if you think about it, considering that upper class whites are mostly pro-black

    It’s all so much virtue signalling, and even many blacks are aware of that.

    >while lower class whites are mostly indifferent/hostile to blacks.

    It is not the 1960s anymore, and bien-pensants have wildly outdated views on how lower class whites view race. It helped that in military-heavy areas, a lot of guys got married to Korean or Filipina or Vietnamese or Thai women in the 1970s and 1980s, so the parents had to interact with the non-white daughter-in-law if they wanted to have their son over for dinner. Familiarity breeds ease, grandkids breed downright popularity.

    But they’ll never get to the point that upper-middle class America demands. Moreover, they cannot afford to. If you can’t afford to buy your way into an affluent suburb, you aren’t going to be open to BLM arguments on rioting or think that the reason prisons are over half black is because the police are swarming with closet Klansmen. If mass immigration endangers your job security in a non-public sector protected role, you are unlikely to view UMC arguments on how you are a racist for not being open to more with anything other than hostility. If you live with economic insecurity as a daily reality, you aren’t going to have the time or inclination to despise your own skin color, or really become an ideologue of any sort. Virtue signalling is all about showing off *status*.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Yahya K.
    @nebulafox


    It’s all so much virtue signalling, and even many blacks are aware of that.

     

    I agree. But would you not allow that some genuinely do hold sincere views regarding blacks, even if it is accompanied with sanctimonious piety? I've come across several UMC Americans who seem to genuinely believe that blacks have been "brutalized for decades" by the police "with impunity". (And not all of them are crazy woke 'critical theory' true believers)

    I'm not going to argue about the truth of that proposition. But it seems that many in this forum are quick to dismiss any of the BLM arguments out of hand. And I can see why you would do so. It is hard to accept the arguments of people who hold you in contempt, and are otherwise annoying in their attitude towards people like you. But is there no merit in their arguments whatsoever? Are there ways the police is misbehaving in some areas, that can be improved by some policing reforms? I haven't seen anyone here concede some points to the other side.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

  88. @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    >It seems likely that the peculiar genius of western civilisation is actually pre-Christian.

    I'm going to make an unconventional argument and state that relative to modern society, the differences in how humans viewed the world in ancient and medieval times were quite minimal even as civilization collapsed beyond all recognition in Europe. For example, the notion that military success was innately correlated with divine favor changed very little with the rise of monotheism. That did not mean that ancient/medieval people did not believe their own actions didn't impact their fate-they just didn't think that was the whole story. It is an extra layer of causation that we've only recently discarded as a species: in some parts of the world, that is. In other parts of the world, that view still remains.

    What human beings have been doing in the last 400 years, and especially in the last 200, is a much more radical break than anything that came before, IMO. That's where Western divergence really becomes apparent, even if some of the underlying factors had been hibernating for a while. It's really funny to watch because I also happen to believe that the rooted inclinations of human beings haven't changed all that much, even if the manifestations and norms and knowledge has changed beyond all recognition. Ordinary people remain ordinary people, even if they don't have to worry about bubonic plague or can communicate with someone halfway around the world now.

    Still, I do think that Eastern Christianity makes an interesting comparison point to the West, that points to some kernel of divergence in the Middle Ages: the Roman state there didn't collapse in the 5th Century. The emperors remained on the throne in Constantinople, and while the trends of ruralization and decreasing literacy were still there during the 7th Century collapse, they weren't as absolute as in the West. Although the power of the Byzantine emperor was never as all-encompassing as the regime's propaganda made it out to be, it's still unlikely that a Gregory VII figure that could have made the argument that spiritual and temporal power were completely divorced (with all the unintended consequences that brought over the next 1000 years) would have lasted long, and none ever came. When Byzantium finally fell, Russia became the guardian of Orthodox Christianity: and there, the Tsar remained as much a spiritual figure as a political one. This stuck: even under Communism, peasants would write to Lenin and Stalin in the same way they used to write to the Tsars.

    Similarly, look at how the Ming Dynasty came to power on the back of millenarian religious sentiment in China, or the rival caliphal claims of various Islamic powers. The fundamental *tension* that there was some kind of divergence in authority did not exist in any of them. I don't think by itself that was the reason the West became so dominant: history is never that simple. But I do think that kernel being planted led to certain outcomes becoming possibilities when combined with the right set of circumstances. Cheap Bibles becoming normative and a cause of the Reformation, for example. If it were cheap Qu'rans or cheap Upanishads instead, there wouldn't have been room for the two pillars of society to collide against each other, because they were fundamentally intertwined.

    Replies: @Talha

    That was a nice analysis, thanks. Good points to ponder over. No doubt that the Western trajectory was unique and unprecedented (sure there were some similarities with past events and other historic phenomena) – especially in the last few hundred years.

    Peace.

  89. @Talha
    @iffen

    I'm with you big guy. But technically, it would still be rule of law...maybe not the one that you or I would necessary endorse.

    Peace.

    Replies: @iffen

    But technically, it would still be rule of law…

    The only way that citizens could be deprived of citizenship is through an amendment to the constitution. The possibility that Twinkie and like-minded rightwing fascists could seize political power in enough states to allow such a change to the Constitution approaches zero. What is very possible is that whites will be handicapped politically by the totalitarian left. So you don’t have much to worry about.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @iffen


    The only way that citizens could be deprived of citizenship is through an amendment to the constitution.
     
    Yes, that's right which requires a supermajority of both houses (if I recall correctly). There is another mechanism, but I forget the details, but I remember it being another 2/3 majority (was it the states...?).

    What is very possible is that whites will be handicapped politically by the totalitarian left.
     
    The totalitarian Left may well handicap everyone.

    I do think the most likely thing that may happen (not sure whether in my lifetime or not) is a dissolution along state lines:
    "The nation’s electorate is so polarized that nearly 40 percent of likely voters polled would support their state seceding from the United States if their presidential candidate lost in November, according to a new poll from Hofstra University in New York."
    https://www.ktsa.com/poll-nearly-40-percent-of-likely-voters-would-support-state-secession-if-their-candidate-loses/

    That's not a majority, but it's certainly not some marginal number and I have not seen anything like this in my lifetime. If this goes up to 50% - that is a huge change in attitude among many citizens. And if that is the case, I don't really see a reason we should go to war when this can be done in a civil and legal manner.

    Peace.
  90. Yahya K. says:
    @nebulafox
    @Yahya K.

    >Sort of ironic if you think about it, considering that upper class whites are mostly pro-black

    It's all so much virtue signalling, and even many blacks are aware of that.

    >while lower class whites are mostly indifferent/hostile to blacks.

    It is not the 1960s anymore, and bien-pensants have wildly outdated views on how lower class whites view race. It helped that in military-heavy areas, a lot of guys got married to Korean or Filipina or Vietnamese or Thai women in the 1970s and 1980s, so the parents had to interact with the non-white daughter-in-law if they wanted to have their son over for dinner. Familiarity breeds ease, grandkids breed downright popularity.

    But they'll never get to the point that upper-middle class America demands. Moreover, they cannot afford to. If you can't afford to buy your way into an affluent suburb, you aren't going to be open to BLM arguments on rioting or think that the reason prisons are over half black is because the police are swarming with closet Klansmen. If mass immigration endangers your job security in a non-public sector protected role, you are unlikely to view UMC arguments on how you are a racist for not being open to more with anything other than hostility. If you live with economic insecurity as a daily reality, you aren't going to have the time or inclination to despise your own skin color, or really become an ideologue of any sort. Virtue signalling is all about showing off *status*.

    Replies: @Yahya K.

    It’s all so much virtue signalling, and even many blacks are aware of that.

    I agree. But would you not allow that some genuinely do hold sincere views regarding blacks, even if it is accompanied with sanctimonious piety? I’ve come across several UMC Americans who seem to genuinely believe that blacks have been “brutalized for decades” by the police “with impunity”. (And not all of them are crazy woke ‘critical theory’ true believers)

    I’m not going to argue about the truth of that proposition. But it seems that many in this forum are quick to dismiss any of the BLM arguments out of hand. And I can see why you would do so. It is hard to accept the arguments of people who hold you in contempt, and are otherwise annoying in their attitude towards people like you. But is there no merit in their arguments whatsoever? Are there ways the police is misbehaving in some areas, that can be improved by some policing reforms? I haven’t seen anyone here concede some points to the other side.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Yahya K.


    But is there no merit in their arguments whatsoever? Are there ways the police is misbehaving in some areas, that can be improved by some policing reforms? I haven’t seen anyone here concede some points to the other side.
     
    Police misbehaviour is always a problem. Firstly, because it's a profession that does in many cases attract the wrong people. It attracts people who like pushing other people around. I'm certainly not saying all cops (or even most cops) are like that but you'll always have some cops who are exactly like that. And they need to be rooted out, mercilessly.

    Secondly, because cops are in practice pretty much above the law. There's no way to avoid that, but it is possible (and necessary) to try to make cops accountable.

    Thirdly, you'll always have an Us vs Them police culture. You can't avoid it but you can take steps to minimise it a little.

    When you have these basic problems and you have police armed to the teeth and sometimes (not always but sometimes) poorly trained you have a recipe for trouble.

    So I think BLM are correct that there is a problem but they're wrong in seeing it as a problem of racism. It's a problem of police culture.

    But the Right really really does not want to admit that there are any systemic problems at all with the police. People on the Right seem to have an instinctive drive to bow down and worship cops (just as they bow down and worship the military). There's something about a man in uniform that makes right-wingers want to grovel.

    Replies: @Talha

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Yahya K.

    In the immediate aftermath of the George Floyd video being released, there was a real opportunity for police reform. Once the riots started, the window closed.

  91. @iffen
    @Talha

    But technically, it would still be rule of law…

    The only way that citizens could be deprived of citizenship is through an amendment to the constitution. The possibility that Twinkie and like-minded rightwing fascists could seize political power in enough states to allow such a change to the Constitution approaches zero. What is very possible is that whites will be handicapped politically by the totalitarian left. So you don't have much to worry about.

    Replies: @Talha

    The only way that citizens could be deprived of citizenship is through an amendment to the constitution.

    Yes, that’s right which requires a supermajority of both houses (if I recall correctly). There is another mechanism, but I forget the details, but I remember it being another 2/3 majority (was it the states…?).

    What is very possible is that whites will be handicapped politically by the totalitarian left.

    The totalitarian Left may well handicap everyone.

    I do think the most likely thing that may happen (not sure whether in my lifetime or not) is a dissolution along state lines:
    “The nation’s electorate is so polarized that nearly 40 percent of likely voters polled would support their state seceding from the United States if their presidential candidate lost in November, according to a new poll from Hofstra University in New York.”
    https://www.ktsa.com/poll-nearly-40-percent-of-likely-voters-would-support-state-secession-if-their-candidate-loses/

    That’s not a majority, but it’s certainly not some marginal number and I have not seen anything like this in my lifetime. If this goes up to 50% – that is a huge change in attitude among many citizens. And if that is the case, I don’t really see a reason we should go to war when this can be done in a civil and legal manner.

    Peace.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  92. @Talha
    @dfordoom

    Some great examples I hadn't thought of because they were before my time, but yeah...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q072NuYL92c

    I guess I'm just fascinated by what I've seen move within my own lifetime and it seems so bizarre when I think back on it. As I said; given what I have seen with my own eyes, I simply cannot see why some of these other things can't become legal within my lifetime.

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Some great examples I hadn’t thought of because they were before my time, but yeah…

    Well Nell Gwynn was a bit before my time as well!

    As I said; given what I have seen with my own eyes, I simply cannot see why some of these other things can’t become legal within my lifetime.

    The fascinating/scary thing is that there’s just no way to predict what will come next. The transsexual thing was something so bizarre that when it started almost all conservatives thought that this time the SJWs had gone too far, that there was no way that it wouldn’t provoke a backlash. But there was no backlash at all. It went from being an impossibly bizarre idea to being totally mainstream in less than a decade.

    My feeling is that the Silent Majority that social conservatives rely on so much just doesn’t exist any more. It’s not that it’s become a Silent Minority – it’s become a minuscule and totally irrelevant minority that SJWs can simply ignore entirely. The transsexual thing also shows that Christians (or the overwhelming majority of Christians) are never ever going to draw a line in the sand. No matter how horrifyingly extreme and weird the next issue on the sexual battlefront might be Christians will meekly surrender.

    It’s notable that in Britain the only resistance to the LGBT agenda has come from Muslims.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @dfordoom


    It’s not that it’s become a Silent Minority – it’s become a minuscule and totally irrelevant minority that SJWs can simply ignore entirely.
     
    I hear you and I think this may well be the case in much of Europe, but the US is potentially another kind of beast. Justice Amy Coney Barnett got the seat despite much protest from SJWs, so that's something. I don't think a person like her would have gotten much traction in much of Europe, but I may well be wrong as I don't know how their judges are selected.

    Then again, she may fold on issues like Chief Justice Roberts, but we will have to wait and see.

    It’s notable that in Britain the only resistance to the LGBT agenda has come from Muslims.
     
    May they stay steadfast and not buckle.

    Peace.
    , @Talha
    @dfordoom


    The fascinating/scary thing is that there’s just no way to predict what will come next.
     
    Here you go...
    “Oregon could become the first U.S. state to decriminalize possessing hard drugs like heroin, cocaine and LSD in a ballot measure during Tuesday's election.”
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/523743-oregon-voters-to-decide-on-decriminalizing-heroin-cocaine-and-lsd

    Peace.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    The transsexual thing was something so bizarre that when it started almost all conservatives thought that this time the SJWs had gone too far, that there was no way that it wouldn’t provoke a backlash.

    Pedophilia's next. I fear it, too, is going to fit this pattern.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The fascinating/scary thing is that there’s just no way to predict what will come next. The transsexual thing was something so bizarre that when it started almost all conservatives thought that this time the SJWs had gone too far, that there was no way that it wouldn’t provoke a backlash. But there was no backlash at all.
     
    For what it's worth, the transsexual thing converted me. About 15 years younger than you (as I guess), I had been a lifelong tolerator of gays. No longer.

    There has existed no avenue through which I could express my newfound intolerance, so unless you knew me well and had often been in my home, you could not tell that I had changed; but I am hardly the only one: read @Wency on the topic.

    So is that a “backlash”? Perhaps not, but it is a tightening of the spring, so to speak.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @nebulafox

  93. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    Mediæval universities weren’t exactly places that valued free enquiry. As recently as 1811 Shelley was expelled from Oxford for atheism. The idea of universities as places that value free enquiry is a 19th century secular concept.
     
    You are engaging in a straw man. First of all, I didn't bring up the Catholic Christian foundation of universities to extol "free enquiry." Second of all, repeating secularist prejudice and conceit - a counterfactual, if widely shared, one at that - doesn't advance the argument. Why don't you read this?

    https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/education/catholic-contributions/the-catholic-church-and-the-creation-of-the-university.html

    Here is a taste:

    The papacy played a central if not exclusive role in the establishment and encouragement of the universities. Naturally, the granting of a charter to a university was one indication of this papal role. Some 81 universities had been established by the time of the Reformation. Of these 33 possessed a papal charter, 15 a royal or imperial one, 20 possessed both, and 13 had none. In addition, it was the accepted view that a university could not award degrees without the approbation of pope, king, or emperor. Pope Innocent IV officially granted this privilege to Oxford University, for example, in 1254.
     
