"Although rural America makes up a fraction of America's total population, it has been estimated that the prevalence of obesity is approximately 6.2 times higher than in urban America."
I went back to the study and went through the list of authors. Every single one of them was Nigerian-American, and many of the authors were cousins (???). What are the chances, huh? I am embarrassed to have cited this, and looking into it, the journal it was published in, Cureus, is a paper-mill. What a disgrace. Thank you for catching this. I need to be more discriminating when citing "medical journals." I should have been able to catch that mistake myself! 6.2x is ridiculous! I suppose I was imagining obesity gap among whites to be 10%-62%, but that's not accurate, even within that study... My more recent article on obesity doesn't have this error.
It is hard to explain to younger people just how we didn't use to be all obese. I was a kid in the 70s and you might have one fat kid in your class and they were scarcely fat by today's standards. If you look at just normal people crowds in the 70s nobody is fat. Look at like Woodstock, Altamont, some tent revival church meetings like in the documentary Marjo. Look at HS yearbooks from the 70s. Almost nobody is fat. As far as I know our genes haven't changed.
Sailer does this weird thing where he thinks Africans are all basically the same. Kenyans and Nigerians are not very similar at all phenotypically. I am not at all averse to the idea of genetic differences in populations but "African" is way too big a category. African is freaking huge! It doesn't look as big on a flat map as it really is because it is near the equator and other countries near the poles and thus bigger on a map than they really are. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-true-size-of-africa/
I wouldn’t say rural America is necessarily more “dysgenic” because Americans everywhere are selecting for bad traits. It is more a product of brain drain, as you alluded to. In the past, cities did have highly skilled people, but because the vast majority of the population was agricultural and social mobility was far lower the peasantry did not take a huge hit in intelligence from brain drain. Today, smart people can very easily rise through the ranks and go anywhere in the country they want, having a permanent impact on the home towns they left. This is also happening in low skill and government labor. High social mobility means the cream rises to the top, which makes everything below the cream watery and less tasteful.
> The idea that it is easier to jog in the traffic infested streets of New York, and harder in the countryside of rural America, is ridiculous. These excuses are not serious, but such fantasies are necessary to ignore the scientifically warranted
A good way to test this would be to compare urban/rural to suburban obesity rates. Suburbanites don’t have “walkable” areas, so theoretically any difference in obesity is due to selection effects for who lives in suburbs. Obviously, race must be corrected for. Suburbs are quite white (and nonwhite suburbanites are disproportionately Asian, who are skinny) so you’ll have to find one that is limited to white people, adjusts by race, or a dataset that you can prune minorities from.
> Still, one of the reasons why conservative, rural whites tend to be more homophobic than urban, educated whites is for the same reason that blacks are more homophobic: they are more tempted by homosexuality. Homophobia is a cultural evolutionary strategy which is meant to combat high levels of homosexuality. This can be seen especially in Africa, which has the highest rate of AIDS in the world, and also the highest levels of homophobia. Meanwhile, east Asia, with its low rate of AIDS, finds homosexuality to be culturally irrelevant and not worth caring about.
This is interesting and deserves more said on it, although from what I hear the high HIV rate in Africa has to do with the particular way they do the nasty. Look up “dry sex”. Basically, they must have thought vaginas didn’t have enough seasoning, so they stuff a bunch of leaves in there to tighten things up before going at it. But this results in micro-cuts in the same way anal sex does. Northern Europeans and Africans actually seem less predisposed to homosexuality compared to “sotadic zone” populations, which includes the Chinese. China historically went through periods of mass homosexuality, and Japan’s feudal system incorporated a sort of pederasty not dissimilar to what the Greeks did. Not sure how gay the modern Japanese and Chinese are, although it seems they didn’t care when the westernizing forces of government banned homosexuality, so that would be a point in your favor
I’ve always suspected this was the case, but this has become extremely obvious to me once I moved to the country. Yes, it’s paradise and it’s quiet, but there is very, very clearly a genetically weaker population here. This is where the rejects go. They get ejected from the city because they can’t survive the Darwinian race and they live in the sticks. “Not all”, yeah yeah, but that’s the general rule. Beautiful, intelligent, industrious, interesting, brave people go to the cities. The weak ones live the quiet lives.
