Archive

Posts Tagged ‘colonialism’

On the Peculiar Connection between Systemic Racism and Feminism: 2

April 2, 2019 25 comments

In the previous post of this series, I wrote about how feminism started and thrives in countries with a strong previous legacy of pedestalling white women due to a desire for maintaining racial purity- which is another way of saying that feminism (as we know it today) has always been strongly associated with, and grown out of, colonialism and racism. I first noticed this connection almost two decades ago due to an interesting combination of circumstances. As some readers might know, that is when I moved here to do graduate school. Anyway.. since scientific research is a multi-national endeavor, I quickly noticed an interesting pattern namely, that the willingness of a guy to debase himself for women was not universal- even among white men.

For example- it was unusual to see men of eastern European or Mediterranean origins fawning over women (even attractive ones) at anywhere near the levels displayed by ‘local’ men for borderline ugly women. And let us be clear about something, science does not attract ‘alpha’ men- but even there the difference between those from Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries vs rest of Europe and the World was very obvious. I also noticed something else which, at first, was peculiar. Local men in these now-declining Anglo-Saxon (A-S) countries do not ascribe agency to women, or do so in an unusual manner. Now, let me explain that sentence in some detail. See.. men from most countries around the world see women as being capable of making their own decisions- whether those turn out to be good, bad, sad or just plain stupid.

However men from A-S counties are desperate to rationalize any bad, sad or stupid decision made by a woman as not her decision. These men always ascribe external agency to a woman’s bad decisions while always invoking her own agency to explain the good ones. In other words, every stupid, bad and self-destructive decision made by a white woman is not her fault, while every OK decision is proof of her competence. Some of you might say that this is further proof of feminism brainwashing those men. I, however, disagree. The whole trope of “women are always right and never responsible for bad decisions” has a much longer history in A-S countries than feminism. In fact, the idea that white women (but not black or brown women) are not responsible for their bad decisions can be found in English literature as far back as mid 1800s, decades before feminism was even a thing. In other words, it preceded feminism.

Don’t believe me? Read a few novel, novellas and short stories from that period- especially those which also contain non-white female characters. You will quickly see that white women are always portrayed as pure, kind and good while non-white women are shown as evil, conniving and animalistic. Contrast this to the depiction of women in the mythology and folklore of other cultures. Were women depicted as always good in ancient Greek or Roman mythology, folklore or literature? What about Chinese, Japanese or Korean mythology and folklore? What about Indian or middle-eastern mythology and folklore? Heck.. even continental European folklore and stories, such as the Brothers Grimm collection did not depict women as inherently good. My point is that most cultures throughout human history never saw women as inherently pure, good, faultless etc. But after early 1800s this became the default view in A-S and later Scandinavian countries.

But what does this have to do with the world of 2019- at least as it exists in A-S countries? Well.. let me ask you another set of questions- would laws favoring women in divorce and child-custody etc exist without a large number of white men stupid enough to willingly believe and support hilarious myths such as the inherent “purity”, “goodness”, “desirability” etc of white women? Would all that talk about how women make less than men and deserve affirmative action exist without a large percentage of white men (in those countries) willing to believe in the myth of white women being inherently deserving and virtuous? And why is the myth that all men are sexual deviants with an interest in children almost exclusive to A-S and Scandinavian countries.

Conversely, why are men from other parts of the world far more willing to acknowledge that gold-digging and other forms of parasitic behavior is common among women? Why are they also far more willing to acknowledge that women can be as screwed up in the head as men- and often more so. Why are they far less inclined to obsessively seek female approval for their behavior and decisions? Are you starting to see a trend? In case you aren’t, let me spell it out for you- a lot of the behavioral patterns displayed by white men in A-S and Scandinavian countries are older than feminism, though they do arise from the same toxic pond of colonialism and racism. It is these patterns which enabled and supported the rise of feminism in those countries.

