The Open Thread is a place for open discussion among my readers. Post anything you feel like sharing! From now on, the Open Thread will no longer be monthly. Instead, there will be a new Open Thread whenever it is adequate. The stage is yours. Go ahead!
The latest Open Thread is made ‘sticky’ to improve access.
Please consider throwing a few coins into the tip jar, and buy my books! They are great. Your support is greatly appreciated.
Anybody seen the Oppenheimer movie yet? Always seemed interesting how this Jew pursued nukes until the Nazis were no longer the enemy. I strongly believe he and the others in the “Manahattan Project” thought the victims of nuclear attack would be Germans. They must have been plenty disappointed Once it became commies he turned tail.
There were plans for nuking Germany. Probably the Russians advanced too quickly for this to come to fruition, so the US had to nuke the two Japanese cities with the largest Christian population instead of Tokyo. The mainstream explanation is that the US was very concerned about the Japanese people and Tokyo as a cultural center. The same reasoning did not seem to have applied to Dresden, which was quite possibly the most beautiful non-medieval German city before it was bombed to smithereens. Of course, after the war the globalists found more effective ways of destroying our beautiful cities by forcing modern architecture on city planners.
I didn’t know that that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had high Christian populations. Makes sense for Oppenheimer and others on the Manhattan Project. If the allies cared about cultural centers why would they bomb the hell out of Dresden? I’ve heard that Dresden held no strategic importance. This dope I was talking to recently about war repeated the bullshit that we nuked Japan instead of Germany because of racism. Yeh just carpet bomb the fuck out of beautiful cities that hold no strategic importance. Gotta look out for whitey.
And why did we even fight Germany? Comes the argument, “They declared war on us!” And England and France declared war on Germany. I’m sure these people think it justified the actions Germany took on them.
The only difference is that England and France actually had the capability to invade Germany. The same dope I talked to seemed positive the Germans would invade the US. These freaking people never even look at the logistics of such an invasion.
Aaron, what have you read about the Morgenthau Plan? I think one of the members of Churchill’s administration called it “semitism gone mad.” Some Jew also wrote a book literally titled “Germany must Perish.” FFS…….
Also have you read books on the ethnic cleansing of Germans after the war? These crimes have been forgotten by history.
There is very little published on the ethnic cleansing in Germany after WWII, but a few pictures of the infamous Rheinwiesen camps exist. There are strict laws against digging up the soil, by the way. Nobody has ever dared to do it, but there would be nothing to find here anyway because there is no way any soldiers died there. You would probably get locked up for life if you dared to disturb the narrative. I cannot wait for the US occupation of Europe to end so that we can finally look into all the war crimes committed by the Allies.
I have read a bit about the Morgenthau Plan. My history books in school did not mention it at all, but it was actually the reason behind Germany mobilizing for “total war”.
WWII must have been the most fratricidal war in history. Hope those bastards are proud of themselves. America is a very unhappy country regardless of political persuasion.
When I mentioned bastards I meant the beneficiaries of the conflict NOT the brave men who served, which includes both of my grandfathers.
I will explain in more detail why I think your text passage is a bit of a caricature.
1. While there was a marriage license, de facto a large enough population could marry. Without wanting to such for numbers, I highly doubt that more kids get married now and have kids than in the past.
2. In fact our ancestors could marry so therefore it is plausible that we could also marry.
3. All what I wrote is irrelevant for our discussion because “ Im Norddeutschen Bund wurde 1868 grundsätzlich die Eheschließungsfreiheit eingeführt, die zum 1. Januar 1871 auf die meisten süddeutschen Staaten ausgedehnt wurde.”. So therefore between 1870-1970, which I proclaimed as the relevant period, people were free to marry in Germany. And other western countries(which I said was the relevant location for me) it was even earlier.
Sorry wrong place – please delete that post.
Thanks
Forget Dresden… the US did indeed bomb Tokyo with firebombs and incinerated about 100.000 civilians, so the argument that they wanted to preserve anything is nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_1945)
Moreover, this treatment was applied to practically all major cities in Japan, regardless of the religion of the population. Burning to death with incendiaries is likely slower and more horrible than dying in a nuclear blast.
@GLS
Both countries were carpet bombed extensively in accordance with then-prevailing (but, in retrospect, deeply flawed) views about how airpower was to be used. (google Giulio Douhet). Germans did it too by the way.
Replacing normal bombs with nukes just made it much more efficient, but it was not seen as qualitatively very different by most people . Also keep in mind we are talking early nukes, which were small devices in the kiloton range. The exponentially larger, thermonuclear bombs in the megaton-range will start coming only after 1953.