Brutal, but I would dispute that weaker city people move to the rural areas. Plenty of people in urban areas are on welfare as well and they stay put, never moving to the country. Many rural people have been stuck there for hundreds of years and have never stepped foot in a city.
Hoarding is a white disease. If you watch the show they're all white. (I saw an Asian woman once.) Does anybody know why this is? Being Black my family was super concerned with me going to my white friends' houses because of concern about their hygiene. Poor whites are viewed as unhygienic by black Americans, but black Americans are pretty clean--even the poor ones. We did the dishes and swept the floor every day. Hell my grandmother would iron her *sweatpants* in the tiny metal trailer I grew up in. But if you were to look at our white income analogues...
One disagreement is on homosexuality. Germanic tribes early on practiced bogging, which essentially eliminated homosexuality in their communities, whereas other societies had it perpetuated for millenia until, basically, German romanticism took over the world with European technology and basically shames them into outlawing it or finding it "distasteful."
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? Where do I talk about Germanic tribes, bogging, historical societies? My theories here are only relevant to urbanism -- they don't apply to pre-urban societies, like the semi-nomadic Germanic tribes. I make specific arguments that pertain to modern times, such as the problem of modern pollution. I don't claim that ancient Germanics were "rural" and therefore "gay" lol.
Ahh, I was just extrapolating backwards. If the Ruralites were more homophobic (antisodomy?) because they were more prone to it and thus needed to be warier, but Africans regardless of Urban/Rural split (as were mentioned) were *also* more homophobic because they were gayer (they definitely are in practice) and the counter example was the East Asians and Meds who...regardless of Rural/Urban background seemed more casual towards Homosexuality historically and presently and thus were...less at risk of it(?), then the Germanic Tribes and later Kingdoms seemed a counter example: a people who were incredibly aggressive towards perceived homosexual tendencies, but also never displayed any cultural predilection or obsession with the practice that an implied leaning towards it would evidence. If we have a rich tradition of African homosexual practices even in their modern (and it really is a European colonial legacy) homophobic rich surface culture, we didn't see any in Germany.
It just didn't seem coherent as a holistic argument. Otherwise, I fully agree with the genetic segregation and rural neurosis that is occurring/has occurred. On the sodomy question though, I guess we'd need to see if there actually *were* higher rates or increasing rates of gay practice in the countryside that would prove out the idea more aggressive homophobia was consistently connected to greater risk of homosexual acts.
I'd just say rural homophobia is really a legacy of traditional (northern) European homohobia and Christianity. As the latter wanes and the rural population becomes less White, I'd expect homophobia to decrease.
I'm not sure that the Germanic people lacked homosexuality in comparison with the Greeks. The argument of Tacitus is that they killed gay people -- not that gay people didn't exist. The question I'm asking is this article is not whether gayness is more acceptable in rural America (it isn't) but whether it is more prevalent (it is). It is entirely possible that Germanics killed gay people at higher rates than the Greeks did, but that this was also because the Germanics were more gay to begin with.
I'm not arguing that ancient Germans were more gay than Greeks because they were more rural (they weren't) but I don't assume that Germanics had a lower prevalence of homosexuality.
We don't have records of the quantity of boggings as opposed to Greek/Roman persecution of homosexuality. The corpses we find in bogs do not have little notes attached saying, "he was gay." People were bogged for every reason under the sun: it was a standard form of capital punishment for all offenses.
The Hebrew Bible is very anti-gay, but I don't think that's evidence of a lack of homosexuality among the Hebrews. I generally think the more anti-gay a culture it is, the more prevalent homosexual desires are. However, I think it's possible that Tacitus overestimated Germanic homophobia, for the following reasons:
We have a lot of evidence of Greek/Roman homosexuality, because they themselves wrote about it. Absence of evidence of Germanic homosexuality is not evidence of absence.
The Scythians, another nomadic indo-European culture, had transgender priests, the Enaree. It is possible that the Norse originally had transgender priests too, and this is reflected in the fact that the Norse believed that gender-bending was related to witchcraft and magical practices.
Odin abuses his body in order to obtain knowledge of the runes, which is the euphemism Tacitus uses to describe homosexuality (abuse of one's own body).