A lot of behavior displayed by men in these countries, traditionally ascribed to evolutionary psychology bullshit such as eggs being more expensive than sperm, is in reality largely restricted to those countries. The thing is.. outside of these countries, the world is a very different place. This is not say that other countries do not have legal equality of the sexes. Indeed, one can argue than east-European communist countries had far more real sexual equality than A-S countries. However this equality never led to university departments of women studies, atrocious divorce and child-custody laws, hordes of SJWs, constant empty talk of “empowerment” and men being seen as innate sexual predators. Any you why.. because those countries did not have the pre-existing legacy of colonialism-derived racism.

In the next part of this series, I will write about why most white men in A-S and Scandinavian countries still willingly and diligently keep polishing the turd of white women supremacy aka feminism.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Peculiar Connection between Systemic Racism and Feminism: 1

March 21, 2019 31 comments

Regular readers know that I have written many posts about the intersection of racism and dating. In fact, that is why entire series such as Why Escorts are Always a Better Deal than Relationships or Marriage, Escorts are a better deal than ‘real’ women and How to Use Escorts exist in the first place. But what does any of this have to do with the intersection between racism and feminism? Well.. for starters, systemic racism by women in western countries is the main reason behind their vastly differing rates of having “unpaid” sex with men of various racial groups. However, as you will soon see, it goes much further than that and in ways you probably never appreciated. Let me start by asking you a simple question: Why is Feminism as we understand it today, in all its forms, largely restricted to Anglo, and perhaps Scandinavian, countries. Odd, isn’t it?

At this point, some of you might try to counter my suggestion that feminism is largely an Anglo and Scandinavian phenomena by pointing out that almost every single country in the world seems to, nowadays, have equal legal rights for men and women. And I do not disagree that the majority of countries today do have laws and, in many cases socio-economic systems, which do a good or at least decent job of treating men and women equally. Notice something peculiar about the wording of previous two sentences? See.. ensuring legal equality of the sexes is not the same as feminism- which is really about white women gaining primacy over all other men. While feminism did come into existence, as a movement, to ostensibly ensure that women were legally equal to men- that was never its initial nor ultimate goal.

Instead, feminism in Anglo countries started a project to gain primacy for rich and bourgeoisie white women. Don’t believe me? Did you know that luminaries of the suffragette movement were super racist white women? Also this fact is really well known in addition to causing a host of practical problems in the past. But it gets worse, if you can believe it. White suffragettes were into stuff like eugenics and forced sterilization, seriously racist views about black and asian men and a whole lot of other stuff which would get them labelled as a hate group today. All of this does however bring us to the next logical question: Why were Anglo, and to a lesser extent Scandinavian countries, such hotspots for Feminism? Why were other European countries full of equally racist losers, such as Germany or Italy, never that much into Feminism?

To better understand what I am going to talk about, let me ask you another seemingly unrelated question. How many male admirers will post comments on Instagram shots of an attractive woman in a thong bikini if she was from Germany, Spain, Brazil versus if she was from USA or UK? In my experience, there are between 10-40 times more positive comments from guys if the women in question is from Anglo countries than if she was from non-Anglo countries. And this has nothing to do with the degree of Instagram use in those countries. You can see the same pattern on social media networks more popular in non-Anglo countries than their Anglo counterparts. Leaving worshipful comments in response to photos of attractive women is just not that common outside the Anglosphere. But why is that so? What is going on?

Here is something else to think about.. Say a woman accuses some guy of date rape (a he said, she said situation). What percentage of men not related to the accuser will unconditionally believe her story in countries such as Germany, France and Italy versus USA? Why is it far higher in USA than in non-Anglo countries? What makes men in Anglo countries far more willing and eager to go along with any bullshit a white woman will say as compared to their counterparts in other (still) white-majority countries? Note that women in developed non-Anglo countries are no more (often less) likely to be suffer violence than their counterparts in Anglo countries. Nor are women in those countries likely to be poorer, unhealthier or worse off than their counterparts in Anglo countries- in fact, the converse is more likely. Once again, what is going on?

Then there is the issue of sex, both paid and “unpaid”. Why are white women in non-Anglo countries more likely to have a sexual relationship (than Anglo women) with a non-white guy, given the opportunity? Why are escorts born outside USA, or are early second-generation types from non-Anglo countries widely recognized as far more reasonable and generally way more fun than their Anglo counterparts? Why do people like RooshV and Matt Forney keep saying that women outside North America are far better than those within it? Why are the laws surrounding prostitution in some Anglo countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada more reasonable than those in USA or UK? And what does any of this have to do with the topic of this post?