The bombs did not even force the japanese surrender, as is told by the common myth. The soviet war declaration did that, until then the japanese were holding out in hopes for the USSR to mediate a moderate peace with the US.
France and the UK had no capability whatsoever to invade Germany. As a matter of fact, after both declared war on Germany there comes a period know as the “phony war” (google it), where not much happened, because they had little offensive capabilities and decided mostly to sit behind the Maginot Line. That is, until Germany finally put together a workable plan and invaded France.
But if both countries had not decided to declare war on behalf of Poland, Hitler would most likely have left them alone, since his main enemy was Russia (Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact nothwitstanding, both Stalin and Hitler knew it to be a temprary measure).
The US entry is more complicated. Roosevelt needed to secure his reelection first, and after this he started to actively look for an incident that could justify entering the war. He ordered the US Navy to shoot on German Uboats in order to provoke them to attack. This is no secret anymore, any serious historian knows it by now.
Since Hitler would not fall for it, Roosevelt provoked war with Germanys ally Japan instead. After Pearl Harbor Hitler declares war on the US because he was convinced (correctly, it turns out) that the US would find its excuse to enter the war sooner or later. Not declaring war then brought the risk that the Japanese would defect and cut a separate peace deal with the US the same way they did with the USSR earlier, leaving the US to focus 100% of its resources on the European theatre of the war (Hitler might have actually won the war if the USSR had been forced to fight on two fronts).
Have a look at this video of Guiyang, showing supposedly the most densely built-up area in China. I would not want to live like that, but it is remarkable how clean this area is, and how orderly the people behave:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgyqaRVGiZI
Now imagine Section 8 housing at that level! Not even the dystopia of Dredd (2012) would come close to it.
High rises present multi variable hazards from fire, seismic etc. China uses cheap, poor quality raw material to construct their high rises.
This may be the case, but I have not come across stories of fires in high-rises in China. Also, I am under the impression that high-rises in the West are not constructed for longevity either. The point I wanted to make, though, is that you can seemingly put as many Chinese into a building and they will be fine with it, whereas in the West, this does not really work. We put people on welfare, financing their entire life, and in return we get riots, robberies, muggings, and killings.
“We put people on welfare, financing their entire life, and in return we get riots, robberies, muggings, and killings.”
Not only that but in States like Texas welfare recipients are able to use their voucher to become homeowners. Some of these nice suburban neighborhoods will be succumb to drug infestation, a rise in crime, a drop in property value, and cause white flight. Nobody wants to reside next to a bunch of degenerate people.
https://www.fox26houston.com/news/section-8-housing-vouchers-can-help-renters-become-homebuyers
Doon’t get me wrong, I like the idea of taking care of your skin to appear younger, but I can’t fathom our ancestors in the fields, in the ships and in the armies needing special protection from UV rays to be gigachads. I guess we have to work with the cards we’re dealt in modernity, and those put a bigger emphasis on aesthetics over mettle.
I’ve come to understand (can’t remember whether a dermathologist told me or it came from elsewhere) that my greasy skin, as big a burden as it is in regards to creating the conditions for mild acne already in my thirties, is a blessing in disguise because it doesn’t develop as many wrinkles. Nevertheless, I was surprised that Alek’s age detectors took 2 years off of me. I’m overweight right now, and that certainly ages me, but I guess my greasy skin and the fact I’ve protected myself from UV exposure more than the average guy in my field of work has helped me a bit. I’ll be looking into using retinoids again (dabbled into them about 15 years ago purely as an acne treatment).
“I can’t fathom our ancestors in the fields, in the ships and in the armies needing special protection from UV rays to be gigachads.”
What?
I meant to say that our ancestors didn’t have all these advances on skincare, and probably didn’t need them to find a wife and the rest of the manly endeavors, because other concerns outside of the aesthetic were more primary.
I guess I went too tongue-in-cheek and lost clarity.
Your point made me laugh because it was the equivalent of being like, “back in the day men didn’t need to brush their teeth to get laid.” You may as well give up your smart phone and head to the woods my guy, but I think your daring life would suffer.
they lived to be 30 years old, got married at 16, and had grandchildren at 27. What’s your point?
– More like lived to be 35-40, and got grandchildren at at 35-37; but the point still stands.
Also, most didn’t reproduce. The only “chads” were warlords, everyone else was paired by (arranged-marriage) style. Your wife was the first and last woman you had sex with, and it was more like a business contract. That’s most of civilized humanity up until recently.
