The Media is Shocked When the Boulder Shooter is Not a White Male, Delete Their Own Tweets

PeddaKondappa · 2021-03-24T05:06:14+00:00

The shooter is a Syrian, which means he is whiter than the average American.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-03-20T18:49:11+00:00

It's amusing that you accuse me of "regurgitating globohomo history" when you believe in the "Christian Dark Ages", which is literally the founding myth of liberalism. Can you name me even a single Jewish intellectual who praises the policies of the pre-modern Church, including the Inquisitions, and considers the medieval Christian West to be superior to modern liberal West? Even "right-wing" Jews like Ben Shapiro only praise so-called "Judeo-Christian values" (a stupid term made up by Americans in the 1940s) to the extent that those values facilitated the rise of Classical Liberalism and the Enlightenment. They don't praise the medieval Christian West as an end in itself, and certainly don't believe medieval Christendom to be superior to liberal modernity.

In fact, the very term "medieval" has acquired a negative connotation in the popular consciousness, due to the endless propaganda promoted by Jews, liberals, and leftists against the Middle Ages (which you also parrot). If I were to describe a certain practice as an "ancient custom", for example, that description would have a neutral or even positive connotation. However, if I were to describe the same practice as a "medieval custom," then all of a sudden the practice would be assumed to be barbaric, superstitious, tyrannical, etc. Thankfully, to save the Middle Ages from such debasement, all one has to do is look at the art and architecture produced by medieval Christians, which are works of beauty unparalleled in Western history before or since. Look at Christian illuminated manuscripts and Christian architecture like the Notre Dame Cathedral in France or Lincoln Cathedral in England, which was the tallest building on earth at the time (surpassing the Great Pyramids of Egypt and anything from Classical Antiquity). There was absolutely nothing produced by pagans of northern and eastern Europe that could match such great works.

Before I leave this discussion, I would like to point out one more thing: the very concept of "Europe" is itself a product of the Christian era. You casually used terms like "European pagans", but no pagan people in what is now Europe ever identified as such. There was no common collective identity whatsoever among "European pagans." On the contrary, different pagan peoples of Europe proudly boasted of slaughtering and enslaving other pagan peoples of Europe. For example, Julius Caesar in his Bellum Gallicum proudly claims that he slaughtered a million Gauls, and enslaved a million more. That was probably an exaggeration, but it reflects the fact that that there was no common identity whatsoever between them. It was during the Christian era that the term "Europeans" was first used to describe a people with a common identity, and that common identity was shaped by Christianity. Here is a post I wrote three years ago on the topic of the emergence of Western civilization as a discrete entity:

What we now call "Western civilization" emerged during the Early Middle Ages, when Western Europe came to define itself as a uniquely Christian civilization that was distinct from other areas of the known world, including other areas that were once part of the Roman Empire. It was during this period that we see the essential building blocks of a distinctly "Western" identity come into being. For instance, we see the emergence of pilgrimage sites at places like Tours in France (home of the relics of St. Martin) and Santiago de Compostela in Spain (where the remains of St. James are reportedly buried). Pilgrims from all over Western Europe would travel to such sites, contributing to a sense of a shared Christian identity that was also distinctly Western (since such sites didn't receive pilgrims from Byzantium or Armenia or Ethiopia). We also see the establishment of monasteries throughout Western Europe that tied together formerly disparate regions into a single cultural/intellectual complex. For example, St. Columbanus of Ireland founded monasteries at Luxeil in France and Bobbio in Italy, while his disciple St. Gall founded a monastery with the same name in modern-day Switzerland. If you were a Christian in the Middle Ages, your "mental map" of the "Western world" would have included all of these different places, and a Christian monk from Denmark could travel to Ireland or to Italy without feeling that he was crossing the boundary to an "alien" civilization, since he would be greeted by fellow Latin-speaking monks in familiar abbeys and churches in those distant countries.

Accompanying these developments was the emergence of the terms "Europe" and "European" as cultural descriptors (often used synonymously with "Western" or "Occidental"), which prior to the Middle Ages were not used as meaningful cultural terms. One of the earliest uses of the term "Europe" in such a context can be seen in the 7th century Vita Sanctae Geretrudis, which is a hagiography of St. Gertrude of Nivelles (in modern-day Belgium). This hagiography describes St. Gertrude as being "well-known throughout the Christian land of Europe" on account of her piety. The notion of "Europe" being a Christian land was further defined by the Islamic conquest of Spain in the 8th century, and the failed invasion of France. Indeed, the first usage of the plural noun "Europeans" (in Latin, europenses) was in the Continuatio Hispana of AD 754, which describes the Frankish victory at the Battle of Poitiers in 732 as a "victory for the Europeans", demonstrating the growing self-consciousness of the emerging "European" or "Western" civilization.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-03-16T23:31:47+00:00

This is a typical uninformed christian cope, a sad display of spiritual Stockholm-syndrome.

I am neither a Christian nor a Westerner, and I don't really care what religion Westerners follow. The purpose of my post was not to "defend" Christianity, which is anyway a dead religion in the West. The purpose of my post was to simply describe historical facts. You seem to believe that European pagans had some hatred or taboo against cousin marriage, which is simply false. Many prominent Greek and Roman pagans engaged in cousin marriages (I gave multiple examples), and none of them were condemned for it by their contemporaries. It was only after the advent of Christianity that we see condemnation of cousin marriage. The Church's opposition to endogamy facilitated the breakdown of the traditional tribal/clan structure of pagan Europe, which was organized around the gens and its equivalents. That's why tribal or clan-based societies still exist in the Middle East today but had vanished from most of Europe by the Late Middle Ages, except among some isolated populations.

Such policies, in combination, and with the caloric restrictions (which is actually common across the world with atrocious rulership, especially in Asia) were effective in keeping Whites down.