In some versions of Odin's sacrifice, he is tied up, BDSM-style, in other versions, he is stabbed with a spear, which sounds like a sexual metaphor to me.
Vikings didn't write anything on paper or parchment -- histories were orally transmitted, and then written down in the Christian period. This is the case with the Eddas.
It is my belief that the Germans initially worshipped the Vanir (Tyr) and then later switched to Odin, and this switch occurred sometime between 1600 BC (at the earliest) and 200 BC (at the latest). I don't have archaeological evidence for this (it was revealed to me in a dream) but this is relevant to the point you're getting at, which is that Germanics are "inherently anti-gay, across a 3000 year time span, more than every other people on earth." Maybe you're not saying that, but if you are, then I would counter by saying that Germanic religion and culture changed drastically and to ascribe any sort of consistent thread of values on sexuality to that culture (specifically, in opposition to Greeks) seems tenuous.
For example, Engels noted that Germanics tend to be hard working, because of their Protestant Work Ethic. Today, non-Christian people of Germanic descent still are very hard working. But Tacitus writes that Germanic men loved to drink beer, go hunting, go to war, but left all the manual labor to women and slaves. So cultures can change over time, and I would caution against the idea that Germanics are genetically less gay, or something. If you wanted to make that argument, I'd be more convinced if you spelled out a biological theory of homosexuality. It's entirely possible that Germanics selected against homosexuality more than Greeks, but why? How? How would killing homosexuals reduce their biological prevalence, if homosexuals don't reproduce anyway? Are we talking about homosexuality or bisexuality? Currently, bisexuals have higher fertility than heterosexuals. You could make an R/K argument, but I don't find homosexuals to be a product of R selective norms. I didn't argue that Asians are less homosexual, by the way. I said they have a lower rate of AIDS, which is due to sexual selectivity, not increased heterosexuality.
Most men throughout history weren't gay, and when we talk about gay men we're talking about 1% of the population. Biologically, it's not a very important phenomenon, until the last 20 years, where the LGBTQ population has exploded. I think if we look at testosterone levels, xenoestrogens, and biological infertility, there's a strong case to be made that we are living in peak gay. Whatever quibbles we have over the Greeks vs Germanics (the Germanics were 0% gay! The Greeks were 2% gay!) is fairly insignificant in the context of the current statistics.
I was trying to find data on this, and I think 6% of men have ever had sex with men, but I'm having a difficult time finding this broken down by age group. I would not be surprised if it was 1% of Silent Gen, and 10% of Gen Z (out of those who are not virgins). If we just look at porn usage, I think probably 20% of Gen Z actively consumes gay pornography. Maybe more.
The evidence that we have regarding homosexual-specific boggings is scant and much of these sources, like the Eddas, were recorded and written down by Christians, not pagans. That seems to be a specific problem of authenticity and authorship that Norse-philiacs ignore. They hate on Christians, but also assume that Christians faithfully copied down the Eddas word for word for word. The oldest copy of the Eddas is from the 13th century.
The evidence from Tacitus is again suspect, because his purpose in writing the Germania was not just to accurately do work in anthropology, but to critique Roman society by comparing it with the "nobility" of the Germans. Tactitus claims that Germans worship Mercury, which is not true -- this was a tactic of Interpretatio Romana, to attempt to view foreign cultures through the Roman model.
Your argument about Germanic culture extending to all northern European whites is also undermined by the fact that I have seen no evidence that the Celts had a similar practice of bogging. Most northern Europeans are genetically descended from Celtic cultures (stretching from Austria to Britain), not Germanic ones. If you have evidence I'd be interested to see it.
The Greeks and Romans also persecuted homosexuals. I don't think the difference is that the Greeks and Romans were more tolerant, but that they wrote more about it. The Germanics never wrote about it, but they were valorized by one dude (Tacitus) who used them in order to encourage Romans to be more manly. It's like when rightists say, "Islam is based! We Christians need to be more like them!" Islam is in fact not as based as it appears, but it is useful for rightists to use this valorized image of Islam in order to encourage/rile up/motivate themselves.
Non-whites are more homophobic, so a decline in whites means an increase of homophobia (and homosexuality). I agree that homophobia correlates with Christianity. But that rural Christians are still more homophobic than urban Christians, and non-white Christians are more homophobic than white Christians.