    As for this:

    Western civilisation also has its roots in pagan classical Mediterranean civilisation (and also in pagan northern European cultures). That might be a more important factor than Christianity. I’m not saying it is a more important factor, but it might be.

     

    That's historical "retconning" by later secularists. Why don't you give Joseph Henrich's book a try if you want to "update your priors" instead of simply repeating secularist propaganda? He's hardly the only one to make that argument, but is merely the latest amongst many historians (Henrich's angle is that he takes an anthropological and socio-cultural approach).

    GAZETTE: How did WEIRD societies originate?

    HENRICH: It goes back medieval European history and to a set of prohibitions, taboos, and prescriptions about the family that were developed by one particular branch of Christianity. This branch, which evolved into the Roman Catholic Church, established, during late antiquity in the early Middle Ages, a series of taboos on cousin marriage, a campaign against polygamous marriage, and new inheritance customs, where individuals could inherit as individuals rather than after someone dies having a property divided among a network of relatives or going laterally out to cousins. As a result, all of these restructured European families — from kindreds, clans, and other formations that anthropologists have documented around the world — formed into monogamous nuclear families. In the book, I provide evidence suggesting that it’s this particular family structure and variation and the variants of it that lead to particular ways of thinking that are more individualistic, analytic, and impersonal.
     
    Ancient Greek and Roman societies were not very "WEIRD." They were nepotistic and clannish - like many other ancient polities - with lots of inbreeding (not only cousin marriages, but also uncles marrying nieces - there is a rather thorough "petition" to Rome that survives - it was made by a former centurion in the Roman army who lists his personal history and martial accomplishments, including that his brother gave a daughter for him to marry).

    Contrary to secularist mythmaking of non-religious "freethinkers" demolishing Christian "superstition" and founding modernity, much that undergirds the modern and Western societies emerged out of the medieval period.

    If you are serious about understanding the philosophical transformations that underlie modernity, read Etienne Gilson's classic masterpiece "The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy."

    Replies: @dfordoom

    You are engaging in a straw man. First of all, I didn’t bring up the Catholic Christian foundation of universities to extol “free enquiry.”

    You’re the one who made the claim that the West is “the most prosperous, free, and advanced” society in history and then brought up the mediæval foundations of universities in the course of the same discussion about the supposed contribution of Christianity to the building of a prosperous, free, and advanced society. So it’s entirely relevant for me to point out that the mediæval universities made little or no contribution to the building of “the most prosperous, free, and advanced” society.

    Contrary to secularist mythmaking of non-religious “freethinkers” demolishing Christian “superstition” and founding modernity, much that undergirds the modern and Western societies emerged out of the medieval period.

    And much that undergirds the modern and Western societies goes back to classical antiquity. And pre-Christian pagan northern Europe.

    I do not subscribe to the view that the mediæval period was an age of barbarism. Not do I believe that Christianity made no contribution to the building of modern western civilisation. What I was suggesting was that the particular features of western civilisation that you singled out for admiration (being prosperous, free and advanced) were probably not among the contributions that Christianity made. And certainly not among the contributions that Catholicism made.

    It’s difficult to evade the fact that as Christianity started to decline the West became rapidly more free, more prosperous and more advanced. And as the decline of Christianity accelerated the move towards freedom, prosperity and advancement accelerated.

    Of course there is more to being a functional society than being free, prosperous and advanced. The United States today is free, prosperous and advanced but whether it’s a functional society is debatable. It’s possible that being free, prosperous and advanced comes at a very high price. But you’re the one who singled out being free, prosperous and advanced as things to admire in our modern western societies.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    You’re the one who made the claim that the West is “the most prosperous, free, and advanced” society in history and then brought up the mediæval foundations of universities in the course of the same discussion about the supposed contribution of Christianity to the building of a prosperous, free, and advanced society. So it’s entirely relevant for me to point out that the mediæval universities made little or no contribution to the building of “the most prosperous, free, and advanced” society.
     
    You seem utterly incapable of comprehending even a minor level of nuance, because you are simply determined to hold fast to your anti-Christian prejudices.

    I do NOT believe "free inquiry" was responsible for the Western scientific progress and dominance, but what variable that were necessary for the latter were 1) systematic and organized ways of learning and knowledge advancement and 2) protection from interference. Please see my reply to Yahya above. It would certainly be a most extraordinary (and historically ignorant and baffling) claim to say that the rise of the centers of learning in the late medieval period did not contribute greatly to the Western scientific revolution - unless one were simply protesting such a connection, because - what do you know! - the Catholic Church sponsored the foundation of many such institutions.


    And much that undergirds the modern and Western societies goes back to classical antiquity. And pre-Christian pagan northern Europe.
     
    Keep repeating the same dogma doesn't do anything. You criticize expulsion from Oxford for atheism in 1811 as an evidence for the university system not playing a role in Western knowledge advancement (!) and extol "classical antiquity" instead. Do you even know why Socrates was killed? He was killed for asebeia - there is your "free inquiry" for you. Stop repeating slogans and do some reading.
  94. @Yahya K.
    @dfordoom


    It seems likely that the peculiar genius of western civilisation is actually pre-Christian
     
    Pre-Christian West certainly had its role in Western civilization's achievements. Aristotle and Plato set the intellectual tone that would later define the West. Things like the scientific method developed from their ideas of science, as incomplete as they were.

    But if you look at Charles Murray's inventory of human accomplishment, it is clear that most of the West's accomplishment came after 1400 A.D. Pre-Christian West (Greece and Rome) had made great strides, but they were mostly concentrated among a few achievers and achievements (Euclid, Aristotle etc.). Post-1400 West, on the other hand, had a variety of achievements and significant figures ranging from Machiavelli to Newton.

    From Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment:
    http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ed0MVuJWsAAOQAl.png

    Western civilisation also has its roots in pagan classical Mediterranean civilisation (and also in pagan northern European cultures). That might be a more important factor than Christianity. I’m not saying it is a more important factor, but it might be.
     
    How big the relative impact Christianity had on Western achievement is hard to quantify and therefore left to judgement. But a good question to ask is: did other regions of the world who adopted Christianity experience the same results as the West? Looking at places like Latin America and the Philippines, the answer seems to be no. That doesn't mean Christianity didn’t aid the West, but it's almost definitely not the only causal variable in explaining their achievements post-1400.

    As a general rule, whenever there is an extraordinary outcome, there is almost always a confluence of 4-5+ variables coming together at the same time to create a non-linear outcome. So in the example of Western achievement from 1400-2000, which is by any standard an extraordinary event (see chart above), there is a variety at factors at play, not just one, or even two.

    As with any other historical event, it's hard to determine which factors played a casual role, but if I had to guess it would be a combination of a) increasing urbanization, b) out-breeding patterns, c) freedom of thought and action, d) increasing wealth.

    Two of these happened because of Christianity (a, b), one despite it (c.), and the other was not related (d).

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    it is clear that most of the West’s accomplishment came after 1400 A.D.

    Yep. Scientific and technological progress (and maybe artistic progress although that is much much more difficult to define) was very slow in both the ancient and mediæval worlds. It was happening, but very slowly. Which could suggest that neither the pagan classical nor the mediæval Catholic civilisations provided fertile soil for such advancement.

    There used to be a popular theory that it was Protestantism that allowed Europe to start advancing rapidly. I suspect that the Reformation was a factor because it fatally undermined the foundations of Christianity and the authority of all Christian churches. It created an atmosphere of doubt and scepticism – bad for society in some ways but very good for scientific and technological progress.

    As a general rule, whenever there is an extraordinary outcome, there is almost always a confluence of 4-5+ variables coming together at the same time to create a non-linear outcome

    That may well be true. In fact it’s very likely.

    As with any other historical event, it’s hard to determine which factors played a causal role, but if I had to guess it would be a combination of a) increasing urbanization, b) out-breeding patterns, c) freedom of thought and action, d) increasing wealth.

    Two of these happened because of Christianity (a, b), one despite it (c.), and the other was not related (d).

    Was urbanisation a result of Christianity?

    There’s another popular theory that the big factor in the sudden rapid progress of Europe after the 14th century was the Black Death. The collapse in population led to much higher wages and much greater economic opportunities.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @dfordoom

    During the so-called Dark Ages, Europeans invented a new harness that allowed a horse to pull a plow without choking. Horses could now plow fields faster and thus more efficiently than oxen. This and other agricultural techniques like haying, allowed there to be food surpluses, which allowed for the feeding of professional soldiers. The professional soldiers, in turn, put a stop to raiders, like the Vikings and Muslim pirates. This provided a new level of stability, which assisted state-formation.

    Christianity helped motivate the age of exploration. (the search for new souls to save and for Prester John as an ally against Muslims). When the potato was introduced to Europe, that was another massive gain. Not only was it high in energy and not only could it grow in poor soil, but you could leave it in the field for a while, unlike wheat. This made it a lot harder for armies to confiscate it and starve the peasants. Peasant population exploded.

    The Enlightenment is a progressive myth. It was the potato, and perhaps the gun, which led Europe to its civilizational peak.

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom

  95. @Talha
    @songbird


    I’m often shocked at Chinese movies.
     
    Try Japanese cinema, especially the classics. Very well done.

    Peace.

    Replies: @songbird, @dfordoom

    I’ve managed to watch a few Japanese movies this year. Some of them had me scratching my head a bit over all the fuss, though I did enjoy others. Still a lot of famous ones I haven’t seen. Two criticisms I’d make of the modern stuff. With live-action, they’ve followed a bad trend and engage in shaky cam. They also have gay characters, though I suppose it is not so quite in your face – it doesn’t seem as political.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @songbird


    Two criticisms I’d make of the modern stuff.
     
    I haven't kept up with much of the recent stuff to be honest. I think only "13 Assassins" (which was great) and some other comic-turned-into-a-movie about a samurai that can't die because he has these worms that constantly heal his injuries - interesting, but not memorable.

    They also have gay characters, though I suppose it is not so quite in your face – it doesn’t seem as political.
     
    I think the main reason for this is that in the West, being gay has become an identity. It becomes a primary identity, thus an attack on that aspect is an attack on the core essence of the human being itself. Many other cultures understood that most human beings are on some sort of a sexual spectrum; the vast majority tend to be attracted to the opposite sex and repulsed by the same sex while a small minority are on the other side of the spectrum with some others being somewhere in the middle that could indulge in acts with one or the other given a certain set of circumstances. And certain sub-cultures developed out of it like the pederasty in ancient Greece or among certain Samurai or even certain Janissaries. And some poets in the past wrote either openly or surreptitiously about same-sex relations. But it was just something someone did because they liked it or wanted to. I used to enjoy reading some of Gore Vidal's essays and articles (though I didn't agree with a good amount of his politics, his incisive wit and style was quite a pleasure to read), and he too famously refused to agree to these categories (though it was known he had a male partner):
    Interviewing Gore Vidal for the London Times in 2009, I suggested that had he achieved his ultimate ambition, he would have been America’s first gay president. Vidal retorted, “No, I would have married and had nine children. I don’t believe in these exclusive terms.” Indeed he didn’t: Vidal, who died in 2012, famously believed in gay sexual acts (which, with hustlers, he certainly enjoyed), but not gay people. And he said he was bisexual, although his relationships with women, apart from early fumblings, were nonsexual, though deep with those closest to him, like Joanne Woodward and Claire Bloom. He said he and his partner, Howard Austen, had, for the majority of their 53-year relationship, not had sex. He never came out; the notion of coming out was anathema to him.
    https://www.out.com/entertainment/art-books/2014/01/07/why-gore-vidal-refused-identify-gay

    "'Trying to make categories is very American, very stupid, and very dangerous.' Gore Vidal’s refusal to identify as gay was consistent with a man who worshipped ancient Greece, but was out of step with the times in which he lived."

    Look for him to potentially be cancelled soon as a self-hating homo.

    Peace.

    Replies: @songbird

  96. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    What’s fascinating about cultural and social change is that it happens really really fast... I think such changes always happen fast.
     
    Literally, yes and no.

    Cultural changes can occur very rapidly particularly when elites adopt new practices and customs and enforce the new norms strenuously. But those changes happen in spurts with generally lengthy periods of cultural stability. And even when the elites try, sometimes resistance can be quite fierce (Razib Khan is fond of citing the case of Prussia where the royal family adopted Calvinism, but the populace remained Lutheran).

    Northern England, too, for example, remained staunchly Catholic for a long time and the English crown had to engage in ruthless military campaigns to bring the area to Protestantism.

    Don't forget that with the changes that successfully occurred quickly, there is a selection bias at work for us as later spectators. We don't know or pay attention to many attempts at cultural changes that failed.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Cultural changes can occur very rapidly particularly when elites adopt new practices and customs and enforce the new norms strenuously. But those changes happen in spurts with generally lengthy periods of cultural stability.

    Yes, I agree completely with that.

    Sometimes there’s a trigger – an apparently unrelated political or economic crisis, or a disastrous war. In the case of 17th century England the Civil War and the shock at the murder of the King, combined with the excessive zeal of the Puritans, acted as obvious triggers for a backlash against everything the Puritans stood for. The First World War was a very obvious trigger.

    The problem with the West in the past century has been the succession of such crises – the First World War, the Great Depression, WW2, the Vietnam War, the Oil Crisis of the ’70s, etc. And we now live in an age in which 24/7 cable news and social media provides an endless series of crises (most of them imaginary but people still believe they’re crises) which could serve as triggers.

    I think Vietnam was a major trigger. Rightly or wrongly it discredited every institution that seemed to be associated with the “Establishment” – the military, the CIA, the government, the police, even the churches (who obviously were not responsible for the war but they were seen as being part of the Establishment).

    But whether a trigger is actually needed is something that could be debated.

  97. @songbird
    @Yahya K.

    I've heard some competing theories to explain why Hollywood movies seem to be getting stupider:
    -they are made for international audiences, and because many countries don't dub, need to use simple words
    -demographic changes in the US (most of the people going into theaters aren't even white anymore)

    The second one is kind of interesting because there are a variety of Latin American broadcasts that one can pick up in America. I'm no expert, but to me, Mexican television seems more conservative - perhaps not in every sense, but it is more religious, with more traditional gender roles. So, one would think movies would be getting more conservative, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

    I'm often shocked at Chinese movies. How coarse they seem to be on a certain level, despite the Chinese in a way being a sophisticated civilization - I've guessed that might be the people moving off the farms.

    While I think there are probably multiple reasons why movies are getting dumber, the really scary one to me is this: the people making movies are getting dumber. That it is dysgenic trends, even without considering ethnic changes.

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom

    While I think there are probably multiple reasons why movies are getting dumber, the really scary one to me is this: the people making movies are getting dumber.

    Based on the very very rare occasions when I’ve listened to modern film-makers being interviewed I think that’s highly likely.