To find comparisons to a time where people “hooked up” you have to go back to pre-civilization, think caveman days. Our impulses and instincts stretch from back then. Do you really want to pull your “logic” from cavemen for fucks sake. They lived even shorter lives.
@Alek: my point was even simpler than that: fuck modernity! That’s all.
Nevertheless, I’ll use anything to my advantage, especially if it’s readily available. And I hate sunburn.
I think an even more apt analogy is:
– I’m sure GigaChads in cavemen days didn’t need supermarkets. They hunted their own food. They strangled an animal with their own bare hands, and tore it to chunks with their own hands, and ate it.
– Why do you shop at supermarkets Manuel S, are you some kind of an insecure bitch?
*I think it’s important to note that the last time humanity had chads (before feminism) was in caveman times. We can’t talk about chads and hookups in civilized post-caveman times, since there were none.
Manuel. Sorry I read your follow up after I posted.
I get the modernity thing. Aaron often posts about how modernity has only brought about ugliness. Like looking at the civilizational achievements that were 18th century architectures.
However, there were no chads in that “golden civilized era” and no hookups. Modernity brought those (or brought them back from the caveman times)
The civilizations that brought us peak architecture also made sure nobody hooked up and that sex was a business contract only for reproduction.
So yeah, modern times place a heavier emphasis on aesthetics. But would you rather have your wife chosen for you at 16?
We can’t be like feminists and try to pick and choose from the different eras. If you want hookups and sex outside of marriage, your aesthetics are going to be a huge and often deciding factor.
This is a bit of a red herring. I think we could still have beautiful architecture to this day. All this nonsense in modern architectures picked up steam after WWII, for some completely unfathomable reasons.
Just a clarification I wasn’t tying the last bit to architecture. In other words, I am not saying “we can’t have ANY of the benefits of the 19th century, too bad”. Of course we can still have the architecture and the clean streets etc.
That part of the comment was only about “You can’t have a hookup culture and multiple partners outside of marriage AND at the same time have it be based on work ethic, as it was in the arranged-marriage age”
It did not expand beyond that, and definitely not into architecture. The bit about “pick and choose from different eras like a feminist” is only about the stuff feminists discuss, and they don’t discuss architecture. Like they want the benefits of 21st century sexuality (hooking up with chads) and the provision benefits of 19th century (being provided for by the state, and betas).
On re-reading the comment I can see how it might come across that way (that I am linking architecture to this). Comment definitely needs proofreading.
I was trying to say “I get that modernity sucks, like Aaron often gives that great example with architecture, so yeah I the idea of saying fuck modernity, because there are lots of things where modernity fucked us over, architecture being a prime example”.
The architecture thing is a 100% net-loss, there are no pros and cons to what modernity has brought, its all cons. Pre modernity architecture is clearly the better option.
However, the modern sexuality thing is a mixed bag. It has its pros and cons. It isn’t as clear cut.
I would take dating system pre-1970s to the current dating system we have – and I don’t think it’s close
How convenient of you to say “pre 1970s” and not pre 1900s. So you want that tiny tiny 0.0001% of human history which was in between the two systems.
Yes, in the 50 and 60s you could get the best of both worlds, but only then. The new system was only starting so the cons of new system hadn’t arrive yet. This thing called “dating” was born and people could actually meet and have fun with people, multiple people before marriage, yet due to lag, women still chose men based on provider characteristics (didn’t go for chads).
You wouldn’t go much earlier than that to the arranged marriages to whatever peasant girl your farm parents chose for you to milk cows with, would go? If you back merely 0.0001% back in time, you’d be in the time where 99.99% of the population were peasants, and dating didn’t exist.
It’s a bit of a strawmen to say that there are two systems only.
We have the current system since the 1970s until now, so 50 years.
I would take how it was from 1920-1970 to how it has been from 1970-2020. I would even take 1870 to 1970. I would have to go quite far back in time in the west to reach to a period that is worse than the current one I think.
You are correct, there are 3 systems, if you want to look at it that way…
The old one (before 1920 let’s say)
The new one (1970 onwards)
The transitionary period (1920 to 1970)
Let’s go with your numbers, just to make it simple, because we can’t pin down when the transition started, as it wasn’t a hard year.
No you wouldn’t take living 1870 looooooool 😀 The transition didn’t take thousands of years, it only happened in decades.