In case you have not noticed the trend, let me state it explicitly. Male support for feminism in western countries correlates quite well with the size of empire it has or had and whether it was a society based in racial-apartheid (USA). That is why Feminism always has, and had, a far bigger presence in countries such as UK and USA than others such as Italy, Germany or even France. This is also why Feminism, SJW-ism and other white women-first movements are bigger in USA and UK than ex-colonies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand- who seem to largely copy whatever occurs in USA. Now you know why otherwise rich western countries such as Netherlands and Switzerland have far fewer vocal feminist activists or public support for such ideas than countries like UK and USA. But why would the size of ex-colonial empires or erstwhile global influence create fertile grounds for Feminism?

It all comes down to the myths which people, who get lucky, have to invent to justify their newly found fortune. In the case of UK, its success at gaining overseas territory during the 19th century was largely due to factors beyond its own control. Whether it was the slow decline of French imperial ambitions after Napoleon or being present at the time of large-scale internal civil strife in countries such as India and China- they just got lucky. But human being do not like to admit (especially to themselves) that they owe their fortunes to luck. Hence the need to believe that they were, as a race, somehow inherently superior. You can see where this is going.. Also, the empire was mostly staffed by young men who lived in lands with very few white women. That is why inter-racial marriage was pretty common in many older colonies until the early 1800s. However this changed once the British empire started consolidating.

Placing white women on a pedestal makes sense only if it somehow translates into maintaining racial purity. Colonialism lead to the need for maintaining racial hierarchy and hence purity which lead to pedestalling white women which then lead to Feminism. And that is why a lot of early Feminism were rich racist white women who came from either the ruling or bourgeoisie class. This is also why most pre-1960s Feminists had an obsession with maintaining racial purity and the status quo. Let us now turn to USA aka the country built on theft of land from its original inhabitants, their subsequent genocide and wealth created through race-based slavery. While the USA was not, technically, an extra-territorial empire until the 1890s- this had much to do with it being not necessary. Westward expansion until early 20th century was just way easier.

As far as Scandinavian countries are concerned, things took a different route. While they gave up the idea of competing with UK, France and Spain for overseas colonies quite early, they benefited greatly from supporting colonialism through involvement in commercial activity in colonies and the process of colonization. So ya.. that is why systemic racism and Feminism have, historically, been joined at the hip. Feminism can only thrive in countries with a strong previous legacy of pedestalling white women due to a desire of maintaining racial purity. There is, of course, more to this story than Feminism being the end-product of delusions about intrinsic racial superiority. Will explain more in an upcoming post.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on the Best Way to Destroy Pathological Ideologies: 4

August 1, 2018 11 comments

In the previous post of this series, I made the point that pathological ideologies and their willing vectors never give up doing what they are doing unless the vast majority of them they are dead. I had made a similar point in a short series written almost five years ago (link 1, link 2). My point was that genocides committed during course of WW2 required a significant minority of people to be enthusiastic followers of whichever ideology they claimed to believe or practise.

With that in mind, let us consider a few thought experiments to understand the necessity of vectors for success or failure of pathological ideologies. On another note, please read the entirety of this post before commenting on it..

Thought Experiment # 1: Consider the artificially caused Irish Famine of 1845-1849. More specifically, let us consider whether the vast majority of deaths during those years were caused by a genuine lack of food or a system of governance which saw and treated most of the Irish as little better than stray animals. There are many villains in this story, some more well-known that others. Nowadays, many people rightly blame the laws passed by the British government in decades prior to that incident as well as their lack of response in response to human suffering. But were they the only villains, and more importantly- who enforced their laws in Ireland?

Well.. the unpleasant part of that famine and many others in the same era was the role played by local landed gentry and law enforcement personal in enforcing laws and regulations which caused the famine. Holding only the British government responsible for that famine gives a pass to all the Irish landlords, merchants, petty bureaucrats and law-enforcement types who made tons of money during the famine while their country men and women were starving around them. The Irish famine would not have been possible without the active and enthusiastic collaboration of many local CONservative-minded rich and petit bourgeois types who worked hard to make it so.