    It’s also possible that audiences (of all races) are getting dumber.

    Of course it’s also possible that audiences never did want arty pretentious films, or the dreary Message Films that Hollywood used to inflict on them. They just wanted mindless fun.

    My experiences with younger people lead me to believe that the average white person is significantly dumber (or at least significantly less educated) than was the case forty years ago. The sheer overwhelming ignorance of most people under 40 is staggering.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom

    I dated someone born ~1978 a while ago.  She was being mis-taught algebra as calculator magic, not manipulation of symbols.  While we were together, she did not get that she was being fed bullshit for the benefit of others.

    I pity her, but I can't extend sympathy.

    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The sheer overwhelming ignorance of most people under 40 is staggering.
     
    Well, you knew that I would take this bait, so here goes....

    Ignorance of what?

    Some people under 40 are preoccupied with the necessity to navigate the utter civilizational mess people over 45 have left them. They cannot spare attention to internalize the propaganda and nonsense our generation imagines to be knowledge.

    It's not as though the population over 45 had distinguished itself by its facility with Latin declinations or its conversancy with Aristotle—nor generally by its capacity to propagate the great civilization it has inherited from worthier forebears. In Europe and the Anglosphere at least, the most distinctive proficiency the population over 45 has manifested is its novel competence at abuse of the birth-control pill.

    Present company sincerely excepted, what staggers in 2020 is not the ignorance of youth but the temerity of age.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

  98. @dfordoom
    @Yahya K.


    it is clear that most of the West’s accomplishment came after 1400 A.D.
     
    Yep. Scientific and technological progress (and maybe artistic progress although that is much much more difficult to define) was very slow in both the ancient and mediæval worlds. It was happening, but very slowly. Which could suggest that neither the pagan classical nor the mediæval Catholic civilisations provided fertile soil for such advancement.

    There used to be a popular theory that it was Protestantism that allowed Europe to start advancing rapidly. I suspect that the Reformation was a factor because it fatally undermined the foundations of Christianity and the authority of all Christian churches. It created an atmosphere of doubt and scepticism - bad for society in some ways but very good for scientific and technological progress.

    As a general rule, whenever there is an extraordinary outcome, there is almost always a confluence of 4-5+ variables coming together at the same time to create a non-linear outcome
     
    That may well be true. In fact it's very likely.

    As with any other historical event, it’s hard to determine which factors played a causal role, but if I had to guess it would be a combination of a) increasing urbanization, b) out-breeding patterns, c) freedom of thought and action, d) increasing wealth.

    Two of these happened because of Christianity (a, b), one despite it (c.), and the other was not related (d).
     
    Was urbanisation a result of Christianity?

    There's another popular theory that the big factor in the sudden rapid progress of Europe after the 14th century was the Black Death. The collapse in population led to much higher wages and much greater economic opportunities.

    Replies: @songbird

    During the so-called Dark Ages, Europeans invented a new harness that allowed a horse to pull a plow without choking. Horses could now plow fields faster and thus more efficiently than oxen. This and other agricultural techniques like haying, allowed there to be food surpluses, which allowed for the feeding of professional soldiers. The professional soldiers, in turn, put a stop to raiders, like the Vikings and Muslim pirates. This provided a new level of stability, which assisted state-formation.

    Christianity helped motivate the age of exploration. (the search for new souls to save and for Prester John as an ally against Muslims). When the potato was introduced to Europe, that was another massive gain. Not only was it high in energy and not only could it grow in poor soil, but you could leave it in the field for a while, unlike wheat. This made it a lot harder for armies to confiscate it and starve the peasants. Peasant population exploded.

    The Enlightenment is a progressive myth. It was the potato, and perhaps the gun, which led Europe to its civilizational peak.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @songbird


    It was the potato, and perhaps the gun, which led Europe to its civilizational peak.
     
    Give credit where it's due:
    https://micktake.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/mr-potato-head.jpg

    Peace.
    , @dfordoom
    @songbird


    During the so-called Dark Ages, Europeans invented a new harness that allowed a horse to pull a plow without choking.
     
    And eyeglasses were a mediæval invention and had a huge impact on intellectual life. A man's intellectual life was no longer more or less over when his eyesight started to fail.

    So yes, there was technological progress. But it was agonisingly slow.

    Christianity helped motivate the age of exploration.
     
    Saving more souls was often used as a justification or a rationalisation for colonialism. I'm not at all convinced that it was a major motivation.

    The Enlightenment is a progressive myth.
     
    It's a myth in the sense that the modern world did not just suddenly spring into existence out of nowhere. But I think there's some truth to it. What's startling about western Europe in the post-mediæval period is the massive acceleration of scientific and technological progress.

    Would Europe have started to progress so quickly without the Reformation to undermine the absolute authority of the Church? Would progress have continued to accelerate without the growing secularisation of the West which encouraged thinkers to doubt everything? I personally doubt it. Personally I suspect that scientific and technological progress would have proceeded, but very much more slowly.

    And if scientific and technological progress had continued at mediæval pace the West might not yet have caught up with Imperial China.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @songbird

  99. @Talha
    @songbird


    I’m often shocked at Chinese movies.
     
    Try Japanese cinema, especially the classics. Very well done.

    Peace.

    Replies: @songbird, @dfordoom

    I’m often shocked at Chinese movies.

    Try Japanese cinema, especially the classics. Very well done.

    On the other hand if you ever venture into the weird and wonderful world of 1970s Japanese exploitation movies you’ll be amazed at the crudity of the humour. The Japanese seem to love toilet jokes even more than the English.

    It’s worth remembering that the English gave the world both Shakespeare and Benny Hill. Both are accurate reflections of English culture.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @dfordoom


    The Japanese seem to love toilet jokes even more than the English.
     
    Not surprising. I was just discussing with someone on another thread how the Japanese are just very enigmatic to figure out for many outsiders. You have a very intelligent and orderly society into refined manners of respect and social propriety...and yet they hold open fertility rituals with large phalluses while not actually having many kids:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E396_PCRXIA

    It’s worth remembering that the English gave the world both Shakespeare and Benny Hill. Both are accurate reflections of English culture.
     
    LOOOL! Yeah! British wit has always amused me. You could have mentioned Monty Python as well.

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  100. @dfordoom
    @Talha



    I’m often shocked at Chinese movies.
     
    Try Japanese cinema, especially the classics. Very well done.
     
    On the other hand if you ever venture into the weird and wonderful world of 1970s Japanese exploitation movies you'll be amazed at the crudity of the humour. The Japanese seem to love toilet jokes even more than the English.

    It's worth remembering that the English gave the world both Shakespeare and Benny Hill. Both are accurate reflections of English culture.

    Replies: @Talha

    The Japanese seem to love toilet jokes even more than the English.

    Not surprising. I was just discussing with someone on another thread how the Japanese are just very enigmatic to figure out for many outsiders. You have a very intelligent and orderly society into refined manners of respect and social propriety…and yet they hold open fertility rituals with large phalluses while not actually having many kids:

    It’s worth remembering that the English gave the world both Shakespeare and Benny Hill. Both are accurate reflections of English culture.

    LOOOL! Yeah! British wit has always amused me. You could have mentioned Monty Python as well.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Talha


    Not surprising. I was just discussing with someone on another thread how the Japanese are just very enigmatic to figure out for many outsiders. You have a very intelligent and orderly society into refined manners of respect and social propriety…and yet they hold open fertility rituals with large phalluses while not actually having many kids
     
    I think the truth about what makes the Japanese tick is that no non-Japanese person has the slightest idea what makes the Japanese tick. That's why Japanese culture is endlessly fascinating. It keeps surprising you.
  101. @songbird
    @dfordoom

    During the so-called Dark Ages, Europeans invented a new harness that allowed a horse to pull a plow without choking. Horses could now plow fields faster and thus more efficiently than oxen. This and other agricultural techniques like haying, allowed there to be food surpluses, which allowed for the feeding of professional soldiers. The professional soldiers, in turn, put a stop to raiders, like the Vikings and Muslim pirates. This provided a new level of stability, which assisted state-formation.

    Christianity helped motivate the age of exploration. (the search for new souls to save and for Prester John as an ally against Muslims). When the potato was introduced to Europe, that was another massive gain. Not only was it high in energy and not only could it grow in poor soil, but you could leave it in the field for a while, unlike wheat. This made it a lot harder for armies to confiscate it and starve the peasants. Peasant population exploded.

    The Enlightenment is a progressive myth. It was the potato, and perhaps the gun, which led Europe to its civilizational peak.

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom

    It was the potato, and perhaps the gun, which led Europe to its civilizational peak.

    Give credit where it’s due:

    Peace.

    • LOL: Yahya K., songbird
  102. @songbird
    @Talha

    I've managed to watch a few Japanese movies this year. Some of them had me scratching my head a bit over all the fuss, though I did enjoy others. Still a lot of famous ones I haven't seen. Two criticisms I'd make of the modern stuff. With live-action, they've followed a bad trend and engage in shaky cam. They also have gay characters, though I suppose it is not so quite in your face - it doesn't seem as political.

    Replies: @Talha

    Two criticisms I’d make of the modern stuff.

    I haven’t kept up with much of the recent stuff to be honest. I think only “13 Assassins” (which was great) and some other comic-turned-into-a-movie about a samurai that can’t die because he has these worms that constantly heal his injuries – interesting, but not memorable.

    They also have gay characters, though I suppose it is not so quite in your face – it doesn’t seem as political.

    I think the main reason for this is that in the West, being gay has become an identity. It becomes a primary identity, thus an attack on that aspect is an attack on the core essence of the human being itself. Many other cultures understood that most human beings are on some sort of a sexual spectrum; the vast majority tend to be attracted to the opposite sex and repulsed by the same sex while a small minority are on the other side of the spectrum with some others being somewhere in the middle that could indulge in acts with one or the other given a certain set of circumstances. And certain sub-cultures developed out of it like the pederasty in ancient Greece or among certain Samurai or even certain Janissaries. And some poets in the past wrote either openly or surreptitiously about same-sex relations. But it was just something someone did because they liked it or wanted to. I used to enjoy reading some of Gore Vidal’s essays and articles (though I didn’t agree with a good amount of his politics, his incisive wit and style was quite a pleasure to read), and he too famously refused to agree to these categories (though it was known he had a male partner):
    Interviewing Gore Vidal for the London Times in 2009, I suggested that had he achieved his ultimate ambition, he would have been America’s first gay president. Vidal retorted, “No, I would have married and had nine children. I don’t believe in these exclusive terms.” Indeed he didn’t: Vidal, who died in 2012, famously believed in gay sexual acts (which, with hustlers, he certainly enjoyed), but not gay people. And he said he was bisexual, although his relationships with women, apart from early fumblings, were nonsexual, though deep with those closest to him, like Joanne Woodward and Claire Bloom. He said he and his partner, Howard Austen, had, for the majority of their 53-year relationship, not had sex. He never came out; the notion of coming out was anathema to him.
    https://www.out.com/entertainment/art-books/2014/01/07/why-gore-vidal-refused-identify-gay

    “‘Trying to make categories is very American, very stupid, and very dangerous.’ Gore Vidal’s refusal to identify as gay was consistent with a man who worshipped ancient Greece, but was out of step with the times in which he lived.”

    Look for him to potentially be cancelled soon as a self-hating homo.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Talha


    a samurai that can’t die because he has these worms that constantly heal his injuries
     
    Sounds interesting. In Irish mythology, there was a certain sword that was said to cast a shadow that allowed one to see the worms inside a person. Maybe, they should have had that in the movie too.

    In the West, it seems like homosexuals in entertainment media are almost always a subversion. Like, they will take two male friends and then accuse them of being gay, in order to discourage men from having friends and forming masculine ideals, which challenge the current culture of feminism. Or, they will take fictional characters, that were written with traditional love stories - man and woman - and then they will insert a gay subplot, where the man kisses his male friend (I've seen this in a Shakespearean play), as though to suggest that there is no such thing as love between a man and a woman.

    I honestly don't know a lot about Gore Vidal, but I kind of hate him for inserting one of these gay subplots in the movie Ben Hur, which otherwise would be a very excellent movie, and even one with strong Christian themes.

    Replies: @Talha

  103. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    While I think there are probably multiple reasons why movies are getting dumber, the really scary one to me is this: the people making movies are getting dumber.
     
    Based on the very very rare occasions when I've listened to modern film-makers being interviewed I think that's highly likely.

    It's also possible that audiences (of all races) are getting dumber.

    Of course it's also possible that audiences never did want arty pretentious films, or the dreary Message Films that Hollywood used to inflict on them. They just wanted mindless fun.

    My experiences with younger people lead me to believe that the average white person is significantly dumber (or at least significantly less educated) than was the case forty years ago. The sheer overwhelming ignorance of most people under 40 is staggering.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @V. K. Ovelund

    I dated someone born ~1978 a while ago.  She was being mis-taught algebra as calculator magic, not manipulation of symbols.  While we were together, she did not get that she was being fed bullshit for the benefit of others.

    I pity her, but I can’t extend sympathy.

  104. @Talha
    @songbird


    Two criticisms I’d make of the modern stuff.
     
    I haven't kept up with much of the recent stuff to be honest. I think only "13 Assassins" (which was great) and some other comic-turned-into-a-movie about a samurai that can't die because he has these worms that constantly heal his injuries - interesting, but not memorable.

    They also have gay characters, though I suppose it is not so quite in your face – it doesn’t seem as political.
     
    I think the main reason for this is that in the West, being gay has become an identity. It becomes a primary identity, thus an attack on that aspect is an attack on the core essence of the human being itself. Many other cultures understood that most human beings are on some sort of a sexual spectrum; the vast majority tend to be attracted to the opposite sex and repulsed by the same sex while a small minority are on the other side of the spectrum with some others being somewhere in the middle that could indulge in acts with one or the other given a certain set of circumstances. And certain sub-cultures developed out of it like the pederasty in ancient Greece or among certain Samurai or even certain Janissaries. And some poets in the past wrote either openly or surreptitiously about same-sex relations. But it was just something someone did because they liked it or wanted to. I used to enjoy reading some of Gore Vidal's essays and articles (though I didn't agree with a good amount of his politics, his incisive wit and style was quite a pleasure to read), and he too famously refused to agree to these categories (though it was known he had a male partner):
    Interviewing Gore Vidal for the London Times in 2009, I suggested that had he achieved his ultimate ambition, he would have been America’s first gay president. Vidal retorted, “No, I would have married and had nine children. I don’t believe in these exclusive terms.” Indeed he didn’t: Vidal, who died in 2012, famously believed in gay sexual acts (which, with hustlers, he certainly enjoyed), but not gay people. And he said he was bisexual, although his relationships with women, apart from early fumblings, were nonsexual, though deep with those closest to him, like Joanne Woodward and Claire Bloom. He said he and his partner, Howard Austen, had, for the majority of their 53-year relationship, not had sex. He never came out; the notion of coming out was anathema to him.
    https://www.out.com/entertainment/art-books/2014/01/07/why-gore-vidal-refused-identify-gay

    "'Trying to make categories is very American, very stupid, and very dangerous.' Gore Vidal’s refusal to identify as gay was consistent with a man who worshipped ancient Greece, but was out of step with the times in which he lived."