So much shit and propaganda in one painfully incorrect article.
1 - Way to take a shot at ALL Jews everywhere for the actions of a few. THAT wasn't the premeditated intent (sarcasm). Of course, it's trendy and expected for the religious Woke to use Jews as their whipping boys; proving that the 'justice' part that goes after the social is a concept infinitely distant from the activist's mind.
2 - Mental illness is most readily apparent when someone's view of the world is so ideologically captured, that they will defend idiocies such as: Trans-women are real women. They do so unironically, while also telling people to listen to the science. Clearly, not the science of evolutionary biology.
Most people don't understand how birth rates work. Conservative and Mormon birth rates are both decreasing, parallel to liberal birth rates.
-Let's say you have 10 liberals, ages 10-100, and 10 conservatives, ages 5-50. So the liberals are twice as old, and half as much children.
-Within 30 years, the liberals will only have 3 kids, and 3 of them will die. So you now have 10 liberals. Yes, over time, the liberals will decrease to 5, but due to population aging, that will take more than 30 years.
-Within 30 years, the conservatives have 6 kids, and 1 of them dies. So there are now 15 conservatives.
What percentage of those conservative kids become liberal? Another way to ask this is, how many religious kids become atheists?
Marxists have had lower birth rates than Christians for 100 years and they still took over eastern Europe, so birth rate reductionism is not deterministic, at least not in 30 years.
Wow!You could have almost tied that up in a nice bow too. In a world where affirmative action still casts its shadow over white existence and DEI ESG and CRT have followed the education and work environments has been poisoned.
"Although rural America makes up a fraction of America's total population, it has been estimated that the prevalence of obesity is approximately 6.2 times higher than in urban America."
6.2 times more than 27%?
I went back to the study and went through the list of authors. Every single one of them was Nigerian-American, and many of the authors were cousins (???). What are the chances, huh? I am embarrassed to have cited this, and looking into it, the journal it was published in, Cureus, is a paper-mill. What a disgrace. Thank you for catching this. I need to be more discriminating when citing "medical journals." I should have been able to catch that mistake myself! 6.2x is ridiculous! I suppose I was imagining obesity gap among whites to be 10%-62%, but that's not accurate, even within that study... My more recent article on obesity doesn't have this error.
It is hard to explain to younger people just how we didn't use to be all obese. I was a kid in the 70s and you might have one fat kid in your class and they were scarcely fat by today's standards. If you look at just normal people crowds in the 70s nobody is fat. Look at like Woodstock, Altamont, some tent revival church meetings like in the documentary Marjo. Look at HS yearbooks from the 70s. Almost nobody is fat. As far as I know our genes haven't changed.
That's why I think obesity is a mental disorder before it is a physical disorder -- it is the normalization and tolerance of ugliness.
Sailer does this weird thing where he thinks Africans are all basically the same. Kenyans and Nigerians are not very similar at all phenotypically. I am not at all averse to the idea of genetic differences in populations but "African" is way too big a category. African is freaking huge! It doesn't look as big on a flat map as it really is because it is near the equator and other countries near the poles and thus bigger on a map than they really are. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-true-size-of-africa/
I agree, this is a good point.
I wouldn’t say rural America is necessarily more “dysgenic” because Americans everywhere are selecting for bad traits. It is more a product of brain drain, as you alluded to. In the past, cities did have highly skilled people, but because the vast majority of the population was agricultural and social mobility was far lower the peasantry did not take a huge hit in intelligence from brain drain. Today, smart people can very easily rise through the ranks and go anywhere in the country they want, having a permanent impact on the home towns they left. This is also happening in low skill and government labor. High social mobility means the cream rises to the top, which makes everything below the cream watery and less tasteful.
> The idea that it is easier to jog in the traffic infested streets of New York, and harder in the countryside of rural America, is ridiculous. These excuses are not serious, but such fantasies are necessary to ignore the scientifically warranted
A good way to test this would be to compare urban/rural to suburban obesity rates. Suburbanites don’t have “walkable” areas, so theoretically any difference in obesity is due to selection effects for who lives in suburbs. Obviously, race must be corrected for. Suburbs are quite white (and nonwhite suburbanites are disproportionately Asian, who are skinny) so you’ll have to find one that is limited to white people, adjusts by race, or a dataset that you can prune minorities from.