Now comes the ‘thought experiment’ part.. Imagine that the willing collaborators and their families kept on dying of an untreatable disease with extremely high mortality- which for an odd reason affected them almost exclusively. Imagine that the disease in question killed off over 50% of the collaborators and their families within a year. Now ask yourself, how long could the British government of that era keep on replacing all their faithful dead servants, if the new ones kept experiencing the same high rates of mortality? And why would even the most greedy and sociopathic types want to accept a job that came with almost certain death within a year.

Thought Experiment # 2: Consider Late Victorian Holocausts, especially in India. These are a series of famines which killed anywhere between 30-60 million people in the second half of the 19th century- and does not include tens of millions who died in similar artificial famines in the same countries between 1775-1850. These numbers, among many others, provide an interesting counterpoint to claims about death by famine under state communism in the first half (or so) of 20th century. If you believe that state communism caused the Ukrainian famine of 1930s and Chinese famine of early 1960s, one also has to accept that capitalism caused an equivalent of deaths in the 19th century.

But this post is not about whether capitalism caused these famines (it most certainly did) or whether racism played a major role in how events unfolded (shockers.. it did), but about who was responsible for causing the tens of millions of deaths. Once again, we can certainly blame the British government of that era, but doing so tells us only a small part of how things went down. Here is why.. you see, there were never more than 100 k British stationed in any part or the whole of India at any time from 1775-1947. In fact, there were less than 30 k people from the British Isles in India in most years. So, how can you entirely blame such large-scale events on presence of an absolute minority who never accounted for more than 1 in 500 individuals?

And once again, the answer to this apparent ‘mystery’ is that British had a huge number of local collaborators who were willing and enthusiastic about working for a system which was responsible for the death of millions of people who looked like them. Today, we often forget that policies which caused these famines also made many Indian merchant families rich beyond your wildest imaginations. Many Indians still do not want to face the unpleasant fact that the Indian army, police, local administrators etc which carried out the genocidal mandates for British colonial types were almost exclusively local and Indian. In other words, it was basically what happened during the great Irish famine but on a much larger scale and over multiple time periods.

Now let us perform a similar ‘though experiment’. Imagine a situation where willing Indian collaborators and their families kept on dying of untreatable disease with rates of mortality such that entire batches or recruits for various colonial institutions dropped dead within a year. Now ask yourself again, how long could the British government of that era keep on replacing faithful dead servants, if the new ones kept experiencing the same greatly enhanced rates of mortality? Also, would it be possible for them to be able to continue recruitment if the recruits knew they would be dead within a year? And would they be able to govern India without local collaborators?

The point I am trying to make in both thought experiments is that external state sponsored events such the Great Irish famine and large Indian famines were only possible only because a small but significant minority of local people were willing and enthusiastic about working for obviously pathological ideologies. Furthermore, timely removal of this small but significant minority from the realms of living would have effectively terminated those mass tragedies and prevented the untimely deaths of many millions of innocent people. The real question then is, what level of excessive mortality among a behavioral minority who are enthusiastic participants in a genocide is acceptable in order to prevent deaths of many times that number of innocent people.

In the next part of this series, I will use some more thought experiments to explain this concept in more detail.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on the Best Way to Destroy Pathological Ideologies: 3

July 25, 2018 12 comments

In the previous post of this series, I pointed out that WW1 (and WW2) led to a marked reduction in the number of mediocre men in Europe who were willing or able to support the ideology of race-based colonialism. FYI- I am not implying that remainder of population in those countries experienced enlightenment and became liberal after 1945. It just so happened that the survivors finally realized they were just disposable tools who did not benefit from sustaining and working for the ideology in question which hen lost it critical mass of followers.

Also said something about discussing the effect of WW2 on continued viability of ideologies such as German Nazism, Japanese Nationalism and associated belief systems such as Eugenics. Well.. I am going to do that now. But before we go there, let us talk about how all or any of this relates to the world we live in right now. So let us start by asking ourselves with a few questions about why things in the world around us are the way they are.