What do you mean "keeping Whites down"? It was only under the Christian regime that "Whites", particularly northern and eastern Europeans, became civilized and had relevance on the global stage. Before Christianity, most European groups (with the exception of Meds) did not even have written literature or organized states. For example, one of the oldest books written in a Germanic language is the Gothic Bible, which was written in the 4th century by a missionary of Middle Eastern origin. It was also under the Christian regime that the greatest architectural wonders of Western history were made (the Gothic cathedrals of medieval Europe), which have no parallel in pagan Europe. The Christian regime preserved Classical literature and promoted education, while the savage pagan Scandinavians were basically white niggers who attacked and looted monasteries.

However, the idea that Islamic culture has far more in common with ancient Greek and Roman culture than modern Western culture is just wild.

It is a fact. All you have to do is look at what the Greeks and Romans actually believed on such essential topics as slavery, patriarchy, gender relations and masculine/feminine roles, etc., and compare their beliefs with modern Western beliefs and Islamic beliefs on the same topics. The Romans believed in a strictly patriarchal family organization headed by the pater familias, who held power (potestas) over his dependent family members as well as any slaves that he owned. The Emperor Augustus decreed that a father had the authority to kill his own daughter and her lover if they were caught fornicating, what we would now call an "honor killing." And as I mentioned earlier, it was customary for all respectable Roman women to veil themselves in public, especially after marriage. Women who did not veil were considered to be low-class, vulgar women or prostitutes. In fact, in 166 BC the Roman Consul Sulpicius Gallus promptly divorced his wife because she went out without a veil.

I'm sure 99.9% of modern Westerners would consider these customs to be "barbaric" and Roman men to be "evil misogynists." There is only one civilization on earth which still has similar customs as these Romans, and it definitely isn't the modern West. But since Americans are superficial morons, they will probably think they are the "successors of Rome" because their upper legislature is called a "Senate" and their government buildings are built in a derivative Neoclassical style, even though their essential social and cultural values (which actually matter when defining civilizations) are diametrically opposed to those of the ancient Romans.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-03-11T19:38:17+00:00

The notion that a young prince in a fairy tale is usually beautiful by default is totally nonchristian - it's the sin of vanity. But these are atavistic Pagan instincts deep within us. Muslims, an abrahamestic offshoot have no such instincts and literally see no problem in repeated close cousin marriages, which just visually looks usually like a hatecrime against nature.

Cousin marriage only became taboo in the West after the advent of Christianity. More specifically, it was the Emperor Theodosius (who made Christianity the official state religion of Rome) who banned cousin marriage in 381, and the Catholic Church ardently enforced this ban during the subsequent centuries. Pagan Romans had no problem with cousin marriage, and practiced it freely. Mark Antony married Antonia Hybrida Minor, the daughter of his uncle Gaius Antonius Hybrida. Octavian's daughter, Julia the Elder, married Octavian's nephew Marcus Claudius Marcellus. And Marcus Aurelius, one of the most famous and virtuous of Roman emperors, married his first cousin Faustina, with whom he had 13 children. Likewise, the ancient Greeks also practiced cousin marriage, and in addition also allowed marriages between uncles and nieces. The most famous example would probably be King Leonidas of Sparta marrying Gorgo, who was the daughter of Leonidas' half-brother Cleomenes.

It's always amusing to me when I see modern Westerners (usually northern Europeans) LARPing as the descendants of people with whom they have no cultural connection whatsoever, and about whom they know very little. I can't wait to see your reaction when you find out that the Greek and Roman aristocracy also practiced veiling of their women, just like Muslims do. Islamic culture has far more in common with ancient Greek and Roman culture than modern Western culture, and it's not even close.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-02-17T17:15:28+00:00

Why do you simp for Uyghurs, moron? Do you think Uyghurs will reciprocate your concern when America starts putting dissidents in gulags? I'm sure most Western morons didn't even know who the Uyghurs were until a couple years ago lmao.

Long live China, long live the CCP.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-02-17T01:04:43+00:00

I agree that federal/central police should be abolished. The law should be enforced by local imams or sheikhs instead. The government should intervene only when local authorities are unable to carry out their tasks.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-02-17T00:21:54+00:00

New law in Palestine makes it illegal for a woman to travel without a man's permission.

That should be the law everywhere.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-02-04T22:26:32+00:00

I don't have any friends.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-02-04T21:58:13+00:00

In modern history, the city of Mumbai is much more similar to North India, due to heavy immigration from North India and the use of Hindi as the predominant spoken language in the city. But Maharashtra as a whole is culturally more similar to South Indian states like Karnataka and Telangana than to North India.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-02-04T09:58:17+00:00

South India is significantly richer and more developed than North India, as a whole. Only the Delhi capital region and the areas around it are at a comparable level of development to South India. Here is a map showing the distribution of GDP per capita by state: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/NSDP_Per_Capita_of_Indian_States_and_UT%27s%2C_2018-19.png

Even dark-skinned Tamils are significantly richer than North Indians and Pakistanis.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-02-03T20:50:00+00:00

What we now call "India" is a totally artificial country that was created by a British multinational corporation in the 19th century. It includes hundreds of different groups who for most of recorded history were never ruled by the same government. With that being said, most Indians are indeed racially and culturally similar, analogous to how all Europeans from Portugal to Russia share racial and cultural similarities (as well as significant differences). The real outliers in the Indian context are peoples on the periphery of the subcontinent. For example, the people in the far northeast of India are mostly Mongoloids who are much more similar to Tibetans and Burmese than to your typical Indian. Those people often face racial discrimination from "mainland" Indians.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-02-03T20:39:27+00:00

No, you have dravidians, Indo-Europeans and oceanic people

Those are not races. Dravidian and Indo-European are both linguistic categories, not racial categories. A Norwegian and a Bengali are both Indo-European, but they do not belong to the same race (though they have more racial similarity than, say, a Norwegian and an Ugandan). I'm not sure what you mean by "Oceanic people". Do you mean Australoids?