> Still, one of the reasons why conservative, rural whites tend to be more homophobic than urban, educated whites is for the same reason that blacks are more homophobic: they are more tempted by homosexuality. Homophobia is a cultural evolutionary strategy which is meant to combat high levels of homosexuality. This can be seen especially in Africa, which has the highest rate of AIDS in the world, and also the highest levels of homophobia. Meanwhile, east Asia, with its low rate of AIDS, finds homosexuality to be culturally irrelevant and not worth caring about.
This is interesting and deserves more said on it, although from what I hear the high HIV rate in Africa has to do with the particular way they do the nasty. Look up “dry sex”. Basically, they must have thought vaginas didn’t have enough seasoning, so they stuff a bunch of leaves in there to tighten things up before going at it. But this results in micro-cuts in the same way anal sex does. Northern Europeans and Africans actually seem less predisposed to homosexuality compared to “sotadic zone” populations, which includes the Chinese. China historically went through periods of mass homosexuality, and Japan’s feudal system incorporated a sort of pederasty not dissimilar to what the Greeks did. Not sure how gay the modern Japanese and Chinese are, although it seems they didn’t care when the westernizing forces of government banned homosexuality, so that would be a point in your favor
I’ve always suspected this was the case, but this has become extremely obvious to me once I moved to the country. Yes, it’s paradise and it’s quiet, but there is very, very clearly a genetically weaker population here. This is where the rejects go. They get ejected from the city because they can’t survive the Darwinian race and they live in the sticks. “Not all”, yeah yeah, but that’s the general rule. Beautiful, intelligent, industrious, interesting, brave people go to the cities. The weak ones live the quiet lives.
Brutal, but I would dispute that weaker city people move to the rural areas. Plenty of people in urban areas are on welfare as well and they stay put, never moving to the country. Many rural people have been stuck there for hundreds of years and have never stepped foot in a city.
You’re right about that.
Hoarding is a white disease. If you watch the show they're all white. (I saw an Asian woman once.) Does anybody know why this is? Being Black my family was super concerned with me going to my white friends' houses because of concern about their hygiene. Poor whites are viewed as unhygienic by black Americans, but black Americans are pretty clean--even the poor ones. We did the dishes and swept the floor every day. Hell my grandmother would iron her *sweatpants* in the tiny metal trailer I grew up in. But if you were to look at our white income analogues...
One disagreement is on homosexuality. Germanic tribes early on practiced bogging, which essentially eliminated homosexuality in their communities, whereas other societies had it perpetuated for millenia until, basically, German romanticism took over the world with European technology and basically shames them into outlawing it or finding it "distasteful."
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with? Where do I talk about Germanic tribes, bogging, historical societies? My theories here are only relevant to urbanism -- they don't apply to pre-urban societies, like the semi-nomadic Germanic tribes. I make specific arguments that pertain to modern times, such as the problem of modern pollution. I don't claim that ancient Germanics were "rural" and therefore "gay" lol.
Ahh, I was just extrapolating backwards. If the Ruralites were more homophobic (antisodomy?) because they were more prone to it and thus needed to be warier, but Africans regardless of Urban/Rural split (as were mentioned) were *also* more homophobic because they were gayer (they definitely are in practice) and the counter example was the East Asians and Meds who...regardless of Rural/Urban background seemed more casual towards Homosexuality historically and presently and thus were...less at risk of it(?), then the Germanic Tribes and later Kingdoms seemed a counter example: a people who were incredibly aggressive towards perceived homosexual tendencies, but also never displayed any cultural predilection or obsession with the practice that an implied leaning towards it would evidence. If we have a rich tradition of African homosexual practices even in their modern (and it really is a European colonial legacy) homophobic rich surface culture, we didn't see any in Germany.
It just didn't seem coherent as a holistic argument. Otherwise, I fully agree with the genetic segregation and rural neurosis that is occurring/has occurred. On the sodomy question though, I guess we'd need to see if there actually *were* higher rates or increasing rates of gay practice in the countryside that would prove out the idea more aggressive homophobia was consistently connected to greater risk of homosexual acts.