Why did all the non-violent movements which began in response to the global financial crisis of 2008 (Occupy Wallstreet etc) not translate into anything beyond spicy memes and memorable slogans? Why have large public demonstrations against extra-judicial murder of black men by police in USA not reduced their incidence? Why does the debt load of students attending universities in USA keep on climbing every single year to even more ridiculous levels? Why do costs of mediocre healthcare in USA keep on rising every year?

Why do elected officials, bureaucrats and the ‘system’ in general act is if they can get way with anything they want? Why do working conditions for the average person keep on getting worse with each passing year? Why do large corporations feel so confident in their ability to abuse their customers without any real consequences? Why does the militarization of “law enforcement” apparatus in USA continue unabated? Why do petty bureaucrats, alt-right supporters and SJWs think they can harass and abuse others at will?

The very simplistic answer to those questions is that all those people, groups and entities firmly believe that they can get away with whatever they want because they will no repercussions or accountability for their actions. A significantly longer answer starts with acknowledging something that most people are unwilling to, namely that you cannot convert assholes, parasites and viruses into someone who is not noxious. People who build their existence around being an asshole, parasite, virus or an ardent supporter of noxious ideologies are never going to have an epiphany or willing give up being abusers.

Nazism did not decline into insignificance and become disreputable because its supporters saw the light of reason. Nazism became a disreputable and insignificant ideology because most of its ardent supporters were killed on the eastern front in WW2 or died in soviet ‘labor’ camps after WW2. Oh.. and most women in the eastern part of Germany were raped by Russian soldiers after WW2. To put it another way, even marginal supporters of Nazism had to pay a very heavy price for their previous support of that ideology.

Lets just say that it took a lot of effort to make sure that Nazism became a highly disreputable and marginal ideology. And you know something else.. there was realistically no other way to reach that endpoint. Do you really think that ardent believers in Nazism would have changed their ways if they had just been exposed to another viewpoint, received a better education, read more books or witnessed non-violent demonstrations against that ideology? Do you think they would have changed their viewpoints if they had interacted with more Jews or Russians?

The point I am trying to make is that supporters of ideologies which attract members through the promise of a license to inflict pain and death on innocent people cannot be reasoned or bargained with. The ultra-nationalists who flourished in Japan between 1919-1945 did have genuine grievances with international system of that era. They were also correct about Japan being short-changed after WW1. The Nazis too rose to public popularity based on genuine grievances such the highly unfair nature of Versailles treaty and the Great Depression which started in 1929.

But that does not excuse what Nazis did to millions of Eastern Europeans and Jews or Japanese did to millions more in China and Korea. But more importantly, a large part of the mass appeal of both ideologies was that they provided an opportunity and excuse for mediocre CONservative men in both countries to torture and kill millions in other countries. Let us not pretend that the vast majority of ardent supporters of Nazism and Japanese nationalism actually cared about the ideology they allegedly believed in, other than as justification for torture and murder.

Ideology, you see, is simply a self-justification for behavior. You cannot, therefore, destroy a noxious ideology by exposing its internal contradictions, hilarious irrationality and general emptiness. Ardent supporters of noxious ideologies use them as mental crutches to justify what they want to do while still being able to claim to themselves that they are “good”, “moral” and “law-abiding” persons. Noxious ideologies can only be destroyed once most of their ardent supporters are dead and the rest discredited as losers in conflicts.

In the next part, I will write more on how the mental crutch provided by ideologies such as Nazism and Japanese nationalism allowed its supporters to perform truly horrible acts in the 20th century. I will also compare that to how belief in race-based colonialism was used by mediocre CONservative men from European countries to justify equally horrific acts in the 19th century.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on the Best Way to Destroy Pathological Ideologies: 2

July 21, 2018 11 comments

In the previous post of this series, I made a point that two of most widespread and noxious ideologies of 20th century (race-based colonialism and nationalism) became functionally extinct in Europe largely because most of their “footsoldiers” died in a series of armed conflicts during first half of that century. To put it more bluntly- tens of millions of mediocre white (and Japanese) men, who would have otherwise been staunch supporters and defenders of both ideologies, got killed or physically and mentally fucked up by wars between 1914 and 1945.