PeddaKondappa · 2021-01-20T22:48:16+00:00

Wikipedia is a great resource and is factually correct most of the time, because things which are blatantly false get quickly edited out (except in particularly obscure articles). It's also a great red-pill vector. Probably one of the biggest reasons why so many people have become aware of the JQ is due to the biography and early life sections of certain people's Wiki articles. There's also usually lots of sources at the bottom of articles for further research.

Yeah, there are lots of fags and queers who frame certain articles in a pozzed manner, but that's to be expected in the modern day and it doesn't really matter as long as the factual content is correct and properly sourced.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-01-20T19:39:43+00:00

Today's featured article on Wikipedia is John Neal, a 19th century American writer and activist who is a prime example of an early SJW, and a good demonstration that the destructive ideas we see today were present from a very early period of American history. Quoting from his Wiki page (all emphasis and bracket inserts are mine):

John Neal (August 25, 1793 – June 20, 1876) was an American writer, critic, editor, lecturer, and activist. Considered both eccentric and influential, he delivered speeches and published essays, novels, poems, and short stories between the 1810s and 1870s in the United States and Great Britain, championing American literary nationalism and regionalism in their earliest stages. Neal advanced the development of American art, fought for women's rights, advocated the end of slavery and racial prejudice, and helped establish the American gymnastics movement.

The first American author to use natural diction and a pioneer of colloquialism [i.e. dumbing down the English language], John Neal is the first to use "son-of-a-bitch" in a work of fiction. He attained his greatest literary achievements between 1817 and 1835, during which time he was the first American published in British literary journals, author of the first history of American literature, America's first art critic, and a forerunner of the American Renaissance. As one of the first men to advocate women's rights in the US and the first American lecturer on the issue [i.e. the first American simp], for over fifty years he supported female writers and organizers, affirmed intellectual equality between men and women, fought coverture laws against women's economic rights, and demanded suffrage, equal pay, and better education for women. He was the first American to establish a public gymnasium in the US and championed athletics to regulate violent tendencies with which he struggled throughout his life.

A largely self-educated man who attended no schools after the age of twelve, Neal was a child laborer who left self-employment in dry goods at twenty-two to pursue dual careers in law and literature. By middle age Neal had attained comfortable wealth and community standing in his native Portland, Maine through varied business investments, arts patronage, and civic leadership.

Neal is considered an author without a masterpiece, though his short stories are his highest literary achievements and ranked with the best of his age. Rachel Dyer is considered his best novel, "Otter-Bag, the Oneida Chief" and "David Whicher" his best tales, and The Yankee his most influential periodical. His "Rights of Women" speech (1843) at the peak of his influence as a feminist had a considerable impact on the future of the movement.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-01-17T21:13:10+00:00

Yeah, the biggest problem that Germany faced was a lack of oil. Securing the resources in the Caucasus could've enabled Germany to win in the long-term.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-01-17T21:06:35+00:00

Yeah, but even back then I wasn't a communist, more of a NazBol. The main reason I used the hammer and sickle was because I was a Russophile and to trigger boomers whose brains were stuck in the 80s.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-01-17T20:55:22+00:00

In modern history, the defeat of Nazi Germany was obviously the most important. With Nazi Germany died the last serious movement in the West to challenge Enlightenment principles. After 1945 the modern world was ushered in, which is based on the founding myth of the of the Holocaust^TM with Adolf Hitler as the archetypal Big Bad Man. All modern people are required to believe in this founding myth as an article of faith, and anyone who questions this founding myth or expresses any sort of sympathy towards the Nazis is immediately branded as a heretic and excommunicated from society. The Cold War was relatively unimportant compared to WWI and WWII, because Communism and Liberalism are actually quite similar to each other and are both anti-traditional, post-Enlightenment ideologies. What made the Soviet Union dangerous was the fact that it was Russian and non-Western, not the fact that it was Communist. Russia today, which is non-Communist, is still viewed with hostility by liberals (even more so than the old Soviet Union was).

PeddaKondappa · 2021-01-17T20:28:14+00:00

r/AskHistorians is run by the biggest faggots on the Internet. Since I'm an actual historian I wrote several posts on there that got a large number of upvotes, but I was banned because I made some innocuous post about whamen.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-01-15T10:07:57+00:00

The terms "corporation" and "corporatism", as used by fascists, have absolutely nothing to do with the modern capitalist usage. Fascism has its roots in early 20th century national syndicalism, inspired by people like Georges Sorel and Charles Maurras. When fascist writers talk about "corporations" they are talking about labor organizations similar to syndicates or trade unions and not big businesses like those on Wall Street. Fascism is explicitly anti-capitalist as well as anti-communist.

The people who are restricting speech in the modern West are not "fascists." They are all liberals who probably believe the same things that you do (but I don't), like gender equality and LGBT rights.

PeddaKondappa · 2021-01-12T01:30:08+00:00

I think this is a good litmus test to see which countries are actually sovereign and independent and which ones are mere vassal states. Any government which mandates that millions of its citizens be injected with a foreign vaccine produced by totally unaccountable people in a hub of globohomo is a worthless and illegitimate government that deserves to be destroyed.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-12-21T21:25:33+00:00

PeddaKondappa · 2020-12-20T16:20:36+00:00

What are you talking about? The Proto-Indo-Europeans most likely originated in the steppes of what is now southern Russia, not in the Middle East. It is not until the 2nd millennium BC that we find some notable Indo-European groups in the Middle East, like the Hittites and Mitanni. Other Indo-European groups like the Persians don't appear until even later. By that time, non-Indo-European civilizations were already well-established in the Middle East for millennia.

What I said is not a "theory." It is a simple statement of facts. The earliest writing and literature in the world is from the Middle East, and most Europeans had no literature whatsoever until the Christian era (other than southern Mediterranean groups like the Greeks and Romans, who were more similar to Middle Easterners than to northern Europeans).