I'd just say rural homophobia is really a legacy of traditional (northern) European homohobia and Christianity. As the latter wanes and the rural population becomes less White, I'd expect homophobia to decrease.
I'm not sure that the Germanic people lacked homosexuality in comparison with the Greeks. The argument of Tacitus is that they killed gay people -- not that gay people didn't exist. The question I'm asking is this article is not whether gayness is more acceptable in rural America (it isn't) but whether it is more prevalent (it is). It is entirely possible that Germanics killed gay people at higher rates than the Greeks did, but that this was also because the Germanics were more gay to begin with.
I'm not arguing that ancient Germans were more gay than Greeks because they were more rural (they weren't) but I don't assume that Germanics had a lower prevalence of homosexuality.
We don't have records of the quantity of boggings as opposed to Greek/Roman persecution of homosexuality. The corpses we find in bogs do not have little notes attached saying, "he was gay." People were bogged for every reason under the sun: it was a standard form of capital punishment for all offenses.
The Hebrew Bible is very anti-gay, but I don't think that's evidence of a lack of homosexuality among the Hebrews. I generally think the more anti-gay a culture it is, the more prevalent homosexual desires are. However, I think it's possible that Tacitus overestimated Germanic homophobia, for the following reasons:
We have a lot of evidence of Greek/Roman homosexuality, because they themselves wrote about it. Absence of evidence of Germanic homosexuality is not evidence of absence.
The Scythians, another nomadic indo-European culture, had transgender priests, the Enaree. It is possible that the Norse originally had transgender priests too, and this is reflected in the fact that the Norse believed that gender-bending was related to witchcraft and magical practices.
Odin abuses his body in order to obtain knowledge of the runes, which is the euphemism Tacitus uses to describe homosexuality (abuse of one's own body).
In some versions of Odin's sacrifice, he is tied up, BDSM-style, in other versions, he is stabbed with a spear, which sounds like a sexual metaphor to me.
Vikings didn't write anything on paper or parchment -- histories were orally transmitted, and then written down in the Christian period. This is the case with the Eddas.
It is my belief that the Germans initially worshipped the Vanir (Tyr) and then later switched to Odin, and this switch occurred sometime between 1600 BC (at the earliest) and 200 BC (at the latest). I don't have archaeological evidence for this (it was revealed to me in a dream) but this is relevant to the point you're getting at, which is that Germanics are "inherently anti-gay, across a 3000 year time span, more than every other people on earth." Maybe you're not saying that, but if you are, then I would counter by saying that Germanic religion and culture changed drastically and to ascribe any sort of consistent thread of values on sexuality to that culture (specifically, in opposition to Greeks) seems tenuous.
For example, Engels noted that Germanics tend to be hard working, because of their Protestant Work Ethic. Today, non-Christian people of Germanic descent still are very hard working. But Tacitus writes that Germanic men loved to drink beer, go hunting, go to war, but left all the manual labor to women and slaves. So cultures can change over time, and I would caution against the idea that Germanics are genetically less gay, or something. If you wanted to make that argument, I'd be more convinced if you spelled out a biological theory of homosexuality. It's entirely possible that Germanics selected against homosexuality more than Greeks, but why? How? How would killing homosexuals reduce their biological prevalence, if homosexuals don't reproduce anyway? Are we talking about homosexuality or bisexuality? Currently, bisexuals have higher fertility than heterosexuals. You could make an R/K argument, but I don't find homosexuals to be a product of R selective norms. I didn't argue that Asians are less homosexual, by the way. I said they have a lower rate of AIDS, which is due to sexual selectivity, not increased heterosexuality.
Most men throughout history weren't gay, and when we talk about gay men we're talking about 1% of the population. Biologically, it's not a very important phenomenon, until the last 20 years, where the LGBTQ population has exploded. I think if we look at testosterone levels, xenoestrogens, and biological infertility, there's a strong case to be made that we are living in peak gay. Whatever quibbles we have over the Greeks vs Germanics (the Germanics were 0% gay! The Greeks were 2% gay!) is fairly insignificant in the context of the current statistics.