You might also recall that I said something about why the mindset of those killed, maimed or mentally scarred had a large influence on the course of global history after 1945. So what was the mindset and worldview of these mediocre white men who became functionally extinct in Europe after 1945? A good place to start is the world in which they grew up. To make a long story short, the vast majority of these mediocre and reactionary men came from either an agricultural or working class background. This does not mean that they were all retarded.. just that they came from an environment where thinking objectively was not encouraged.

But that, by itself, is not enough to understand the unusually high prevalence of reactionary CONservatism among this group. For that, one has to first appreciate how a series of large socio-economic changes in late 19th century Europe affected an already CONservative rural agricultural class. Large-scale industrialization of Europe, contrary to what some of you might believe, did not start till 1860s. Even more importantly, certain ideas such as standardized compulsory basic schooling and nationalism did not become a big thing till the 1880s. You will see why those two things matter, later in the post.

Those dates are, however, important because the era between 1850 and 1900 was the true peak of European colonialism. After 1900, differences in relative abilities between colonizers and colonized started decreasing to the point where Europeans had to flee from even their last African colonies by mid-1960s. To put it another way, it was possible for a large number of the mediocre white men born between.. say.. 1850 and 1900 to actually believe that they were the “chosen people”. These simpletons also believed that staunchly supporting and serving their hyper-greedy national elite (who were happy to indulge racism of lower classes) was a winning strategy.

And for a few decades, it all seemed to work. But the world around does not stand still, and some now powerful countries which did not have large colonial possessions started resenting others which had entered the colonialism game many decades before them. The older models of governance in many of these countries were also not scaling well to the era of industrialization and resultant socio-economic changes. Development of weapon and logistics-related technology since the last large intra-European wars was, however, the biggest wild card.

While every large European power at that time was arming and rearming itself to the teeth, they all pretended that long drawn out wars were not feasible. Luckily, for the rest of humanity, it was feasible and all major powers experienced millions of ‘untimely’ deaths among men of prime working age and many millions more were made invalid for life. And we have not even started talking about associated civilian deaths and all those millions who died during 1918-1919 because of the great influenza pandemic that followed WW1.

While most belligerent countries lost between 2-5% of their population due to WW1, those losses was heavily concentrated among men of ages between 18-35. I have seen some studies which show that, in some countries like France and Germany, almost 50% of men in that age group were either dead or disabled by early 1919. Entire villages and towns in UK lost most of their young men, and entire cohorts of men who went to public school and oxbridge in UK were no longer alive by end of WW1. And we have not even touched on the massive demographic effects of the Russian civil war between 1917-1922.

Some might see it as a tragedy.. I prefer to see the partial extinction of a whole category of reactionary and CONservative minded men in and immediately after WW1 in a more positive light. Let us face it.. WW1 did remove a ton of mediocre and reactionary men who happened to be big supporters and cheerleaders of race-based colonialism from the reproductive pool. The aftermath of WW1 also exposed how full of shit the elites of those countries were. To make a long story short, the government of most countries involved in WW1 went to considerable lengths to avoid paying proper pensions and compensation to relatives of the dead and disabled.

The point I am trying to make is that WW1 resulted in death of a large percentage of most ardent supporters of race-based colonialism and disillusioned others who escaped with just a permanent disability or poverty. Did I mention that nationalism boosted by then new universal primary education was the ‘opium’ of these masses. While a reduction in support of race-based colonialism is not immediately obvious, the number of men who entered colonial services of European countries (or supported politicians who championed the ‘old ways’) took a terminal dive after WW1. Of course, it would take WW2 to finish the all that good work started by WW1.

In the next post of this series, I will talk about how WW2 put the proverbial headstone on grave of race-based colonialism and destroyed public support for militant nationalism and associated ideologies.

What do you think? Comments?

Some Thoughts on the Best Way to Destroy Pathological Ideologies: 1

July 15, 2018 32 comments

While I considered writing a short click-baity post about the latest misadventures of Elon Musk or something about the silliness of establishment’s latest bout of hyperventilation about Trump, Putin and Russia, I thought it would be better to complete something I have meaning to post for sometime. This post, is the first in a series, of what it actually takes to destroy a pathological ideology so thoroughly that it can never be resurrected. To be clear, I am not suggesting a course of action- just point out the obvious based on a historical analysis.