    Look for him to potentially be cancelled soon as a self-hating homo.

    Peace.

    Replies: @songbird

    a samurai that can’t die because he has these worms that constantly heal his injuries

    Sounds interesting. In Irish mythology, there was a certain sword that was said to cast a shadow that allowed one to see the worms inside a person. Maybe, they should have had that in the movie too.

    In the West, it seems like homosexuals in entertainment media are almost always a subversion. Like, they will take two male friends and then accuse them of being gay, in order to discourage men from having friends and forming masculine ideals, which challenge the current culture of feminism. Or, they will take fictional characters, that were written with traditional love stories – man and woman – and then they will insert a gay subplot, where the man kisses his male friend (I’ve seen this in a Shakespearean play), as though to suggest that there is no such thing as love between a man and a woman.

    I honestly don’t know a lot about Gore Vidal, but I kind of hate him for inserting one of these gay subplots in the movie Ben Hur, which otherwise would be a very excellent movie, and even one with strong Christian themes.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @songbird


    Sounds interesting.
     
    Here you go - I finally remembered its name. See if you like it (really bizarre that it seems to have some kind of hip-hop track as the background in the advertisement aimed at US audiences):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pc5ikveEjA

    In the West, it seems like homosexuals in entertainment media are almost always a subversion.
     
    Yeah, it does often seem like this.

    I kind of hate him for inserting one of these gay subplots in the movie Ben Hur
     
    Did not know about this.

    Peace.
  105. @dfordoom
    @Talha


    Some great examples I hadn’t thought of because they were before my time, but yeah…
     
    Well Nell Gwynn was a bit before my time as well!

    As I said; given what I have seen with my own eyes, I simply cannot see why some of these other things can’t become legal within my lifetime.
     
    The fascinating/scary thing is that there's just no way to predict what will come next. The transsexual thing was something so bizarre that when it started almost all conservatives thought that this time the SJWs had gone too far, that there was no way that it wouldn't provoke a backlash. But there was no backlash at all. It went from being an impossibly bizarre idea to being totally mainstream in less than a decade.

    My feeling is that the Silent Majority that social conservatives rely on so much just doesn't exist any more. It's not that it's become a Silent Minority - it's become a minuscule and totally irrelevant minority that SJWs can simply ignore entirely. The transsexual thing also shows that Christians (or the overwhelming majority of Christians) are never ever going to draw a line in the sand. No matter how horrifyingly extreme and weird the next issue on the sexual battlefront might be Christians will meekly surrender.

    It's notable that in Britain the only resistance to the LGBT agenda has come from Muslims.

    Replies: @Talha, @Talha, @Audacious Epigone, @V. K. Ovelund

    It’s not that it’s become a Silent Minority – it’s become a minuscule and totally irrelevant minority that SJWs can simply ignore entirely.

    I hear you and I think this may well be the case in much of Europe, but the US is potentially another kind of beast. Justice Amy Coney Barnett got the seat despite much protest from SJWs, so that’s something. I don’t think a person like her would have gotten much traction in much of Europe, but I may well be wrong as I don’t know how their judges are selected.

    Then again, she may fold on issues like Chief Justice Roberts, but we will have to wait and see.

    It’s notable that in Britain the only resistance to the LGBT agenda has come from Muslims.

    May they stay steadfast and not buckle.

    Peace.

  106. @songbird
    @Talha


    a samurai that can’t die because he has these worms that constantly heal his injuries
     
    Sounds interesting. In Irish mythology, there was a certain sword that was said to cast a shadow that allowed one to see the worms inside a person. Maybe, they should have had that in the movie too.

    In the West, it seems like homosexuals in entertainment media are almost always a subversion. Like, they will take two male friends and then accuse them of being gay, in order to discourage men from having friends and forming masculine ideals, which challenge the current culture of feminism. Or, they will take fictional characters, that were written with traditional love stories - man and woman - and then they will insert a gay subplot, where the man kisses his male friend (I've seen this in a Shakespearean play), as though to suggest that there is no such thing as love between a man and a woman.

    I honestly don't know a lot about Gore Vidal, but I kind of hate him for inserting one of these gay subplots in the movie Ben Hur, which otherwise would be a very excellent movie, and even one with strong Christian themes.

    Replies: @Talha

    Sounds interesting.

    Here you go – I finally remembered its name. See if you like it (really bizarre that it seems to have some kind of hip-hop track as the background in the advertisement aimed at US audiences):

    In the West, it seems like homosexuals in entertainment media are almost always a subversion.

    Yeah, it does often seem like this.

    I kind of hate him for inserting one of these gay subplots in the movie Ben Hur

    Did not know about this.

    Peace.

    • Thanks: songbird
  107. @Yahya K.
    @nebulafox


    It’s all so much virtue signalling, and even many blacks are aware of that.

     

    I agree. But would you not allow that some genuinely do hold sincere views regarding blacks, even if it is accompanied with sanctimonious piety? I've come across several UMC Americans who seem to genuinely believe that blacks have been "brutalized for decades" by the police "with impunity". (And not all of them are crazy woke 'critical theory' true believers)

    I'm not going to argue about the truth of that proposition. But it seems that many in this forum are quick to dismiss any of the BLM arguments out of hand. And I can see why you would do so. It is hard to accept the arguments of people who hold you in contempt, and are otherwise annoying in their attitude towards people like you. But is there no merit in their arguments whatsoever? Are there ways the police is misbehaving in some areas, that can be improved by some policing reforms? I haven't seen anyone here concede some points to the other side.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    But is there no merit in their arguments whatsoever? Are there ways the police is misbehaving in some areas, that can be improved by some policing reforms? I haven’t seen anyone here concede some points to the other side.

    Police misbehaviour is always a problem. Firstly, because it’s a profession that does in many cases attract the wrong people. It attracts people who like pushing other people around. I’m certainly not saying all cops (or even most cops) are like that but you’ll always have some cops who are exactly like that. And they need to be rooted out, mercilessly.

    Secondly, because cops are in practice pretty much above the law. There’s no way to avoid that, but it is possible (and necessary) to try to make cops accountable.

    Thirdly, you’ll always have an Us vs Them police culture. You can’t avoid it but you can take steps to minimise it a little.

    When you have these basic problems and you have police armed to the teeth and sometimes (not always but sometimes) poorly trained you have a recipe for trouble.

    So I think BLM are correct that there is a problem but they’re wrong in seeing it as a problem of racism. It’s a problem of police culture.

    But the Right really really does not want to admit that there are any systemic problems at all with the police. People on the Right seem to have an instinctive drive to bow down and worship cops (just as they bow down and worship the military). There’s something about a man in uniform that makes right-wingers want to grovel.

    • Agree: Yahya K.
    • Replies: @Talha
    @dfordoom

    And I would add that practically everything you stated is not a problem unique to America, but generally summarizes multiple issues that come with police forces everywhere to a greater or lesser degree. Each culture has its own tolerance levels as well; some places you expect to get slapped around by the cops or give them a nominal bribe at any encounter.

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  108. @dfordoom
    @Yahya K.


    But is there no merit in their arguments whatsoever? Are there ways the police is misbehaving in some areas, that can be improved by some policing reforms? I haven’t seen anyone here concede some points to the other side.
     
    Police misbehaviour is always a problem. Firstly, because it's a profession that does in many cases attract the wrong people. It attracts people who like pushing other people around. I'm certainly not saying all cops (or even most cops) are like that but you'll always have some cops who are exactly like that. And they need to be rooted out, mercilessly.

    Secondly, because cops are in practice pretty much above the law. There's no way to avoid that, but it is possible (and necessary) to try to make cops accountable.

    Thirdly, you'll always have an Us vs Them police culture. You can't avoid it but you can take steps to minimise it a little.

    When you have these basic problems and you have police armed to the teeth and sometimes (not always but sometimes) poorly trained you have a recipe for trouble.

    So I think BLM are correct that there is a problem but they're wrong in seeing it as a problem of racism. It's a problem of police culture.

    But the Right really really does not want to admit that there are any systemic problems at all with the police. People on the Right seem to have an instinctive drive to bow down and worship cops (just as they bow down and worship the military). There's something about a man in uniform that makes right-wingers want to grovel.

    Replies: @Talha

    And I would add that practically everything you stated is not a problem unique to America, but generally summarizes multiple issues that come with police forces everywhere to a greater or lesser degree. Each culture has its own tolerance levels as well; some places you expect to get slapped around by the cops or give them a nominal bribe at any encounter.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Talha


    And I would add that practically everything you stated is not a problem unique to America, but generally summarizes multiple issues that come with police forces everywhere to a greater or lesser degree.
     
    Yes, absolutely. Which of course I should have made clear.

    In Australia they're very unlikely to shoot you but some Australian cops are definitely very unpleasant people and increasingly they seem to be badly trained - they lose their cool way too quickly. If you're a cop and you lose your cool you should go looking for another job.

    In Australia the female cops are the worst.

    Australian cops on the streets are also too young. You can call the cops and have two 23-year-olds show up and they haven't got a clue what they're doing.

    Each culture has its own tolerance levels as well; some places you expect to get slapped around by the cops or give them a nominal bribe at any encounter.
     
    I think I'd prefer corrupt cops to brutal cops.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  109. @songbird
    @dfordoom

    During the so-called Dark Ages, Europeans invented a new harness that allowed a horse to pull a plow without choking. Horses could now plow fields faster and thus more efficiently than oxen. This and other agricultural techniques like haying, allowed there to be food surpluses, which allowed for the feeding of professional soldiers. The professional soldiers, in turn, put a stop to raiders, like the Vikings and Muslim pirates. This provided a new level of stability, which assisted state-formation.

    Christianity helped motivate the age of exploration. (the search for new souls to save and for Prester John as an ally against Muslims). When the potato was introduced to Europe, that was another massive gain. Not only was it high in energy and not only could it grow in poor soil, but you could leave it in the field for a while, unlike wheat. This made it a lot harder for armies to confiscate it and starve the peasants. Peasant population exploded.

    The Enlightenment is a progressive myth. It was the potato, and perhaps the gun, which led Europe to its civilizational peak.

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom

    During the so-called Dark Ages, Europeans invented a new harness that allowed a horse to pull a plow without choking.

    And eyeglasses were a mediæval invention and had a huge impact on intellectual life. A man’s intellectual life was no longer more or less over when his eyesight started to fail.

    So yes, there was technological progress. But it was agonisingly slow.

    Christianity helped motivate the age of exploration.

    Saving more souls was often used as a justification or a rationalisation for colonialism. I’m not at all convinced that it was a major motivation.

    The Enlightenment is a progressive myth.

    It’s a myth in the sense that the modern world did not just suddenly spring into existence out of nowhere. But I think there’s some truth to it. What’s startling about western Europe in the post-mediæval period is the massive acceleration of scientific and technological progress.

    Would Europe have started to progress so quickly without the Reformation to undermine the absolute authority of the Church? Would progress have continued to accelerate without the growing secularisation of the West which encouraged thinkers to doubt everything? I personally doubt it. Personally I suspect that scientific and technological progress would have proceeded, but very much more slowly.

    And if scientific and technological progress had continued at mediæval pace the West might not yet have caught up with Imperial China.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    Would Europe have started to progress so quickly without the Reformation to undermine the absolute authority of the Church?
     
    Good grief. The cartoonish ignorance is truly dizzying.

    The Catholic Church did not have "absolute authority" in Western Europe. Are you even aware of the history of the conflict between the papacy and the secular rulers? Several popes were deposed, imprisoned, and exiled. The tension between the Church and the secular rulers arguably had many unintended (perhaps not so unintended - "Render unto Caesar" and all that) benefits for Western Christendom and the evolution of its society.

    And the Reformation didn't do what you think it did. It suborned the church in the affected areas to the national government and became a tool of total dominance (and absolute monarchy). Far from making the subjects of those nations more free, it made them less so by removing the option to appeal to the Church for remedy and sanctuary when oppressed by the secular rulers.


    no non-Japanese person has the slightest idea what makes the Japanese tick.
     
    This is the kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense that superficial people say at cocktail parties to sound cosmopolitan.

    There is nothing mystical about the Japanese. They are people like any other. If you understand their history and study their society, it's not hard to understand who they are and why they are "just so."

    , @songbird
    @dfordoom


    Saving more souls was often used as a justification or a rationalisation for colonialism. I’m not at all convinced that it was a major motivation.
     
    We don't live in religious times, so I think that makes us question the spiritual motivations that people had in the past somewhat unfairly. Of course, faith was always tied to the legitimacy of rule, so it is hard to separate the two things. But remember, the Spanish were dealing with people who committed human sacrifice and engaged in cannibalism - so it was easy to perceive conversion as a moral good. And converts were to be treated better, and internal secular documents speak about their souls (for instance the letters of Columbus.)

    Would Europe have started to progress so quickly without the Reformation to undermine the absolute authority of the Church?
     
    IMO, as populations grew this changed the traditional strategic importance of places, making the Mediterranean less important, and Atlantic or North Sea-facing regions more important. (For instance, consider the rise of the Normans - they ruled Sicily for a while, as good Catholics). After the Reformation, this created a bit of a distortion, where Protestant countries seemed to grow in importance, but really it was just Northern European countries growing in importance, as their populations and volume of trade grew.

    Consider how Southern and Northern Europe would have probably had very similar pagan religions during the bronze age, but the North was a relative backwater. It was very hard to cut down old-growth oaks in cold winter climates before iron. (I encourage anyone to try cutting a pine vs. an oak, it is hard to cut oak, even with a chainsaw). Very hard to farm the land, and it could not support anywhere close to the same population as the South.

    Of course, there may have also been some genetic factors also at play. The excesses of the Reformation (like painting over beautiful murals) certainly seem to parallel some of those of the SJWs of today, which seem a bit more concentrated in Germanic or Scandinavian countries.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  110. @Talha
    @dfordoom


    The Japanese seem to love toilet jokes even more than the English.
     
    Not surprising. I was just discussing with someone on another thread how the Japanese are just very enigmatic to figure out for many outsiders. You have a very intelligent and orderly society into refined manners of respect and social propriety...and yet they hold open fertility rituals with large phalluses while not actually having many kids:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E396_PCRXIA

    It’s worth remembering that the English gave the world both Shakespeare and Benny Hill. Both are accurate reflections of English culture.
     
    LOOOL! Yeah! British wit has always amused me. You could have mentioned Monty Python as well.

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Not surprising. I was just discussing with someone on another thread how the Japanese are just very enigmatic to figure out for many outsiders. You have a very intelligent and orderly society into refined manners of respect and social propriety…and yet they hold open fertility rituals with large phalluses while not actually having many kids

    I think the truth about what makes the Japanese tick is that no non-Japanese person has the slightest idea what makes the Japanese tick. That’s why Japanese culture is endlessly fascinating. It keeps surprising you.

    • Agree: Talha
  111. @Talha
    @Twinkie


    You assumed hostility where it did not exist
     
    If that is the case, then my apologies for mistaking your initial intention.