I was trying to find data on this, and I think 6% of men have ever had sex with men, but I'm having a difficult time finding this broken down by age group. I would not be surprised if it was 1% of Silent Gen, and 10% of Gen Z (out of those who are not virgins). If we just look at porn usage, I think probably 20% of Gen Z actively consumes gay pornography. Maybe more.
The evidence that we have regarding homosexual-specific boggings is scant and much of these sources, like the Eddas, were recorded and written down by Christians, not pagans. That seems to be a specific problem of authenticity and authorship that Norse-philiacs ignore. They hate on Christians, but also assume that Christians faithfully copied down the Eddas word for word for word. The oldest copy of the Eddas is from the 13th century.
The evidence from Tacitus is again suspect, because his purpose in writing the Germania was not just to accurately do work in anthropology, but to critique Roman society by comparing it with the "nobility" of the Germans. Tactitus claims that Germans worship Mercury, which is not true -- this was a tactic of Interpretatio Romana, to attempt to view foreign cultures through the Roman model.
Your argument about Germanic culture extending to all northern European whites is also undermined by the fact that I have seen no evidence that the Celts had a similar practice of bogging. Most northern Europeans are genetically descended from Celtic cultures (stretching from Austria to Britain), not Germanic ones. If you have evidence I'd be interested to see it.
The Greeks and Romans also persecuted homosexuals. I don't think the difference is that the Greeks and Romans were more tolerant, but that they wrote more about it. The Germanics never wrote about it, but they were valorized by one dude (Tacitus) who used them in order to encourage Romans to be more manly. It's like when rightists say, "Islam is based! We Christians need to be more like them!" Islam is in fact not as based as it appears, but it is useful for rightists to use this valorized image of Islam in order to encourage/rile up/motivate themselves.
Non-whites are more homophobic, so a decline in whites means an increase of homophobia (and homosexuality). I agree that homophobia correlates with Christianity. But that rural Christians are still more homophobic than urban Christians, and non-white Christians are more homophobic than white Christians.
Especially true in former coal-mining towns
So much shit and propaganda in one painfully incorrect article.
1 - Way to take a shot at ALL Jews everywhere for the actions of a few. THAT wasn't the premeditated intent (sarcasm). Of course, it's trendy and expected for the religious Woke to use Jews as their whipping boys; proving that the 'justice' part that goes after the social is a concept infinitely distant from the activist's mind.
2 - Mental illness is most readily apparent when someone's view of the world is so ideologically captured, that they will defend idiocies such as: Trans-women are real women. They do so unironically, while also telling people to listen to the science. Clearly, not the science of evolutionary biology.
I am Jewish. Provide me with a quote that you think is inaccurate.
You sound like a Jewish conservative. Are you?
What’s your take on the Idiocracy movie theory that rural whites and conservatives that have large family’s will just breed everyone out….
For every purple haired overweight single mum with one trans kid, I have a 36 year old Mormon friend with six…. Your thoughts…
What happens in 30 years with this going on ?
Most people don't understand how birth rates work. Conservative and Mormon birth rates are both decreasing, parallel to liberal birth rates.
-Let's say you have 10 liberals, ages 10-100, and 10 conservatives, ages 5-50. So the liberals are twice as old, and half as much children.
-Within 30 years, the liberals will only have 3 kids, and 3 of them will die. So you now have 10 liberals. Yes, over time, the liberals will decrease to 5, but due to population aging, that will take more than 30 years.
-Within 30 years, the conservatives have 6 kids, and 1 of them dies. So there are now 15 conservatives.
What percentage of those conservative kids become liberal? Another way to ask this is, how many religious kids become atheists?
Marxists have had lower birth rates than Christians for 100 years and they still took over eastern Europe, so birth rate reductionism is not deterministic, at least not in 30 years.
More thoughts:
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/how-gen-x-invented-wokeness
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/conservatism-is-atheism
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/emergence-and-hegemony
Wow!You could have almost tied that up in a nice bow too. In a world where affirmative action still casts its shadow over white existence and DEI ESG and CRT have followed the education and work environments has been poisoned.
Interesting theory, how does it dovetail with white flight?
White flight is to suburbs mostly, not rural areas.
Prescient piece
Inspired by your comments 3 years ago.