So “dating” in 1870 was the same as in 1201 or in the 5th century. And life was mostly the same. Things didn’t change gradually over centuries, it happened quite quickly. For 99% of the population for 99.999% of that period (start of civilization to mid 19th century), they were still peasants in some sort of feudalistic arrangement or another.
Disagree with you there.
First, I disagree that there are three systems.
Second, I don’t care about how the world population lived , I just cared about how the west lived.
What I do agree with is a book by Joseph Heinrich (“ The WEIRDest People in the World”) which argues that the Catholic Church implemented in western Europe during the medieval age a marriage system which was distinct from the rest of the world. This marriage system held up until around the 1970s. Now I guess you would argue that it was inevitable that that system leads to the current one. This reminds me a bit of historic materialism, which I’m not a fan of. I think it was not inevitable that the system collapsed but rather a response to WW2.
I wouldn’t take living in 1870 per se but rather the marriage patterns back then. And I think you have a distorted image of how marriage patterns were back then so I will the German article about “Heiratsalter” in the 1900 century from Wikipedia (in German): “Bei der bäuerlichen Bevölkerung Sachsens betrug der Altersabstand 5 Jahre bzw. 3 Jahre bei den Häuslern und das mittlere Heiratsalter für die Männer 27 Jahre. (…) Bei Männern waren Heiraten unter 18 Jahren extrem selten; jedoch wurden z. B. in Sachsen im 18. Jahrhundert rund 2 % aller Bauerntöchter bereits mit 14 und 15 Jahren verheiratet. Die Annahme, dass früher oft vor dem 18. Lebensjahr geheiratet wurde, ist demnach schlicht falsch. Die Praxis der Ehe zwischen Jugendlichen beschränkt sich weitgehend auf politisch motivierte Ehen in adeligen Kreisen.”
Most of the west were peasants too you fucking dolt.
The rural population in the west was the same as in the non-west. You would have been a peasant, not an aristocrat.
When you imagine how sweet your life would have been in the 17th century, imagine being the average guy, not a fucking aristocrat.
First result on Google:
Most Germans lived in rural areas between the 17th and 19th century. In the 18th century, statistics show that this was true for about 80% of the population. Most farmers were not owners of the land. The land belonged to wealthy land owners, and the cultivator of the land was a mere servant and in many instances, a serf. If a farmer was treated as a serf, he had no personal freedom, i.e., he was not able to marry without consent of his sovereign lord, he could not move anywhere else and could not sell or obtain land. Therefore, few people were able to sell out. If they did, they were free of obligations towards the authorities and could buy, sell, lease, inherit, etc., without interference
You didn’t read a word I wrote – didn’t you? Because if you did you wouldn’t have written such nonsense.
I said that I prefer the marriage patterns of the 19th century, not the life in terms of wealth, etc. I know that I would have been a peasant in the 19th century that why I shared with you how marriage patterns were for peasants. And I do prefer the marriage patterns of the peasants in the past compared to how it is nowadays. And this even holds after what you posted because I think it’s a caricature of how marriage worked back then.
@Alek: the “chad” meme has become extensive to a lot of things other than getting pussy, basically encompassing all of the “manly endeavors” I mentioned.
And yes, one of those manly endeavors was farming. And yes, peasants were a majority of the population and they had a tough life, but how tough is a matter of debate, and at least everyone had a sense of purpose. Modernity wants us to believe that the modern ways are better and more comfortable than anything in the past. I think there are a lot of tradeoffs we made for all these comforts, so in the end, how the balance stands is up for debate.
But yes, I would go back to the old ways in a heartbeat, even if it meant having sex with one woman only for my whole life instead of the current 12.
I will explain in more detail why I think your text passage is a bit of a caricature.
1. While there was a marriage license, de facto a large enough population could marry. Without wanting to such for numbers, I highly doubt that more kids get married now and have kids than in the past.
2. In fact our ancestors could marry so therefore it is plausible that we could also marry.
3. All what I wrote is irrelevant for our discussion because “ Im Norddeutschen Bund wurde 1868 grundsätzlich die Eheschließungsfreiheit eingeführt, die zum 1. Januar 1871 auf die meisten süddeutschen Staaten ausgedehnt wurde.”. So therefore between 1870-1970, which I proclaimed as the relevant period, people were free to marry in Germany. And other western countries(which I said was the relevant location for me) it was even earlier.
I wasn’t expecting this. Paul Joseph Watson is sharing his insecurity stack as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNvFlixwCGk&t=226s
This is a guy who’s been trolling and making fun of culture for a while. If anything I’d imagine him making fun of insecurity stacks, but here his pushing one.