PeddaKondappa · 2020-12-09T06:39:37+00:00

Quite the opposite actually. There's almost no lesbians left in the country. Just a rising tide of teenage girls lopping their tits off to become 'men' and "non-binaries".

What are the statistics on the prevalence of that? I am certain that the overwhelming majority are trannies are male-to-female, with female-to-male being very rare in comparison. I don't see any reason why a biological female would want to become a male in 2020.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-12-09T06:25:27+00:00

The sumerians say that they learned civilizational skills from the white blue eyed Gods that bred with dark women.

LOL.

Semitic propaganda

Name a single script or writing system that was developed by Indo-Europeans totally independently, without being ultimately borrowed or influenced from the Middle East. I can wait.

Most Europeans (other than southern Mediterraneans) don't even have any written literature until the Christian era. For example, one of the earliest books written in any Germanic language was the Gothic Bible, which was written in the 4th century by a Middle Eastern missionary.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-12-07T19:24:25+00:00

My opinion is that "Aryan" (a term which was only ever used by Iranians and Indians in ancient times, never by Europeans) is an overrated and overused term, and there is no evidence that "Aryans" played any important role in the original formation of civilizations. None of the early civilizations like Sumerians and Egyptians were Indo-European, and there is no evidence that any Indo-European people ever independently developed a concept of writing or written literature. Every writing system used by Indo-European peoples (without exception) is ultimately derived from Semitic writing systems, since writing and literate civilization first emerged in the Middle East.

The original Indo-Europeans, who seem to have originated from the steppes of what is now southern Russia, were probably more similar to the later Turks than to any civilized, sedentary people. They were probably a highly warlike and patriarchal group that were able to expand across vast swathes of land due to mastering the horse and chariot (perhaps the first people to do so), which gave them a huge military advantage over more sedentary groups. Indo-European expansion was probably spearheaded by males with a strong sense of wanderlust and desire to conquer new lands and acquire women. This probably explains why Y-DNA haplogroups like R1a (which is inherited exclusively through the paternal line) is widely distributed across Indo-European populations of Eurasia, but mtDNA (which is inherited exclusively through the maternal line) shows far higher diversity. Thus, IE expansion out of the steppe and both west into Europe as well as east into India and other regions would be similar to how Turks and Mongols would later burst out of the steppe to conquer vast swathes of lands and acquire women, leading to many men in Eurasia sharing Y-DNA with Turks/Mongols and large regions like Central Asia and Anatolia becoming Turkified (in the past, both Central Asia and Anatolia were dominated by various Indo-European groups).

PeddaKondappa · 2020-11-27T20:33:44+00:00

Obviously, this was a Mossad operation. The last time there were assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists was between 2010 and 2012 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists). That was the time when the CIA and Mossad was preparing to overthrow Syria and possibly engineer a collapse in Iran as well. It looks like things might get hot again, especially in the next couple months. Trump seems to be terrified of Jewish power, and is probably willing to go along with whatever the Israelis have in plan to save his own ass before he leaves the Presidency.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-11-26T20:07:05+00:00

As a non-European I can't really tell the difference between Germans and Anglos. There's too much overlap in phenotype. However, I can almost always distinguish between Meds (e.g. Portuguese, Spaniards, southern Italians) and Northern Europeans. Greeks especially look quite different from Northern Europeans, and are more similar to Syrians and Iranians than to Swedes or Norwegians (but don't tell Greeks that).

France straddles the boundary between the Germanic and Latin world, along with Switzerland and parts of northern Italy. Although French is classified as a Romance language, it has more Germanic influence than the other Romance languages, and sounds quite different from Italian and Spanish (which are more similar to each other than they are to French). But it's worth nothing what we now call "French" is actually the language native to northern France around Paris, whereas France south of the Loire historically had their own local languages which were more similar to Italian and Spanish. In addition, the region of Brittany in northwestern France was historically a Celtic-speaking region which became Frenchified only in the last few centuries. The historic linguistic and cultural diversity of France probably has some counterpart in phenotypic diversity as well, but I haven't studied that in any depth.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-11-19T14:00:27+00:00

There is a theory that Stalin was indeed assassinated in the end. At least, Lavrentiy Beria (who was not a Jew himself, but might as well have been) seems to have intentionally procrastinated in getting medical attention to Stalin after his stroke, and later also supposedly told Molotov that he "took him [Stalin] out." But that remains an unverified theory, and Beria's gambit for absolute power failed miserably. Khrushchev and Zhukov combined to remove Beria from all positions of power, and by the end of 1953, Beria was charged with 357 counts of rape and executed with a bullet in the forehead.

Stalin was a genius and successfully outsmarted literally everyone for as long as he was alive and in good health. Probably no other person in history succeeded in rising to such a high position from such a humble background. The man went from being the son of an impoverished Georgian cobbler to becoming a virtual god-emperor who dominated the greater part of Eurasia directly or indirectly. If Stalin didn't exist and someone wrote a fiction novel with the same plot as Stalin's life story, it would be lampooned as being too unrealistic. I think the story of Stalin is very important in the current times especially, because it shows what an intelligent and highly determined man can achieve. It also serves as a healthy antidote to the idea, which seems very common in "dissident right" circles nowadays, of viewing elites as some kind of demigods who simply possess far too much power for us mere mortals to cope with. But as the story of Stalin shows, it is perfectly possible for an ordinary man with the right combination of traits and circumstances to rise up the ranks, and butcher the very same elites who had worked with him and who thought that they were invincible.

In the modern world, where the common people are suffering so much from an arrogant and hostile elite class, I think many people would greatly welcome a new Stalin and a new series of purges.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-11-16T20:01:43+00:00

The fact that so many American historians still believe in Fukuyama's "end of history" nonsense is beyond me.