    Peace.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Talha, I assume you meant well by that apology and I appreciate it. However, I would like to note that I am not a fan of conditional apologies (“If…”) that are in vogue these days.

    My take on apologies is that, regardless how the other party felt, if one felt that one was wrong, he ought to apologize manfully and unconditionally. If he felt that he was not, he should steadfastly hold on to his position on the matter regardless of “feelings.”

    Conditional apologies – a particularly popular and egregious example is “If you felt offended, then I am sorry” – strike me as, well, passive-aggressive, the true message of which seems to be “Well, I didn’t really do anything wrong, but you seem angry and, while that’s really on you, I don’t want to suffer the consequences of that anger and I want to look like the bigger person.”

    In any case, this is a pet peeve of mine… when people begin apologies with “If…”

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Twinkie

    No, I meant it sincerely and there wasn’t any condition or anything having to do with emotions or feelings; I don’t like it when people misconstrue my words and insist I meant something else when I did not, so I have to be consistent and grant others the same courtesy. You said that it was a friendly jibe and I frankly misunderstood the intention from the beginning, thus misinterpreted the tone. It’s not fun to admit wrong and apologize, but it is a good lesson in stepping on the ego - so there is an added spiritual benefit to oneself.

    Be well and I hope your marital bliss lasts as long as you both do.

    Peace.

  112. @Talha
    @dfordoom

    And I would add that practically everything you stated is not a problem unique to America, but generally summarizes multiple issues that come with police forces everywhere to a greater or lesser degree. Each culture has its own tolerance levels as well; some places you expect to get slapped around by the cops or give them a nominal bribe at any encounter.

    Peace.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    And I would add that practically everything you stated is not a problem unique to America, but generally summarizes multiple issues that come with police forces everywhere to a greater or lesser degree.

    Yes, absolutely. Which of course I should have made clear.

    In Australia they’re very unlikely to shoot you but some Australian cops are definitely very unpleasant people and increasingly they seem to be badly trained – they lose their cool way too quickly. If you’re a cop and you lose your cool you should go looking for another job.

    In Australia the female cops are the worst.

    Australian cops on the streets are also too young. You can call the cops and have two 23-year-olds show up and they haven’t got a clue what they’re doing.

    Each culture has its own tolerance levels as well; some places you expect to get slapped around by the cops or give them a nominal bribe at any encounter.

    I think I’d prefer corrupt cops to brutal cops.

    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom


    I think I’d prefer corrupt cops to brutal cops.
     
    Try dealing with both.  I've got the medical and other records to prove it.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  113. @Yahya K.
    @dfordoom


    It seems likely that the peculiar genius of western civilisation is actually pre-Christian
     
    Pre-Christian West certainly had its role in Western civilization's achievements. Aristotle and Plato set the intellectual tone that would later define the West. Things like the scientific method developed from their ideas of science, as incomplete as they were.

    But if you look at Charles Murray's inventory of human accomplishment, it is clear that most of the West's accomplishment came after 1400 A.D. Pre-Christian West (Greece and Rome) had made great strides, but they were mostly concentrated among a few achievers and achievements (Euclid, Aristotle etc.). Post-1400 West, on the other hand, had a variety of achievements and significant figures ranging from Machiavelli to Newton.

    From Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment:
    http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ed0MVuJWsAAOQAl.png

    Western civilisation also has its roots in pagan classical Mediterranean civilisation (and also in pagan northern European cultures). That might be a more important factor than Christianity. I’m not saying it is a more important factor, but it might be.
     
    How big the relative impact Christianity had on Western achievement is hard to quantify and therefore left to judgement. But a good question to ask is: did other regions of the world who adopted Christianity experience the same results as the West? Looking at places like Latin America and the Philippines, the answer seems to be no. That doesn't mean Christianity didn’t aid the West, but it's almost definitely not the only causal variable in explaining their achievements post-1400.

    As a general rule, whenever there is an extraordinary outcome, there is almost always a confluence of 4-5+ variables coming together at the same time to create a non-linear outcome. So in the example of Western achievement from 1400-2000, which is by any standard an extraordinary event (see chart above), there is a variety at factors at play, not just one, or even two.

    As with any other historical event, it's hard to determine which factors played a casual role, but if I had to guess it would be a combination of a) increasing urbanization, b) out-breeding patterns, c) freedom of thought and action, d) increasing wealth.

    Two of these happened because of Christianity (a, b), one despite it (c.), and the other was not related (d).

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    Charles Murray’s inventory of human accomplishment

    Murray’s methodology has some serious problems. For one thing, it tends to favor known figures – which of course operates on a HUGE selection bias (and largely ignores or de-emphasizes unknown inventors and inventions, especially outside the West) and, for another, it also suffers from recency bias (what seems significant to us today). But it’s a good starting point for a discussion. And of course the effort itself is particularly Western-scientific in approach.

    Pre-Christian West certainly had its role in Western civilization’s achievements. Aristotle and Plato set the intellectual tone that would later define the West.

    I don’t disagree (and Catholics are often accused of “worshipping that pagan, Aristotle”), but ancient Greek achievements were brilliant, but very isolated and temporal sparks that, frankly, went nowhere, because they did not affect the social structure at large. Ancient Greek societies remained as clannish, corrupt, and backward (from our modern perspective) as other ancient societies. Ancient Romans were outstanding empire builders and engineers, but they did not advance the frontiers of human knowledge the way later Europeans did so decisively. That’s because, as Henrich would argue, their societies were as human beings had been from time immemorial, but merely larger and perhaps more complex. They simply were much better at the same “game” other ancient societies played. They were in no way “WEIRD” and their prominence in secularist mythology of pagan beginnings of the modern West is an ideological “retconning.”

    Post-1400 West, on the other hand, had a variety of achievements and significant figures ranging from Machiavelli to Newton.

    As is rather obvious to most, lasting scientific breakthroughs and achievements take a very LONG time to percolate. Individuals might be brilliant and inventive, but do not affect their societies in dramatic ways unless and until there is a network of knowledge-generating and -spreading infrastructure in place to take advantage of, and leverage, individual brilliance. This, by the way, another reason I suspect the Chinese – despite having early advantages of many powerful inventions that pre-date European ones – never entered into an scientific revolution as the West did (even setting aside obvious things such as paper, compass, and gun powder, the Chinese, for example, had sealed bulkheads in their ships – attested to as early as the 12th Century – that Europeans didn’t have until much later when it finally became widespread in the 19th Century). And more on that below.

    As a general rule, whenever there is an extraordinary outcome, there is almost always a confluence of 4-5+ variables coming together at the same time to create a non-linear outcome.

    I would phrase slightly differently. First of all, there are many “necessary, but not sufficient” conditions to such an extraordinary outcome as the Western European global dominance, some of which took centuries to accumulate and “percolate.” Secondly, such an outcome appears dramatic and surprising only because they are exponential (or multiplicative) in nature rather than geometric in growth. Differences appear very small at first, but accumulate explosively over time until it goes “bang.”

    if I had to guess it would be a combination of a) increasing urbanization, b) out-breeding patterns, c) freedom of thought and action, d) increasing wealth.

    Two of these happened because of Christianity (a, b), one despite it (c.), and the other was not related (d).

    Increasing urbanization and wealth (your factors a) and d)) are more symptoms than causal agents of this phenomenon. At best, they are proximate causes that beg a further question of what led to the urbanization and wealth.

    I believe the crucial factors – at least among those you cited – were b) and c) (but again, phrased slightly differently). Although one can quibble with some of the details, I think Henrich and others are largely right that the Catholic Church’s intolerance of cousin marriages and polygamy (particularly for the elites of the time) dramatically changed social organization in what we today call the West. It altered a very long-standing human organization (and allegiance to) extended family structure (clans, tribes) and revolutionized social psychology of Westerners. Again, for those who are interested in the nuts and bolts of the argument and the historical evidences, I would urge them to follow the link I provided above and do some reading.

    As for “c) freedom of thought and action,” I would re-conceptualize that as “organized and systemic pursuit of knowledge” as well as “protection from interference.” Here I do think you are wrong to follow the secularist mythmaking in believing that the Catholic Church (or Christianity in general) stood in opposition. On the contrary, many popes, cardinals, bishops, and clergy were keen on increasing human knowledge and were patrons of learning, the arts, and medicine. I already discussed briefly above the fact that the papacy and the Catholic Church in general were crucial in founding many leading universities that laid the groundwork for the Western scientific revolution. Indeed the whole concept of a university is a medieval Catholic invention (universitas magistorum et scholarium) – there is a reason why my diplomas are all in Latin!

    Moreover, these diplomas confer “immunities and privileges” – terms that may make the modern reader scratch his head, but had very specific meaning in the medieval period. Far from being opponents of knowledge advancement, Church-sponsored and -privileged universities gave protection to those engaged in scientific research (however imperfectly by the modern standards of academic freedom). In those days, “doctors and students” of science had the most fear from persecutions of the lay people or the local rulers of the city where they were located (a remnant tradition of this still exists in the form of the communal tension university professors and students have with “townies” and local governments to this day). The Church conferred clergy-like immunities and privileges to those at the university, so that they had the protection of the Church and could appeal to it when thusly persecuted by the locals. So instead of being “tried” by the local mob or the secular court of the local government, these early scientists had a right of appeal to the bishop in the area (who – being much more educated – was generally far more sympathetic to such appeals than the locals).

    Most people these days buy into the secularist and anti-Christian mythmaking (not surprising given the dominance of left) and are completely unaware of the actual dynamic that the Church played in establishing what we today call “academic freedom” (likewise, those ignorant of history often bring up events such as the Spanish Inquisition, because they don’t realize that this was a device, with which the Spanish crown sought to secure and extend its power, rather than something driven by the Church – indeed, one of the notable components of the Spanish Inquisition was punishing by death any appeal to the Church when accused by the Inquisition).

    So not “despite” – the Catholic Church actively (again, if imperfectly by today’s standards) encouraged systematic scholarship and helped to lay the foundations of later scientific breakthroughs in the West, and were, in fact, direct sponsor of many universities.

  114. @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    You are engaging in a straw man. First of all, I didn’t bring up the Catholic Christian foundation of universities to extol “free enquiry.”
     
    You're the one who made the claim that the West is "the most prosperous, free, and advanced" society in history and then brought up the mediæval foundations of universities in the course of the same discussion about the supposed contribution of Christianity to the building of a prosperous, free, and advanced society. So it's entirely relevant for me to point out that the mediæval universities made little or no contribution to the building of "the most prosperous, free, and advanced" society.

    Contrary to secularist mythmaking of non-religious “freethinkers” demolishing Christian “superstition” and founding modernity, much that undergirds the modern and Western societies emerged out of the medieval period.
     
    And much that undergirds the modern and Western societies goes back to classical antiquity. And pre-Christian pagan northern Europe.

    I do not subscribe to the view that the mediæval period was an age of barbarism. Not do I believe that Christianity made no contribution to the building of modern western civilisation. What I was suggesting was that the particular features of western civilisation that you singled out for admiration (being prosperous, free and advanced) were probably not among the contributions that Christianity made. And certainly not among the contributions that Catholicism made.

    It's difficult to evade the fact that as Christianity started to decline the West became rapidly more free, more prosperous and more advanced. And as the decline of Christianity accelerated the move towards freedom, prosperity and advancement accelerated.

    Of course there is more to being a functional society than being free, prosperous and advanced. The United States today is free, prosperous and advanced but whether it's a functional society is debatable. It's possible that being free, prosperous and advanced comes at a very high price. But you're the one who singled out being free, prosperous and advanced as things to admire in our modern western societies.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    You’re the one who made the claim that the West is “the most prosperous, free, and advanced” society in history and then brought up the mediæval foundations of universities in the course of the same discussion about the supposed contribution of Christianity to the building of a prosperous, free, and advanced society. So it’s entirely relevant for me to point out that the mediæval universities made little or no contribution to the building of “the most prosperous, free, and advanced” society.

    You seem utterly incapable of comprehending even a minor level of nuance, because you are simply determined to hold fast to your anti-Christian prejudices.

    I do NOT believe “free inquiry” was responsible for the Western scientific progress and dominance, but what variable that were necessary for the latter were 1) systematic and organized ways of learning and knowledge advancement and 2) protection from interference. Please see my reply to Yahya above. It would certainly be a most extraordinary (and historically ignorant and baffling) claim to say that the rise of the centers of learning in the late medieval period did not contribute greatly to the Western scientific revolution – unless one were simply protesting such a connection, because – what do you know! – the Catholic Church sponsored the foundation of many such institutions.

    And much that undergirds the modern and Western societies goes back to classical antiquity. And pre-Christian pagan northern Europe.

    Keep repeating the same dogma doesn’t do anything. You criticize expulsion from Oxford for atheism in 1811 as an evidence for the university system not playing a role in Western knowledge advancement (!) and extol “classical antiquity” instead. Do you even know why Socrates was killed? He was killed for asebeia – there is your “free inquiry” for you. Stop repeating slogans and do some reading.

  115. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    During the so-called Dark Ages, Europeans invented a new harness that allowed a horse to pull a plow without choking.
     
    And eyeglasses were a mediæval invention and had a huge impact on intellectual life. A man's intellectual life was no longer more or less over when his eyesight started to fail.

    So yes, there was technological progress. But it was agonisingly slow.

    Christianity helped motivate the age of exploration.
     
    Saving more souls was often used as a justification or a rationalisation for colonialism. I'm not at all convinced that it was a major motivation.

    The Enlightenment is a progressive myth.
     
    It's a myth in the sense that the modern world did not just suddenly spring into existence out of nowhere. But I think there's some truth to it. What's startling about western Europe in the post-mediæval period is the massive acceleration of scientific and technological progress.

    Would Europe have started to progress so quickly without the Reformation to undermine the absolute authority of the Church? Would progress have continued to accelerate without the growing secularisation of the West which encouraged thinkers to doubt everything? I personally doubt it. Personally I suspect that scientific and technological progress would have proceeded, but very much more slowly.

    And if scientific and technological progress had continued at mediæval pace the West might not yet have caught up with Imperial China.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @songbird

    Would Europe have started to progress so quickly without the Reformation to undermine the absolute authority of the Church?

    Good grief. The cartoonish ignorance is truly dizzying.

    The Catholic Church did not have “absolute authority” in Western Europe. Are you even aware of the history of the conflict between the papacy and the secular rulers? Several popes were deposed, imprisoned, and exiled. The tension between the Church and the secular rulers arguably had many unintended (perhaps not so unintended – “Render unto Caesar” and all that) benefits for Western Christendom and the evolution of its society.

    And the Reformation didn’t do what you think it did. It suborned the church in the affected areas to the national government and became a tool of total dominance (and absolute monarchy). Far from making the subjects of those nations more free, it made them less so by removing the option to appeal to the Church for remedy and sanctuary when oppressed by the secular rulers.

    no non-Japanese person has the slightest idea what makes the Japanese tick.

    This is the kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense that superficial people say at cocktail parties to sound cosmopolitan.