Some of the ideas put forth in this post, and series, have part of an older series (link 1, link 2). I have also written a few standalone posts (link 3, link 4, link 5) which touch on some concepts I am going to discuss in some detail. In case you are wondering, the gist of all those linked older posts is that willing and enthusiastic followers of a malicious ideology are the true agents of evil perpetrated by that ideology. Let me remind you that there is little to no evidence that most so-called tyrants and ideologues personally killed even a few people. Instead, every single death attributed to them was due to their followers doing the actually dirty work for them.

With that in mind, let us talk about factors responsible for extinction of two major and particularly noxious ideologies that were once widespread in the 20th century. The first ideology is best described as race-based white colonialism of non-white countries (especially in Asia and Africa). The second is militant and race-based nationalism of the type which dominated Germany and Japan during the 1930-1945 time-span. Most people living in countries where these ideologies were once dominant will today, at least in public, take great effort to disavow them. However, their ancestors once were ardent supporters of, and proud foot-soldiers for, these ideologies.

So.. how did we get from a world where people in the west were vocal and open about their “god-given right” to rob, abuse and murder non-whites to one where even an attempt to praise colonialism can get you fired from your job. How did we get from a world where ‘the west’ could occupy any non-white country it chose to one where a small Asian country like Vietnam could beat both France and USA (after WW2) and haunt their national psyches. Why was post-WW2 decolonization of the African continent so rapid? Why are people in Germany and Japan today so unwilling to praise anything or anybody connected to the period between 1930 and 1945?

The very brief, and polite answer, to those questions is that a number of “occurrences” in the first half of 20th century greatly reduced the number of vectors for ideologies such as race-based colonialism and militant nationalism. The long-form answer starts with acknowledging that many common people, in countries where those ideologies were once dominant, were willing and highly enthusiastic supporters of those ideologies. For example.. a lot of people (especially young men of limited means) in countries such as UK and France once were true believers in race-based colonialism. Similarly, many in 1930-1945 era Germany and Japan were enthusiastic believers in the noxious militant nationalistic ideologies which they came to repudiate- after 1945.

To understand what I am talking about, let us compare the noxious ideologies of past to similar ones prevalent in present-day USA. As the more perceptive of you might have noticed, there is no shortage of american idiots of a reactionary mindset and mediocre cognitive capabilities who will support tons of stupid and dangerous things which do not benefit them such as involvement endless wars in foreign countries, support for outrageous levels of military spending, opposition to public spending on healthcare because if might benefit the “coloreds” etc. To be fair- people who think like this are now a minority, but a significant minority nonetheless.

And this brings us to the obvious question- why are European and Japanese equivalents of these CONservative idiots far less numerous? The simple answer is that many of them died in WW1, inter-war conflicts and WW2. The ones who survived those “occurrences” were seen by the rest of their society as losers who should not be emulated. The more complex version of this story is that WW1, inter-war conflicts in Europe and WW2 resulted in disproportional deaths of young white men of reactionary mindset and mediocre cognitive ability regardless of whether the belligerent nations recruited for their armed forces through patriotism or conscription.

The sheer number of deaths and disabilities due to those wars, Influenza pandemic of 1918 and all those Nazis who died in Russian prison camps after WW2 removed tens of millions of useful idiots who would have otherwise helped further causes such as race-based colonialism and militant nationalism. The low number of deaths due to those wars in USA (because it joined both almost 3 years after had started) is, sadly, why reactionary CONservative thinking persists in USA. Large scale excessive deaths among useful reactionary drones is, historically speaking, the only way to effect lasting social change including getting rid of pathological ideologies.

In the next part of this series, I will write in more detail about how demographic changes due to WW1 and WW2 started changing the worldview of people in those countries. More specifically, I will talk about the mindset of those who got killed, maimed or mentally scarred in those wars (and their aftermath) in comparison to those who survived. Will also cast some light on the severity of demographic profile shifts in main belligerent countries after both wars.

What do you think? Comments?