Do they? Not even Fukuyama himself believes in his old thesis anymore. Reading some of Fukuyama's more recent work when I was 17, especially his Origins of Political Order, was actually my entry into alternative views on politics and sociology. For example, it was from Fukuyama that I was first exposed, as a teenager, to the idea that liberal individualism is fake and gay and that all early modern Western theorists including Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau were fundamentally wrong.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-11-13T06:56:43+00:00

As much as I would love to see the balkanization of America, I can't see this happening in any plausible timeline. The central government (Feds) has too much power with respect to local and state authorities. They won't tolerate anything remotely approaching secession. This isn't the 18th century where a local militia made up of young men can easily hold off government forces.

The only way that balkanization would be feasible is if the central institutions of American government become greatly weakened or compromised, e.g. if large numbers of white men in the U.S. Armed Forces, FBI, CIA, etc. desert en masse and join anti-Washington opposition forces. Unless something like that happens, I don't see the Feds losing control.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-11-13T06:48:12+00:00

Meds have nothing on NW Euros historically.

All NW Euros use the Latin script to write their languages, and over 90% of English vocabulary with more than two syllables is of Latin origin. There wouldn't even be civilization or literacy in NW Europe without the Mediterranean.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-11-09T23:26:38+00:00

You probably feel pretty dumb now, huh?

PeddaKondappa · 2020-10-30T05:23:29+00:00

How are socio-cultural milieus different?

Because it is impossible for a system to shape the thoughts of all people, especially a liberal system that doesn't use totalitarian mechanisms of control, as were employed in Stalin's Soviet Union for example. Any system relies on consent, even if passive and somewhat manufactured consent. If there existed a strong French culture with deep roots among the ordinary people that fanatically opposed liberalism, then the liberal system would crumble in the face of mass opposition and would not be able to totally shape and direct society. That's why secular liberalism failed in many Middle Eastern countries, even though the rulers and elites of many Middle Eastern countries in the 20th century tended to be secular and liberal in orientation (Ataturk, Nasser, and Reza Shah were all examples of this). The simple fact is that the ordinary Frenchman doesn't really oppose liberalism in any meaningful way, and doesn't belong to an entrenched anti-liberal counterculture. The Yellow Vest movement from a couple years ago might be the closest thing to a mass anti-liberal movement in France, which is pretty pathetic.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-10-30T03:16:40+00:00

Obviously, it was the elites and not ordinary Frenchmen who decided particular policies, like the immigration policies. The ordinary Frenchman may not be in favor of that. But I am talking about the overall socio-cultural milieu of the country, and not particular policies or the agenda of government, which everyone with a brain understands is determined by elites and not by ordinary people.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-10-30T01:52:14+00:00

The French Republic, not the French nation. The French nation has tried to undermine the Republic ever since the Revolution. Do you have any idea how many times the Republic has failed? Go read a history book for fuck's sake.

The Republican ideals remain as the cornerstone of every French government, no matter how many Republics have come and gone. The failure of individual governments or regimes have not changed the attitudes of the French nation. The reason why Frenchmen were upset at the recent beheading of Samuel Paty is because it was a particularly violent rejection of their liberal worldview. Frenchmen revel in being able to insult or make fun of anything. They are upset that one group (Muslims) actually takes themselves seriously enough to act with deadly violence when their sensibilities are offended. The ideal world, in the French liberal view, is one where every group has been sufficiently deracinated to the point where they mock everything around them, and no longer hold anything sacred. In other words, they would like to see universal disenchantment (Entzauberung, to use Max Weber's terminology).

That's not a hill I want to die on to be honest. And one of these French "sodomites" has done more for our cause than you ever will.

Are you an American? Because if you are you have no right to say this shit about France.

I am not American, European, or even white. I don't have any particular attachment to your "cause" or your people.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-10-29T22:06:24+00:00

The French are the people who invented civic nationalism as we know it. The motto of the French nation is the Satanic triad of "liberté, égalité, fraternité." The French nation was built on the explicit rejection of traditional norms and hierarchy, and on the notion that nothing is sacred. Even the so-called "far-right nationalists" in France, like Marine Le Pen, have no choice but to support unconditional abortion and civil unions for sodomites. All in all, it is a hopeless country. I feel sorry for the French people who truly comprehend the situation they are in.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-10-28T07:54:48+00:00

You don't have to be a liberal to support rebellion against state power, or view the modern state as tyrannical. There are people who hold these views who totally reject liberalism, like Dr. Theodore Kazcynski. Historically, liberalism has greatly expanded state power rather than reduced it. The idea that liberals created "limited government" and saved humanity from the "brutal tyranny" of Middle Ages is one of the greatest lies in history.

However, I agree that most of the anti-mask agitation, especially in America, is grounded in knee-jerk reactions against "big gubmint" without any deeper principles.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-10-16T15:50:16+00:00

LOL. Do they think that Iran and Shi'ite militias all around the world, including Hezbollah, will just sit on their ass and do nothing if that happens?

Relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0zf1GwRv1g&feature=emb_title

PeddaKondappa · 2020-09-30T07:39:02+00:00

Those scenarios are not remotely comparable to the present-day. First of all, in those scenarios the native European elites were still Christians who strongly identified with their religion. They cannot be compared to modern-day elites, or for that matter modern-day European commoners.

Second, in none of those scenarios was the demographic situation comparable to the modern-day situation. You are conflating religious conversion with ethnic replacement, which are not the same thing. Islamic Spain, for example, was never majority North African or Arab, not even in the major Muslim centers like Cordoba and Granada. Even the elites of Islamic Spain were mostly identical to other Europeans in terms of race or ethnicity, let alone the common Spanish converts. Here is a depiction of Muslim elites in Spain, from the Alhambra palace in Granada. Besides their dress, which is North African, they look just as "white" as Spanish Christians. If a Spanish Muslim converted to Christianity, within a few generations of cultural assimilation he would be totally indistinguishable from Spanish Christians, since they were ethnically and linguistically the same (for the most part). On the other hand, a population that is racially-distinct from the majority population will retain its own strong identity even centuries after converting to the dominant religion, as we see in America with blacks (converting blacks to Christianity hasn't diminished racial identities and animosities, even after 300-400 years).