    There is nothing mystical about the Japanese. They are people like any other. If you understand their history and study their society, it’s not hard to understand who they are and why they are “just so.”

  116. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    While I think there are probably multiple reasons why movies are getting dumber, the really scary one to me is this: the people making movies are getting dumber.
     
    Based on the very very rare occasions when I've listened to modern film-makers being interviewed I think that's highly likely.

    It's also possible that audiences (of all races) are getting dumber.

    Of course it's also possible that audiences never did want arty pretentious films, or the dreary Message Films that Hollywood used to inflict on them. They just wanted mindless fun.

    My experiences with younger people lead me to believe that the average white person is significantly dumber (or at least significantly less educated) than was the case forty years ago. The sheer overwhelming ignorance of most people under 40 is staggering.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @V. K. Ovelund

    The sheer overwhelming ignorance of most people under 40 is staggering.

    Well, you knew that I would take this bait, so here goes….

    Ignorance of what?

    Some people under 40 are preoccupied with the necessity to navigate the utter civilizational mess people over 45 have left them. They cannot spare attention to internalize the propaganda and nonsense our generation imagines to be knowledge.

    It’s not as though the population over 45 had distinguished itself by its facility with Latin declinations or its conversancy with Aristotle—nor generally by its capacity to propagate the great civilization it has inherited from worthier forebears. In Europe and the Anglosphere at least, the most distinctive proficiency the population over 45 has manifested is its novel competence at abuse of the birth-control pill.

    Present company sincerely excepted, what staggers in 2020 is not the ignorance of youth but the temerity of age.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    It’s not as though the population over 45 had distinguished itself by its facility with Latin declinations or its conversancy with Aristotle
     
    No kidding. Then again, this is a general "post-modern" social condition, of the rise of credentialism and the decline of education (in the truest sense of the word), and is not something limited to one generation or another. I would speculate that a large majority of Harvard graduates is unable to read Harvard's own diplomas. Even with your interlocutor, I pointed out how cartoonish his historical knowledge was ("the Reformation... undermine[d] the absolute authority of the Church...").

    It is, of course, true that every generation thinks it's smarter and more progressive than the one, which preceded it, and considers the next generation that follows it to be softer and more self-indulgent. Nonetheless, it's possible that each generation is indeed correct in those assessments. ;)

    So I will split the baby on this one: I agree with you that it is the present generation "in power" that created the societal conditions and molded the next generation, so blaming young people today for their lethargy and enervation is not an indictment of that generation, but a rather damning self-indictment of those in the Establishment. Yet, at the same time, the next generation IS objectively more self-indulgent and more psychologically brittle than the one prior to it. While much of the blame for that state can be laid at their parents, they also share some of the blame. These are not children, after all, and full-grown adult human beings have the spiritual and moral capacity to recognize failures and rise above them. And they have failed to exercise that freewill and rise above as a cohort and instead find comfort in easy "solutions" and indulge in stupid and degrading entertainment (video games, pornography, etc.).

    So, there is plenty of blame to go around and generational finger-pointing is worse than useless - it's counterproductive. I think people ought to remember and follow an ancient Greco-Bactrian inscription that urged:

    As a young man, control your passions.
    In the middle years, be just.
    As an old man, give good advice.
    Then die, without regret.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

    , @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund



    The sheer overwhelming ignorance of most people under 40 is staggering.
     
    Well, you knew that I would take this bait, so here goes….

    Ignorance of what?
     
    Just about everything. They simply don't understand how the world works. They don't understand how their own society works. They don't understand where their society came from. Their knowledge of history, by and large, is zero. It's not that events like the French Revolution are a mystery to them. Events like WW2 are a total mystery to them. They lack the broad general knowledge that people of earlier generations took for granted.

    I encountered a 40-year-old (with some tertiary qualifications) recently who didn't know who Shakespeare was. I'm not saying the person wasn't familiar with his work - she simply didn't know who he was. She was amazed to discover that the movie Romeo + Juliet wasn't an original story.

    I'm not saying it's their fault. They simply don't learn anything at all at school.

    To a significant proportion of the younger generations the world is a complete mystery. The reason they don't value our cultural traditions is that they don't know that we have any cultural traditions.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  117. @Twinkie
    @Talha

    Talha, I assume you meant well by that apology and I appreciate it. However, I would like to note that I am not a fan of conditional apologies ("If...") that are in vogue these days.

    My take on apologies is that, regardless how the other party felt, if one felt that one was wrong, he ought to apologize manfully and unconditionally. If he felt that he was not, he should steadfastly hold on to his position on the matter regardless of "feelings."

    Conditional apologies - a particularly popular and egregious example is "If you felt offended, then I am sorry" - strike me as, well, passive-aggressive, the true message of which seems to be "Well, I didn't really do anything wrong, but you seem angry and, while that's really on you, I don't want to suffer the consequences of that anger and I want to look like the bigger person."

    In any case, this is a pet peeve of mine... when people begin apologies with "If..."

    Replies: @Talha

    No, I meant it sincerely and there wasn’t any condition or anything having to do with emotions or feelings; I don’t like it when people misconstrue my words and insist I meant something else when I did not, so I have to be consistent and grant others the same courtesy. You said that it was a friendly jibe and I frankly misunderstood the intention from the beginning, thus misinterpreted the tone. It’s not fun to admit wrong and apologize, but it is a good lesson in stepping on the ego – so there is an added spiritual benefit to oneself.

    Be well and I hope your marital bliss lasts as long as you both do.

    Peace.

    • Thanks: Twinkie
  118. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The sheer overwhelming ignorance of most people under 40 is staggering.
     
    Well, you knew that I would take this bait, so here goes....

    Ignorance of what?

    Some people under 40 are preoccupied with the necessity to navigate the utter civilizational mess people over 45 have left them. They cannot spare attention to internalize the propaganda and nonsense our generation imagines to be knowledge.

    It's not as though the population over 45 had distinguished itself by its facility with Latin declinations or its conversancy with Aristotle—nor generally by its capacity to propagate the great civilization it has inherited from worthier forebears. In Europe and the Anglosphere at least, the most distinctive proficiency the population over 45 has manifested is its novel competence at abuse of the birth-control pill.

    Present company sincerely excepted, what staggers in 2020 is not the ignorance of youth but the temerity of age.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

    It’s not as though the population over 45 had distinguished itself by its facility with Latin declinations or its conversancy with Aristotle

    No kidding. Then again, this is a general “post-modern” social condition, of the rise of credentialism and the decline of education (in the truest sense of the word), and is not something limited to one generation or another. I would speculate that a large majority of Harvard graduates is unable to read Harvard’s own diplomas. Even with your interlocutor, I pointed out how cartoonish his historical knowledge was (“the Reformation… undermine[d] the absolute authority of the Church…”).

    It is, of course, true that every generation thinks it’s smarter and more progressive than the one, which preceded it, and considers the next generation that follows it to be softer and more self-indulgent. Nonetheless, it’s possible that each generation is indeed correct in those assessments. 😉

    So I will split the baby on this one: I agree with you that it is the present generation “in power” that created the societal conditions and molded the next generation, so blaming young people today for their lethargy and enervation is not an indictment of that generation, but a rather damning self-indictment of those in the Establishment. Yet, at the same time, the next generation IS objectively more self-indulgent and more psychologically brittle than the one prior to it. While much of the blame for that state can be laid at their parents, they also share some of the blame. These are not children, after all, and full-grown adult human beings have the spiritual and moral capacity to recognize failures and rise above them. And they have failed to exercise that freewill and rise above as a cohort and instead find comfort in easy “solutions” and indulge in stupid and degrading entertainment (video games, pornography, etc.).

    So, there is plenty of blame to go around and generational finger-pointing is worse than useless – it’s counterproductive. I think people ought to remember and follow an ancient Greco-Bactrian inscription that urged:

    As a young man, control your passions.
    In the middle years, be just.
    As an old man, give good advice.
    Then die, without regret.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    While much of the blame for that state can be laid at their parents, they also share some of the blame. These are not children, after all, and full-grown adult human beings have the spiritual and moral capacity to recognize failures and rise above them. And they have failed to exercise that freewill and rise above as a cohort and instead find comfort in easy “solutions” and indulge in stupid and degrading entertainment (video games, pornography, etc.).
     
    It is depressing to encounter people who not only know nothing of how the world works and how society works, they have no desire at all to find out. Apparently ignorance really is bliss.

    Of course for most of human history most people were like this. Somehow, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, we deluded ourselves into thinking that most people wanted an education, and we forced a certain amount of education on them. But people by and large don't want an education. They don't want to understand anything. They just want mindless distraction. Once it was gladiatorial games in the arena. Then it was things like bear-baiting. Now it's super-hero movies and video games. Given the choice most people will do anything to avoid learning.
    , @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    While much of the blame for that state can be laid at their parents, they also share some of the blame.
     
    The younger generation is going to have to shoulder all the responsibility, regardless of who is to blame. They have been left no choice.

    The generation born after about 1975 has obviously got serious problems but the generation born before 1975 lacks just grounds to criticize. The present, feckless, unnecessary civilizational collapse happened on the older generation's watch.

    The older generation ought at least to have the grace to own that.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

  119. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The sheer overwhelming ignorance of most people under 40 is staggering.
     
    Well, you knew that I would take this bait, so here goes....

    Ignorance of what?

    Some people under 40 are preoccupied with the necessity to navigate the utter civilizational mess people over 45 have left them. They cannot spare attention to internalize the propaganda and nonsense our generation imagines to be knowledge.

    It's not as though the population over 45 had distinguished itself by its facility with Latin declinations or its conversancy with Aristotle—nor generally by its capacity to propagate the great civilization it has inherited from worthier forebears. In Europe and the Anglosphere at least, the most distinctive proficiency the population over 45 has manifested is its novel competence at abuse of the birth-control pill.

    Present company sincerely excepted, what staggers in 2020 is not the ignorance of youth but the temerity of age.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

    The sheer overwhelming ignorance of most people under 40 is staggering.

    Well, you knew that I would take this bait, so here goes….

    Ignorance of what?

    Just about everything. They simply don’t understand how the world works. They don’t understand how their own society works. They don’t understand where their society came from. Their knowledge of history, by and large, is zero. It’s not that events like the French Revolution are a mystery to them. Events like WW2 are a total mystery to them. They lack the broad general knowledge that people of earlier generations took for granted.

    I encountered a 40-year-old (with some tertiary qualifications) recently who didn’t know who Shakespeare was. I’m not saying the person wasn’t familiar with his work – she simply didn’t know who he was. She was amazed to discover that the movie Romeo + Juliet wasn’t an original story.

    I’m not saying it’s their fault. They simply don’t learn anything at all at school.

    To a significant proportion of the younger generations the world is a complete mystery. The reason they don’t value our cultural traditions is that they don’t know that we have any cultural traditions.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    >Events like WW2 are a total mystery to them.

    How can you say that? I know Nazis Are Bad. Call of Duty taught me that. :P

    (In truth, I've never played it: never even owned a video game console growing up. But I think there's a reason that WWII is the sole historical event that Hollywood seems to remember. I occasionally wonder if Rome was like this about past glories like the Punic Wars as the empire started to crack.)

  120. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    It’s not as though the population over 45 had distinguished itself by its facility with Latin declinations or its conversancy with Aristotle
     
    No kidding. Then again, this is a general "post-modern" social condition, of the rise of credentialism and the decline of education (in the truest sense of the word), and is not something limited to one generation or another. I would speculate that a large majority of Harvard graduates is unable to read Harvard's own diplomas. Even with your interlocutor, I pointed out how cartoonish his historical knowledge was ("the Reformation... undermine[d] the absolute authority of the Church...").

    It is, of course, true that every generation thinks it's smarter and more progressive than the one, which preceded it, and considers the next generation that follows it to be softer and more self-indulgent. Nonetheless, it's possible that each generation is indeed correct in those assessments. ;)

    So I will split the baby on this one: I agree with you that it is the present generation "in power" that created the societal conditions and molded the next generation, so blaming young people today for their lethargy and enervation is not an indictment of that generation, but a rather damning self-indictment of those in the Establishment. Yet, at the same time, the next generation IS objectively more self-indulgent and more psychologically brittle than the one prior to it. While much of the blame for that state can be laid at their parents, they also share some of the blame. These are not children, after all, and full-grown adult human beings have the spiritual and moral capacity to recognize failures and rise above them. And they have failed to exercise that freewill and rise above as a cohort and instead find comfort in easy "solutions" and indulge in stupid and degrading entertainment (video games, pornography, etc.).

    So, there is plenty of blame to go around and generational finger-pointing is worse than useless - it's counterproductive. I think people ought to remember and follow an ancient Greco-Bactrian inscription that urged:

    As a young man, control your passions.
    In the middle years, be just.
    As an old man, give good advice.
    Then die, without regret.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

    While much of the blame for that state can be laid at their parents, they also share some of the blame. These are not children, after all, and full-grown adult human beings have the spiritual and moral capacity to recognize failures and rise above them. And they have failed to exercise that freewill and rise above as a cohort and instead find comfort in easy “solutions” and indulge in stupid and degrading entertainment (video games, pornography, etc.).

    It is depressing to encounter people who not only know nothing of how the world works and how society works, they have no desire at all to find out. Apparently ignorance really is bliss.

    Of course for most of human history most people were like this. Somehow, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, we deluded ourselves into thinking that most people wanted an education, and we forced a certain amount of education on them. But people by and large don’t want an education. They don’t want to understand anything. They just want mindless distraction. Once it was gladiatorial games in the arena. Then it was things like bear-baiting. Now it’s super-hero movies and video games. Given the choice most people will do anything to avoid learning.

  121. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    During the so-called Dark Ages, Europeans invented a new harness that allowed a horse to pull a plow without choking.
     
    And eyeglasses were a mediæval invention and had a huge impact on intellectual life. A man's intellectual life was no longer more or less over when his eyesight started to fail.

    So yes, there was technological progress. But it was agonisingly slow.

    Christianity helped motivate the age of exploration.
     
    Saving more souls was often used as a justification or a rationalisation for colonialism. I'm not at all convinced that it was a major motivation.

    The Enlightenment is a progressive myth.
     
    It's a myth in the sense that the modern world did not just suddenly spring into existence out of nowhere. But I think there's some truth to it. What's startling about western Europe in the post-mediæval period is the massive acceleration of scientific and technological progress.

    Would Europe have started to progress so quickly without the Reformation to undermine the absolute authority of the Church? Would progress have continued to accelerate without the growing secularisation of the West which encouraged thinkers to doubt everything? I personally doubt it. Personally I suspect that scientific and technological progress would have proceeded, but very much more slowly.

    And if scientific and technological progress had continued at mediæval pace the West might not yet have caught up with Imperial China.

    Replies: @Twinkie, @songbird

    Saving more souls was often used as a justification or a rationalisation for colonialism. I’m not at all convinced that it was a major motivation.

    We don’t live in religious times, so I think that makes us question the spiritual motivations that people had in the past somewhat unfairly. Of course, faith was always tied to the legitimacy of rule, so it is hard to separate the two things. But remember, the Spanish were dealing with people who committed human sacrifice and engaged in cannibalism – so it was easy to perceive conversion as a moral good. And converts were to be treated better, and internal secular documents speak about their souls (for instance the letters of Columbus.)