PeddaKondappa · 2020-09-29T19:23:15+00:00

Based China.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-09-27T14:16:38+00:00

Upload everything to Library Genesis. It's safer and less likely to be taken down. Also be sure to download as much as possible onto your local hard drives, so that you can share and re-upload whenever necessary.

It's also ironic that Banned Books Week starts today, lol.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-09-22T02:37:46+00:00

In an economy based on fiat money, and where the state has sovereign control over the production of this money, taxation isn't even necessary for any purpose other than (1) controlling inflation and (2) controlling people.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-09-22T02:36:55+00:00

In an economy based on fiat money, and where the state has sovereign control over the production of this money, taxation isn't even necessary for any purpose other than (1) controlling inflation and (2) controlling people. Taxation is used for government finance only when taxes are rendered in kind or in some token with intrinsic value, e.g. a tenant giving a share of his crop to his feudal lord. In our modern Judeo-Capitalist usurious system, taxation is nothing more than an instrument of socioeconomic engineering.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-09-21T23:20:40+00:00

Good post.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-09-20T01:37:21+00:00

I'm an athiest. Sam Harris is a pompous idiot. He does not represent all atheists, though I bet he wishes he did.

Sam Harris is at least smart enough to understand the importance of objectivity in moral theory, which is why he argues for an objective morality separate from religion (though he fails miserably at this).

Natural Law = Do not harm others

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. For one thing, there have been numerous men throughout history who don't give a damn about your moral formula, and I think you would be hard-pressed to explain to someone like Genghis Khan or Tamerlane why they should relinquish all of their power and privilege (which is based on domination over others) and live like an ordinary person. Second, it is not exactly straightforward what constitutes "harm" and what doesn't. For example, does usury count as "theft", and therefore as "harm"? What about adultery or fornication, even if entirely consensual? If a wife cheats on her husband or a husband cheats on his wife, is the other spouse being "harmed"? Are their children being "harmed" by their actions?

I would argue, based on religious laws which I hold to be reflective of objective moral truth, that usury and adultery are both harmful to society as a whole and are emphatically immoral, and that people who are guilty of usury and adultery should be punished severely. But most atheists don't seem to have much of a problem with these things, considering how rampant usury and adultery are in modern Western society.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-09-20T01:16:42+00:00

Not an argument. The notion of an "invisible sky god" like Zeus or Indra is purely pagan as a concept, and has nothing to do with the refined Monotheism developed by great philosophers like Plato, Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas (whose IQs are probably three standard deviations above yours). If you understand logic and the principle of causality, then the necessary existence of a Supreme God becomes self-evident, and this God cannot be described as a "man in the sky" or any other nonsensical pagan or atheist description.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-09-20T00:22:33+00:00

I am not a Christian. I have clearly specified that in my post.

I agree that people can easily have their minds "hijacked" by religions or other ideologies. That's because the majority of people in any society (especially the women) are normies who will blindly follow the reigning orthodoxy for social acceptance and validation, whether that be some religion or some other ideology like Communism, Nazism, Liberalism, etc. The difference is that religion, particularly Abrahamic religion, implies as a necessary consequence the existence of an objective moral law that is above and beyond any secular rules or authorities. Thus, highly religious Christians and Muslims would never accept the legitimacy of any modernist regime, while most atheists would happily accede to the New World Order.

By the way, the dominant ideology used to justify wars in the modern world is not religion, but liberalism. Most wars in the modern era are justified based on "human rights" and "defending democracy," not "We are true believers and our enemies believe in a false God." The Western wars in the Middle East are essentially liberal crusades, couched in liberal language. Their purported goal is to "liberate oppressed people from dictatorial regimes." I have seen constant agitation by liberal scum for sanctions and even military action against Iran, on the grounds that "the evil Iranian regime oppresses women and gays." And this language is highly effective on most liberal Westerners, who, even if they otherwise oppose war for humanitarian or other reasons, nonetheless support regime change in Iran and other such places. So if you are truly so concerned about the propaganda employed by the ruling elite to justify war and sanctions, then you should renounce the liberal language of "human rights" and the Enlightenment concepts that they are ultimately based on.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-09-19T23:55:43+00:00

So you think all non-religious people are inherently evil?

No, but I think all non-religious people are incapable of articulating why their moral beliefs are objectively true, and other moral beliefs are objectively false. As a result, I believe that non-religious people will more easily fall for propaganda pushed by elites due to a lack of grounding in objective moral truths, resulting in rapid shifts in the moral landscape of society. For example, just a few decades ago the very concept of "gay marriage" was viewed as totally aberrant by average people, and the only people who supported this were some deviants who also supported abolishing all age of consent laws (like the sodomite French "intellectual" Michel Foucault). But now, within my own lifetime, virtually all normies in the West have come to accept gay marriage as not only acceptable, but a "human right" that must be upheld my violent force if necessary. Regardless of what you think about such a massive shift in morality, do you think a highly religious society would have shifted their morals so easily?

This not mean, however, that all religious people are "good people" or that all non-religious people are "bad people." Rather, my point is that religious people can argue for the objectivity of their moral beliefs, and thus not be swept up by the zeitgeist. That's why the only people in the West who still have a strong moral code that is resistant to elite propaganda are ultra-traditional religious communities, like the Amish and Mennonites. Their morality is objective and unchanging, not subjective or relativistic, and does not change according to the whims and fancies of the time. And the ultimate basis of their steadfast morality is the creed of Monotheism, of a singular, eternal, divine Creator whose Word is coterminous with Natural Law. (Note that I am not even a Christian, so do not interpret my statements as some kind of Christian propaganda)

PeddaKondappa · 2020-09-19T23:36:19+00:00

He is wrong. The concept of "objective morality" is incoherent without religion, and Abrahamic monotheism in particular. No wonder, the overwhelming majority of atheists are moral nihilists, and the few atheists who argue for moral objectivism (like Sam Harris) are morons who cannot answer basic questions of metaethics and moral epistemology.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-09-15T03:26:26+00:00

LOL. I am probably the most anti-American person on this forum. I'm just pointing about that the U.S. has objectively failed in their mission, if they are negotiating with the Taliban. That is a sign of American weakness. My post has nothing to do with being "eager to fight the Taliban."

PeddaKondappa · 2020-09-15T02:29:07+00:00

The mere fact that the U.S. is negotiating with the Taliban shows that the U.S. has failed. Either that, or both the Americans and the Taliban are secretly on the same side, and what we're seeing is just theater.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-09-05T21:39:39+00:00

Translation: Within a few years there will be fag parades and legalized sodomy in Sudan.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-08-25T01:23:36+00:00

That doesn't have anything from 2019. Or am I missing something?

PeddaKondappa · 2020-08-14T17:03:47+00:00

LOL. You can't create a "White religion" anymore than you can create "White mathematics" or "White physics". Religion is religion, just as mathematics is mathematics and physics is physics. It doesn't matter if a mathematician or physicist is European or Indian or Chinese or African; either their ideas/claims are correct or they aren't, and their race or background has no bearing on the correctness of their ideas/claims. You could argue that certain races or sociobiological groups are better at producing mathematical geniuses compared to others, but that doesn't mean mathematics itself is subjective in any way. Likewise, theological claims are either correct or they aren't, and the racial background of great prophets or theologians has no bearing on the correctness or truth value of their claims.

By using terms like "White religion", you are admitting that your view of religion is essentially the same as that of a post-modernist. In this impoverished view, religions are not a reservoir of higher, objective metaphysical truth, but instead are purely subjective man-made creations whose only value (if they have any at all) lies in justifying or facilitating worldly goals.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-08-08T20:04:29+00:00

Right. In fact, a massive, intrusive socialist state can only exist if it rules over an agglomeration of severely atomized individuals, for whom even intimate family ties are subordinated to the Party and State (hence the tyrannical doctrine, propagated in certain states, of encouraging loved ones to spy on each other and act as informants). A massive, intrusive socialist state cannot exist in a highly collectivist society that is tightly organized along kinship, communal, and/or congregational lines. In such a society, any state structure would be necessarily constrained, and cannot act arbitrarily or tyrannically due to fear of retribution by those tightly organized social groups.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-08-06T00:37:35+00:00

I wish success to the Iranian police. Every Iranian woman who refuses to comply with hijab is part of a traitorous fifth-column, and deserves to be treated as such.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-28T11:27:16+00:00

MEMRI released this clip in an attempt to make Iranians look bad. But all they accomplished was giving two intelligent, well-spoken Iranian women a wider platform for speaking the truth about Jews.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-27T02:09:19+00:00

If a radical feminist argues that men should be kept in cages, I would not be offended at all. I would just laugh my ass off.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-27T01:48:39+00:00

There is no "widespread rape and harassment of women" in countries like Iran, and men who commit such acts are executed, unlike in North European countries where they walk free (which incentivizes such behavior).

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-27T01:33:36+00:00

Most western women(aka women who have known freedom) would rather hang themselves than live in that mess

It's funny you would say that, since suicide rates in the West are higher than in most other places, and anti-depressant use among women in their 40s and older (i.e. those who have hit the wall) is sky-high. In America, for example, an astounding 23% of women in their 40s and 50s were on anti-depressants according to a 2011 report, and that number has probably increased considerably in the time since then. This is your liberal feminist utopia.

Also, immigration patterns have almost nothing to do with "freedom." Countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates receive some of the heaviest immigration on earth despite being highly authoritarian countries, simply because there are economic opportunities available in those countries due to oil. Most of those immigrants are from Third World countries, but there are a good number of Western expats in these countries as well.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-26T19:52:36+00:00

What if I say, "I hate most spiders, but I love some spiders, namely all red ones"? The reason for this is, I like the color red and this is more important to me than spiderness. In this scenario, I could hate all defining properties of spiders, but still make an exception for red spiders.

I would say that since red spiders are still a subset of spiders, anyone who truly loves red spiders cannot truly hate spiders. It could be that you are neutral or apathetic towards spider-ness, with your love of red spiders deriving entirely from their property of redness, but you don't truly hate spider-ness. If you did, then you would hate red spiders due to them being unambiguous spiders.

This actually reminds me of accusations of racism and "white supremacy" levied by leftists against their opponents, and the standard responses given against such accusations. When the typical everyday white man is accused of racism or "white supremacy", how does he respond? A typical response is to say something like, "I don't hate blacks, in fact some of my best friends are black." Leftists often mock such a response, but this is actually a perfectly logical thing to say when accused of being a "white supremacist" or hating blacks. If someone truly hated blacks, would he have any close black friends? Of course not. Even if that white man dislikes most black people, and only likes a few blacks who meet certain criteria (like speaking proper English, or knowing how to play jazz music), that alone is sufficient to show that he does not truly hate blacks.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-26T17:36:38+00:00

This looks like an attempt at redefining the meaning of words. The word "misogyny" has a very clear and unambiguous meaning, derived from two Greek roots: misos referring to hatred, and gyné referring to woman. Together, these two elements make a word simply indicating hatred of women. See Merriam-Webster as an example.

Expanding the definition of "misogyny" to include any belief that men are superior to women is problematic, because a belief that Y is superior to X does not imply that X is an object of hatred. For example, it is a biological fact that the average human adult male is much stronger and more physically capable than the average human adult female (it's not even close). However, it does not follow that the men who acknowledge the fact of male biological superiority must be haters of women. On the contrary, traditional patriarchal societies expected men to defend their women and children, and lay down their lives if necessary to protect them. So if you expand the definition of "misogyny" in such a way, you conflate two things which are actually separate: the hatred of women, and the belief that men are superior to women. This conflation is a consequence of the liberal worldview, where all fundamental hierarchies and inequalities are seen as oppressive. In the liberal worldview, if Group Y maintains that they are intrinsically superior to Group X in some way, then that indicates Group Y must hate and oppress Group X. The liberal mind cannot conceive otherwise.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-26T14:59:52+00:00

All of that is true, except I am not a communist. Simply hating capitalism does not make you a commie.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-26T14:50:42+00:00

However, for arguments sake in a theoretical sense, could not adoration for mothers be viewed as something separate from general perception of women due to the role of maternal bond, its nurturing nature and the usual lack of sexual feelings? Thus, while they may display misogynist tendencies they can nullify their own mother from this as they do not regard her truly as a "female" psychologically.

Most healthy males should be able to respect other women who are mothers, as they as they can see their own mother reflected in them and understand the importance she holds for her children. That's why most "misogynistic" behavior is directed towards young women who, instead of becoming mothers and living healthy lives, chose to engage in dissolute behavior. In comparison, very little "misogynistic" behavior is directed towards traditional elderly women. However, hating a woman who is an immodest slut should not be termed as "misogynistic", just as hating a man who gets drunk and beats his wife and kids should not be termed as "misandrist." In both cases, the reason these people are hated is because they deviate from proper social roles, not because of their sex.

Speaking of the maternal bond and its importance in getting men to empathize with women, in Shia Islamic (and especially Iranian) tradition there are many songs which commemorate females who were martyred or persecuted for their faith, and these songs frequently evoke maternal themes. Here is one of my favorite examples, which I find very emotional: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxA-nz7pvCk

According to Western liberals, the men in this video are all "misogynists" because they probably support modesty laws.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-26T14:17:09+00:00

I'm surprised you remember what I said years ago. I am no longer quite as edgy today as I was back then.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-26T14:06:00+00:00

Yes.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-22T02:36:16+00:00

This post is quite epic; and was censored; is it okay to post one of your posts here Pedda?

Sure, I don't care if people copy-paste my content as long as they credit me as the original author.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-21T00:46:03+00:00

This is my reddit account: https://np.reddit.com/user/PeddaKondappa2/

You can use https://camas.github.io/reddit-search/ to see the posts made on banned subs.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-21T00:35:10+00:00

Don't slander people without evidence. I don't need to prove anything, because my posting history on reddit is available to the public.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-21T00:28:48+00:00

I am Telugu, not Tamil. And I joined this forum just because someone sent me a DM on reddit saying I was mentioned on this site. So far I like the site, but lots of people apparently think I am a troll because of my views lol.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-21T00:13:28+00:00

I asked you to name three ways in which Iran's government "holds them back." All you did was provide vague mumbo-jumbo. Here are some examples of Perso-Islamic high culture, all of which were produced under theocratic regimes:

https://i.imgur.com/pE6gTbN.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/j3gZ2BS.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/UxyXZ7T.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/d5x0gz6.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/FBDAlT2.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/a4Gzgpi.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/6Ivwp7I.jpg

In fact, pretty much all great art and architecture everywhere in the world was produced by intensely religious people. The greatest art and architecture in the Western world, for example, was produced under Christendom. It is the modern West, which has totally severed itself from religion, which is totally bereft of any high culture. There is nothing from the modern West that can match the beauty of Gothic architecture like Notre Dame cathedral or Canterbury cathedral. The modern West has absolutely nothing to offer to Iran or any other traditional society, except modern weapons and advanced military technologies (which Iran is developing by itself, and is being extremely sanctioned as a result).

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-20T11:31:51+00:00

In what ways does Iran's government "hold them back"? Name three.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-20T08:48:51+00:00

I said I was Pro-Iran, not Iranian. By ethnic origin I am South Indian (Telugu). And when I say 'Pro-Iran' I mean I support the Islamic regime that currently controls Iran. I don't support Iranian liberals or other scum, and I hate them the same way I hate Western liberals.

The fact that you think I am a leftist troll simply for writing English at a high level is pretty funny. Anyway, if anyone doubts my authenticity, they can visit my reddit profile at u/ PeddaKondappa2, and they can also use https://camas.github.io/reddit-search/ to verify that I was an active poster on r/DebateFascism for years. I think some posters on this forum might actually know me from back there.

And LOL @ "Iranians don't call themselves Iranians."

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-20T00:09:02+00:00

I am pro-Iran because I admire the commitment of the Iranian regime in upholding Islamic traditions and values (and resisting the imposition of modern Western values like feminism and gay rights), their support for anti-Zionist and anti-Wahhabi groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis, and for developing their own technological and industrial capabilities in the face of global sanctions and economic warfare (Iran is one of the few Muslim countries that has developed its own nuclear program, missile program, aerospace and satellite program, etc). Those are some of the major reasons why I am strongly pro-Iran.

PeddaKondappa · 2020-07-19T23:27:59+00:00

I think you misunderstood my views. I am not a liberal, and I don't support absolute freedom of speech. I support theocracy, with the Islamic Republic of Iran being the state with the ideology closest to my own, and part of theocratic governance involves setting boundaries on acceptable public discourse. The reason I hate reddit is not due to censorship in and of itself. The reason I hate reddit is because reddit censors that which should not be censored, and doesn't censor that which should be censored. In other words, reddit represents a Satanic inversion of what a good platform ought to do. I find saidit to be a far superior platform to reddit, because saidit bans things like pornography (which I support) and tolerates anti-Zionist views (which I also suppport). Reddit is the exact opposite, as it is infested with degenerate filth while also banning anti-Zionist subs.