    Would Europe have started to progress so quickly without the Reformation to undermine the absolute authority of the Church?

    IMO, as populations grew this changed the traditional strategic importance of places, making the Mediterranean less important, and Atlantic or North Sea-facing regions more important. (For instance, consider the rise of the Normans – they ruled Sicily for a while, as good Catholics). After the Reformation, this created a bit of a distortion, where Protestant countries seemed to grow in importance, but really it was just Northern European countries growing in importance, as their populations and volume of trade grew.

    Consider how Southern and Northern Europe would have probably had very similar pagan religions during the bronze age, but the North was a relative backwater. It was very hard to cut down old-growth oaks in cold winter climates before iron. (I encourage anyone to try cutting a pine vs. an oak, it is hard to cut oak, even with a chainsaw). Very hard to farm the land, and it could not support anywhere close to the same population as the South.

    Of course, there may have also been some genetic factors also at play. The excesses of the Reformation (like painting over beautiful murals) certainly seem to parallel some of those of the SJWs of today, which seem a bit more concentrated in Germanic or Scandinavian countries.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @songbird


    We don’t live in religious times, so I think that makes us question the spiritual motivations that people had in the past somewhat unfairly.
     
    True. Colonialism was a bit like modern foreign policy - a mixture of cynicism, thieving, outright bastardry, idealism and (often misguided) emotional humanitarianism. There certainly were colonialists who were motivated by idealism. And, credit where it's due, Catholic missionaries in Latin America were often extraordinarily brave and noble. And were quite often martyred for their efforts.
  122. @dfordoom
    @Talha


    And I would add that practically everything you stated is not a problem unique to America, but generally summarizes multiple issues that come with police forces everywhere to a greater or lesser degree.
     
    Yes, absolutely. Which of course I should have made clear.

    In Australia they're very unlikely to shoot you but some Australian cops are definitely very unpleasant people and increasingly they seem to be badly trained - they lose their cool way too quickly. If you're a cop and you lose your cool you should go looking for another job.

    In Australia the female cops are the worst.

    Australian cops on the streets are also too young. You can call the cops and have two 23-year-olds show up and they haven't got a clue what they're doing.

    Each culture has its own tolerance levels as well; some places you expect to get slapped around by the cops or give them a nominal bribe at any encounter.
     
    I think I'd prefer corrupt cops to brutal cops.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    I think I’d prefer corrupt cops to brutal cops.

    Try dealing with both.  I’ve got the medical and other records to prove it.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Mr. Rational



    I think I’d prefer corrupt cops to brutal cops.
     
    Try dealing with both. I’ve got the medical and other records to prove it.
     
    Yep. Cops certainly can be both brutal and corrupt.

    The police are necessary but they should never be idealised or worshipped.
  123. @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund



    The sheer overwhelming ignorance of most people under 40 is staggering.
     
    Well, you knew that I would take this bait, so here goes….

    Ignorance of what?
     
    Just about everything. They simply don't understand how the world works. They don't understand how their own society works. They don't understand where their society came from. Their knowledge of history, by and large, is zero. It's not that events like the French Revolution are a mystery to them. Events like WW2 are a total mystery to them. They lack the broad general knowledge that people of earlier generations took for granted.

    I encountered a 40-year-old (with some tertiary qualifications) recently who didn't know who Shakespeare was. I'm not saying the person wasn't familiar with his work - she simply didn't know who he was. She was amazed to discover that the movie Romeo + Juliet wasn't an original story.

    I'm not saying it's their fault. They simply don't learn anything at all at school.

    To a significant proportion of the younger generations the world is a complete mystery. The reason they don't value our cultural traditions is that they don't know that we have any cultural traditions.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >Events like WW2 are a total mystery to them.

    How can you say that? I know Nazis Are Bad. Call of Duty taught me that. 😛

    (In truth, I’ve never played it: never even owned a video game console growing up. But I think there’s a reason that WWII is the sole historical event that Hollywood seems to remember. I occasionally wonder if Rome was like this about past glories like the Punic Wars as the empire started to crack.)

    • Agree: V. K. Ovelund
  124. @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund


    It’s not as though the population over 45 had distinguished itself by its facility with Latin declinations or its conversancy with Aristotle
     
    No kidding. Then again, this is a general "post-modern" social condition, of the rise of credentialism and the decline of education (in the truest sense of the word), and is not something limited to one generation or another. I would speculate that a large majority of Harvard graduates is unable to read Harvard's own diplomas. Even with your interlocutor, I pointed out how cartoonish his historical knowledge was ("the Reformation... undermine[d] the absolute authority of the Church...").

    It is, of course, true that every generation thinks it's smarter and more progressive than the one, which preceded it, and considers the next generation that follows it to be softer and more self-indulgent. Nonetheless, it's possible that each generation is indeed correct in those assessments. ;)

    So I will split the baby on this one: I agree with you that it is the present generation "in power" that created the societal conditions and molded the next generation, so blaming young people today for their lethargy and enervation is not an indictment of that generation, but a rather damning self-indictment of those in the Establishment. Yet, at the same time, the next generation IS objectively more self-indulgent and more psychologically brittle than the one prior to it. While much of the blame for that state can be laid at their parents, they also share some of the blame. These are not children, after all, and full-grown adult human beings have the spiritual and moral capacity to recognize failures and rise above them. And they have failed to exercise that freewill and rise above as a cohort and instead find comfort in easy "solutions" and indulge in stupid and degrading entertainment (video games, pornography, etc.).

    So, there is plenty of blame to go around and generational finger-pointing is worse than useless - it's counterproductive. I think people ought to remember and follow an ancient Greco-Bactrian inscription that urged:

    As a young man, control your passions.
    In the middle years, be just.
    As an old man, give good advice.
    Then die, without regret.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @V. K. Ovelund

    While much of the blame for that state can be laid at their parents, they also share some of the blame.

    The younger generation is going to have to shoulder all the responsibility, regardless of who is to blame. They have been left no choice.

    The generation born after about 1975 has obviously got serious problems but the generation born before 1975 lacks just grounds to criticize. The present, feckless, unnecessary civilizational collapse happened on the older generation’s watch.

    The older generation ought at least to have the grace to own that.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @V. K. Ovelund


    The present, feckless, unnecessary civilizational collapse happened on the older generation’s watch.

    The older generation ought at least to have the grace to own that.
     
    There's no such thing as "generations" - so-called generations are just arbitrary collections of individuals. There were members of the Silent Generation who were among the most stupid, muddle-headed, misguided, foolish and dangerous people who ever walked the Earth. And there were members of the Silent Generation who were decent, sensible and noble. It's the same with the Boomers. And every other "generation" as well.

    Some of the Boomers when they were young were wrong about a lot of things, and some were right about a lot of things.

    Generations are meaningless. Class, ideology, religious affiliation - these are real things. Generations are not real things.

    Collective guilt and collective blame applied to generations are equally invalid and equally silly.

    That doesn't change the fact that educational standards started to collapse in the 1970s (as result of decisions made by some particularly foolish and destructive members of the Silent Generation) and educational standards have continued to plummet. No generation is inherently wicked or stupid but over the past fifty years each new birth cohort has been less well educated than the preceding one.
    , @Twinkie
    @V. K. Ovelund

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/election-ptsd-trump-clinton/2020/10/31/da48be28-1a08-11eb-82db-60b15c874105_story.html


    “People were crying [after Trump’s 2016 victory]. We’re Gen Z. We don’t really remember 9/11, but I feel like this must have been what it was like. People were just crying in the open hallways, people were sobbing,” Bollinger said. “We were so afraid and filled with dread.”
     
  125. @songbird
    @dfordoom


    Saving more souls was often used as a justification or a rationalisation for colonialism. I’m not at all convinced that it was a major motivation.
     
    We don't live in religious times, so I think that makes us question the spiritual motivations that people had in the past somewhat unfairly. Of course, faith was always tied to the legitimacy of rule, so it is hard to separate the two things. But remember, the Spanish were dealing with people who committed human sacrifice and engaged in cannibalism - so it was easy to perceive conversion as a moral good. And converts were to be treated better, and internal secular documents speak about their souls (for instance the letters of Columbus.)

    Would Europe have started to progress so quickly without the Reformation to undermine the absolute authority of the Church?
     
    IMO, as populations grew this changed the traditional strategic importance of places, making the Mediterranean less important, and Atlantic or North Sea-facing regions more important. (For instance, consider the rise of the Normans - they ruled Sicily for a while, as good Catholics). After the Reformation, this created a bit of a distortion, where Protestant countries seemed to grow in importance, but really it was just Northern European countries growing in importance, as their populations and volume of trade grew.

    Consider how Southern and Northern Europe would have probably had very similar pagan religions during the bronze age, but the North was a relative backwater. It was very hard to cut down old-growth oaks in cold winter climates before iron. (I encourage anyone to try cutting a pine vs. an oak, it is hard to cut oak, even with a chainsaw). Very hard to farm the land, and it could not support anywhere close to the same population as the South.

    Of course, there may have also been some genetic factors also at play. The excesses of the Reformation (like painting over beautiful murals) certainly seem to parallel some of those of the SJWs of today, which seem a bit more concentrated in Germanic or Scandinavian countries.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    We don’t live in religious times, so I think that makes us question the spiritual motivations that people had in the past somewhat unfairly.

    True. Colonialism was a bit like modern foreign policy – a mixture of cynicism, thieving, outright bastardry, idealism and (often misguided) emotional humanitarianism. There certainly were colonialists who were motivated by idealism. And, credit where it’s due, Catholic missionaries in Latin America were often extraordinarily brave and noble. And were quite often martyred for their efforts.

  126. @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom


    I think I’d prefer corrupt cops to brutal cops.
     
    Try dealing with both.  I've got the medical and other records to prove it.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    I think I’d prefer corrupt cops to brutal cops.

    Try dealing with both. I’ve got the medical and other records to prove it.

    Yep. Cops certainly can be both brutal and corrupt.

    The police are necessary but they should never be idealised or worshipped.

    • Agree: Talha
  127. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    While much of the blame for that state can be laid at their parents, they also share some of the blame.
     
    The younger generation is going to have to shoulder all the responsibility, regardless of who is to blame. They have been left no choice.

    The generation born after about 1975 has obviously got serious problems but the generation born before 1975 lacks just grounds to criticize. The present, feckless, unnecessary civilizational collapse happened on the older generation's watch.

    The older generation ought at least to have the grace to own that.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    The present, feckless, unnecessary civilizational collapse happened on the older generation’s watch.

    The older generation ought at least to have the grace to own that.

    There’s no such thing as “generations” – so-called generations are just arbitrary collections of individuals. There were members of the Silent Generation who were among the most stupid, muddle-headed, misguided, foolish and dangerous people who ever walked the Earth. And there were members of the Silent Generation who were decent, sensible and noble. It’s the same with the Boomers. And every other “generation” as well.

    Some of the Boomers when they were young were wrong about a lot of things, and some were right about a lot of things.

    Generations are meaningless. Class, ideology, religious affiliation – these are real things. Generations are not real things.

    Collective guilt and collective blame applied to generations are equally invalid and equally silly.

    That doesn’t change the fact that educational standards started to collapse in the 1970s (as result of decisions made by some particularly foolish and destructive members of the Silent Generation) and educational standards have continued to plummet. No generation is inherently wicked or stupid but over the past fifty years each new birth cohort has been less well educated than the preceding one.

    • Agree: iffen
  128. @dfordoom
    @Talha


    Some great examples I hadn’t thought of because they were before my time, but yeah…
     
    Well Nell Gwynn was a bit before my time as well!

    As I said; given what I have seen with my own eyes, I simply cannot see why some of these other things can’t become legal within my lifetime.
     
    The fascinating/scary thing is that there's just no way to predict what will come next. The transsexual thing was something so bizarre that when it started almost all conservatives thought that this time the SJWs had gone too far, that there was no way that it wouldn't provoke a backlash. But there was no backlash at all. It went from being an impossibly bizarre idea to being totally mainstream in less than a decade.

    My feeling is that the Silent Majority that social conservatives rely on so much just doesn't exist any more. It's not that it's become a Silent Minority - it's become a minuscule and totally irrelevant minority that SJWs can simply ignore entirely. The transsexual thing also shows that Christians (or the overwhelming majority of Christians) are never ever going to draw a line in the sand. No matter how horrifyingly extreme and weird the next issue on the sexual battlefront might be Christians will meekly surrender.

    It's notable that in Britain the only resistance to the LGBT agenda has come from Muslims.

    Replies: @Talha, @Talha, @Audacious Epigone, @V. K. Ovelund

    The fascinating/scary thing is that there’s just no way to predict what will come next.

    Here you go…
    “Oregon could become the first U.S. state to decriminalize possessing hard drugs like heroin, cocaine and LSD in a ballot measure during Tuesday’s election.”
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/523743-oregon-voters-to-decide-on-decriminalizing-heroin-cocaine-and-lsd

    Peace.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Talha


    Yes on 110, the organization sponsoring the ballot measure, stresses that the act does not legalize any drugs.

    “No change is made in the criminal code for delivery, manufacture, and other commercial drug offenses. These offenses will remain a crime,” according to the website. “No change is made for other crimes that may be associated with drug use, such as driving under the influence and theft.”
     

    If voters pass Measure 110, users found in low-level possession of the substances would have the option of paying $100 fines or attending new, free addiction recovery centers instead of being arrested and facing jail time, The Associated Press reported.
     
    I’d support this if the choice were not that between a fine and a recovery center, but that between jail time and recovery center. I like what Rhode Island is doing for some drug offenders: https://youtu.be/bpAi70WWBlw
    (The documentary is about the decay of Seattle due to homelessness from drug addiction and mental illness, and offers the Rhode Island model as a solution.)

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

  129. @Talha
    @dfordoom


    The fascinating/scary thing is that there’s just no way to predict what will come next.
     
    Here you go...
    “Oregon could become the first U.S. state to decriminalize possessing hard drugs like heroin, cocaine and LSD in a ballot measure during Tuesday's election.”
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/523743-oregon-voters-to-decide-on-decriminalizing-heroin-cocaine-and-lsd

    Peace.

    Replies: @Twinkie

    Yes on 110, the organization sponsoring the ballot measure, stresses that the act does not legalize any drugs.

    “No change is made in the criminal code for delivery, manufacture, and other commercial drug offenses. These offenses will remain a crime,” according to the website. “No change is made for other crimes that may be associated with drug use, such as driving under the influence and theft.”

    If voters pass Measure 110, users found in low-level possession of the substances would have the option of paying $100 fines or attending new, free addiction recovery centers instead of being arrested and facing jail time, The Associated Press reported.

    I’d support this if the choice were not that between a fine and a recovery center, but that between jail time and recovery center. I like what Rhode Island is doing for some drug offenders:

    (The documentary is about the decay of Seattle due to homelessness from drug addiction and mental illness, and offers the Rhode Island model as a solution.)

    • Thanks: Talha
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    @Twinkie

    The relevant portion of the video starts at 44:20 mark.

    , @dfordoom
    @Twinkie


    users found in low-level possession of the substances would have the option of paying $100 fines or attending new, free addiction recovery centers instead of being arrested and facing jail time
     
    So what's the success rate of these addiction recovery centres? I'm guessing it's probably very very very low.

    The only purpose addiction recovery centres serve is to provide jobs for counsellors, social workers and other social parasites. Paid for by the taxpayer.

    Maybe it works out cheaper than sending them to jail, but it's almost certainly a lot more futile.

    The objective is clearly legalisation. They're following precisely the same playbook that was used in the case of marijuana.

    I can see arguments both for and against legalisation but I can't see any arguments for half-witted feelgood non-solutions like addiction recovery centres.
  130. @Twinkie
    @Talha


    Yes on 110, the organization sponsoring the ballot measure, stresses that the act does not legalize any drugs.

    “No change is made in the criminal code for delivery, manufacture, and other commercial drug offenses. These offenses will remain a crime,” according to the website. “No change is made for other crimes that may be associated with drug use, such as driving under the influence and theft.”
     

    If voters pass Measure 110, users found in low-level possession of the substances would have the option of paying $100 fines or attending new, free addiction recovery centers instead of being arrested and facing jail time, The Associated Press reported.
     
    I’d support this if the choice were not that between a fine and a recovery center, but that between jail time and recovery center. I like what Rhode Island is doing for some drug offenders: https://youtu.be/bpAi70WWBlw
    (The documentary is about the decay of Seattle due to homelessness from drug addiction and mental illness, and offers the Rhode Island model as a solution.)

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

    The relevant portion of the video starts at 44:20 mark.

  131. @V. K. Ovelund
    @Twinkie


    While much of the blame for that state can be laid at their parents, they also share some of the blame.
     
    The younger generation is going to have to shoulder all the responsibility, regardless of who is to blame. They have been left no choice.

    The generation born after about 1975 has obviously got serious problems but the generation born before 1975 lacks just grounds to criticize. The present, feckless, unnecessary civilizational collapse happened on the older generation's watch.

    The older generation ought at least to have the grace to own that.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Twinkie

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/election-ptsd-trump-clinton/2020/10/31/da48be28-1a08-11eb-82db-60b15c874105_story.html

    “People were crying [after Trump’s 2016 victory]. We’re Gen Z. We don’t really remember 9/11, but I feel like this must have been what it was like. People were just crying in the open hallways, people were sobbing,” Bollinger said. “We were so afraid and filled with dread.”

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
  132. @Twinkie
    @Talha


    Yes on 110, the organization sponsoring the ballot measure, stresses that the act does not legalize any drugs.

    “No change is made in the criminal code for delivery, manufacture, and other commercial drug offenses. These offenses will remain a crime,” according to the website. “No change is made for other crimes that may be associated with drug use, such as driving under the influence and theft.”
     

    If voters pass Measure 110, users found in low-level possession of the substances would have the option of paying $100 fines or attending new, free addiction recovery centers instead of being arrested and facing jail time, The Associated Press reported.
     
    I’d support this if the choice were not that between a fine and a recovery center, but that between jail time and recovery center. I like what Rhode Island is doing for some drug offenders: https://youtu.be/bpAi70WWBlw
    (The documentary is about the decay of Seattle due to homelessness from drug addiction and mental illness, and offers the Rhode Island model as a solution.)

    Replies: @Twinkie, @dfordoom

    users found in low-level possession of the substances would have the option of paying $100 fines or attending new, free addiction recovery centers instead of being arrested and facing jail time

    So what’s the success rate of these addiction recovery centres? I’m guessing it’s probably very very very low.

    The only purpose addiction recovery centres serve is to provide jobs for counsellors, social workers and other social parasites. Paid for by the taxpayer.

    Maybe it works out cheaper than sending them to jail, but it’s almost certainly a lot more futile.

    The objective is clearly legalisation. They’re following precisely the same playbook that was used in the case of marijuana.

    I can see arguments both for and against legalisation but I can’t see any arguments for half-witted feelgood non-solutions like addiction recovery centres.

  133. @nebulafox
    @Buzz Mohawk

    >They have the experience, and yet they still express tolerance.

    O Jetinho never dies, it just morphs. ;)

    We shouldn't be too harsh on them, though: America is quickly imitating all the sucky parts about Brazil without any of the awesome stuff. Bezos' pee buckets AND widespread societal indifference! What's not to like?

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    Try to imagine the real as the global reserve currency. Can’t do it? Understandable.

    Now try to imagine the dollar as the reserve currency a generation down the road.

  134. @Twinkie
    @dfordoom


    The things that you admire about western civilisation (“the most prosperous, free, and advanced” society in history) are largely the results of the secularisation of the West. It appears that secularisation builds prosperous, free, and advanced societies.
     
    First of all, that’s what secularists would like to claim, but history doesn’t bear that out. The oldest university in the world was founded as a Christian institution as were almost all the universities in ore-modern times.

    And even if you were to believe in secularization as the cause of Western advancement, that;s only a proximate cause that begs a further question - what led to that secularization? Why is it, so magically, that WEIRD countries all hail from the Western Christian civilization?

    Try Joe Henrich’s latest book: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/09/joseph-henrich-explores-weird-societies/

    https://www.amazon.com/WEIRDest-People-World-Psychologically-Particularly-ebook/dp/B07RZFCPMD/

    The Roman Catholic Church was the genesis of Western modernity and all that flowed from it.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    The Roman Catholic Church was the genesis of Western modernity and all that flowed from it.

    Great book on that:

    • Thanks: Talha
  135. @Yahya K.
    @nebulafox


    It’s all so much virtue signalling, and even many blacks are aware of that.

     

    I agree. But would you not allow that some genuinely do hold sincere views regarding blacks, even if it is accompanied with sanctimonious piety? I've come across several UMC Americans who seem to genuinely believe that blacks have been "brutalized for decades" by the police "with impunity". (And not all of them are crazy woke 'critical theory' true believers)

    I'm not going to argue about the truth of that proposition. But it seems that many in this forum are quick to dismiss any of the BLM arguments out of hand. And I can see why you would do so. It is hard to accept the arguments of people who hold you in contempt, and are otherwise annoying in their attitude towards people like you. But is there no merit in their arguments whatsoever? Are there ways the police is misbehaving in some areas, that can be improved by some policing reforms? I haven't seen anyone here concede some points to the other side.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    In the immediate aftermath of the George Floyd video being released, there was a real opportunity for police reform. Once the riots started, the window closed.

  136. @dfordoom
    @Talha


    Some great examples I hadn’t thought of because they were before my time, but yeah…
     
    Well Nell Gwynn was a bit before my time as well!

    As I said; given what I have seen with my own eyes, I simply cannot see why some of these other things can’t become legal within my lifetime.
     
    The fascinating/scary thing is that there's just no way to predict what will come next. The transsexual thing was something so bizarre that when it started almost all conservatives thought that this time the SJWs had gone too far, that there was no way that it wouldn't provoke a backlash. But there was no backlash at all. It went from being an impossibly bizarre idea to being totally mainstream in less than a decade.

    My feeling is that the Silent Majority that social conservatives rely on so much just doesn't exist any more. It's not that it's become a Silent Minority - it's become a minuscule and totally irrelevant minority that SJWs can simply ignore entirely. The transsexual thing also shows that Christians (or the overwhelming majority of Christians) are never ever going to draw a line in the sand. No matter how horrifyingly extreme and weird the next issue on the sexual battlefront might be Christians will meekly surrender.

    It's notable that in Britain the only resistance to the LGBT agenda has come from Muslims.

    Replies: @Talha, @Talha, @Audacious Epigone, @V. K. Ovelund

    The transsexual thing was something so bizarre that when it started almost all conservatives thought that this time the SJWs had gone too far, that there was no way that it wouldn’t provoke a backlash.

    Pedophilia’s next. I fear it, too, is going to fit this pattern.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Audacious Epigone



    The transsexual thing was something so bizarre that when it started almost all conservatives thought that this time the SJWs had gone too far, that there was no way that it wouldn’t provoke a backlash.
     
    Pedophilia’s next. I fear it, too, is going to fit this pattern.
     
    I'm sceptical. Prior to World War T trannies were considered to be weird and sad and pathetic. They weren't particularly hated. That's probably why there was no backlash.

    In the US there is massive hysteria about pedophilia. Of course in the US there is massive hysteria about sex in general (Americans are obsessed with sex but they still think it's wrong), but there is extreme hysteria about pedophilia.

    World War P would be a bloodbath. It would take years of propaganda to normalise something like that. It could only be done if the LGBTetc lobby got behind it but they've spent years convincing us that homosexuals are just regular folks who want to get married, buy a house with a white picket fence and have a couple of kids and a dog.

    Incest is more likely. It would be an easy victory. WWI could be won in a couple of years. But there aren't enough incestuous billionaires prepared to fund it. WWG and WWT were won because there were billionaires who were prepared to fund it.
  137. @dfordoom
    @Talha


    Some great examples I hadn’t thought of because they were before my time, but yeah…
     
    Well Nell Gwynn was a bit before my time as well!

    As I said; given what I have seen with my own eyes, I simply cannot see why some of these other things can’t become legal within my lifetime.
     
    The fascinating/scary thing is that there's just no way to predict what will come next. The transsexual thing was something so bizarre that when it started almost all conservatives thought that this time the SJWs had gone too far, that there was no way that it wouldn't provoke a backlash. But there was no backlash at all. It went from being an impossibly bizarre idea to being totally mainstream in less than a decade.

    My feeling is that the Silent Majority that social conservatives rely on so much just doesn't exist any more. It's not that it's become a Silent Minority - it's become a minuscule and totally irrelevant minority that SJWs can simply ignore entirely. The transsexual thing also shows that Christians (or the overwhelming majority of Christians) are never ever going to draw a line in the sand. No matter how horrifyingly extreme and weird the next issue on the sexual battlefront might be Christians will meekly surrender.

    It's notable that in Britain the only resistance to the LGBT agenda has come from Muslims.

    Replies: @Talha, @Talha, @Audacious Epigone, @V. K. Ovelund

    The fascinating/scary thing is that there’s just no way to predict what will come next. The transsexual thing was something so bizarre that when it started almost all conservatives thought that this time the SJWs had gone too far, that there was no way that it wouldn’t provoke a backlash. But there was no backlash at all.

    For what it’s worth, the transsexual thing converted me. About 15 years younger than you (as I guess), I had been a lifelong tolerator of gays. No longer.

    There has existed no avenue through which I could express my newfound intolerance, so unless you knew me well and had often been in my home, you could not tell that I had changed; but I am hardly the only one: read on the topic.

    So is that a “backlash”? Perhaps not, but it is a tightening of the spring, so to speak.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @V. K. Ovelund


    I had been a lifelong tolerator of gays. No longer.
     
    I have never been.  The AIDies were warning to anyone with eyes to see.
    , @nebulafox
    @V. K. Ovelund

    My experience with gay men has been a mixture of scientists/coders, metalheads, and former military guys who shared little in common but were all normal masculine men. I think part of the paradox of tolerance is that guys who would have been closeted decades ago now are free to live honestly, leading to more mainstream behavior diluting the traditiinal hidden subculture. I cannot help but wonder if part of the trans craze is disappointment among social lefties that gay liberation has not lead to a flood of men wearing dresses and talking about their feelings.

    (The one common thread was that all of them really, really disliked women who asked them if they wanted to go clothes shopping or started crying about their boyfriends the moment they mentioned being gay. Several simply stopped mentioning their sexuality around them just to avoid that.)

  138. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The fascinating/scary thing is that there’s just no way to predict what will come next. The transsexual thing was something so bizarre that when it started almost all conservatives thought that this time the SJWs had gone too far, that there was no way that it wouldn’t provoke a backlash. But there was no backlash at all.
     
    For what it's worth, the transsexual thing converted me. About 15 years younger than you (as I guess), I had been a lifelong tolerator of gays. No longer.

    There has existed no avenue through which I could express my newfound intolerance, so unless you knew me well and had often been in my home, you could not tell that I had changed; but I am hardly the only one: read @Wency on the topic.

    So is that a “backlash”? Perhaps not, but it is a tightening of the spring, so to speak.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @nebulafox

    I had been a lifelong tolerator of gays. No longer.

    I have never been.  The AIDies were warning to anyone with eyes to see.

  139. @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    The transsexual thing was something so bizarre that when it started almost all conservatives thought that this time the SJWs had gone too far, that there was no way that it wouldn’t provoke a backlash.

    Pedophilia's next. I fear it, too, is going to fit this pattern.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The transsexual thing was something so bizarre that when it started almost all conservatives thought that this time the SJWs had gone too far, that there was no way that it wouldn’t provoke a backlash.

    Pedophilia’s next. I fear it, too, is going to fit this pattern.

    I’m sceptical. Prior to World War T trannies were considered to be weird and sad and pathetic. They weren’t particularly hated. That’s probably why there was no backlash.

    In the US there is massive hysteria about pedophilia. Of course in the US there is massive hysteria about sex in general (Americans are obsessed with sex but they still think it’s wrong), but there is extreme hysteria about pedophilia.

    World War P would be a bloodbath. It would take years of propaganda to normalise something like that. It could only be done if the LGBTetc lobby got behind it but they’ve spent years convincing us that homosexuals are just regular folks who want to get married, buy a house with a white picket fence and have a couple of kids and a dog.

    Incest is more likely. It would be an easy victory. WWI could be won in a couple of years. But there aren’t enough incestuous billionaires prepared to fund it. WWG and WWT were won because there were billionaires who were prepared to fund it.

  140. @V. K. Ovelund
    @dfordoom


    The fascinating/scary thing is that there’s just no way to predict what will come next. The transsexual thing was something so bizarre that when it started almost all conservatives thought that this time the SJWs had gone too far, that there was no way that it wouldn’t provoke a backlash. But there was no backlash at all.
     
    For what it's worth, the transsexual thing converted me. About 15 years younger than you (as I guess), I had been a lifelong tolerator of gays. No longer.

    There has existed no avenue through which I could express my newfound intolerance, so unless you knew me well and had often been in my home, you could not tell that I had changed; but I am hardly the only one: read @Wency on the topic.

    So is that a “backlash”? Perhaps not, but it is a tightening of the spring, so to speak.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @nebulafox

    My experience with gay men has been a mixture of scientists/coders, metalheads, and former military guys who shared little in common but were all normal masculine men. I think part of the paradox of tolerance is that guys who would have been closeted decades ago now are free to live honestly, leading to more mainstream behavior diluting the traditiinal hidden subculture. I cannot help but wonder if part of the trans craze is disappointment among social lefties that gay liberation has not lead to a flood of men wearing dresses and talking about their feelings.

    (The one common thread was that all of them really, really disliked women who asked them if they wanted to go clothes shopping or started crying about their boyfriends the moment they mentioned being gay. Several simply stopped mentioning their sexuality around them just to avoid that.)

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS