Comments by "Jim Mcneal" (@jimmcneal5292) on "Whatifalthist"
channel.
-
1000
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ok, this video is somewhat woke so I'll argue with it.
4:25 it's not really true, more of a modernist simplification. It was not that dirty in the cities back then.
18:50 I do believe that they are relative. And answering to your statement, I do believe the thing you mentioned right afterwards is good as long as my en*my does it to his own k*ds. I don't view christ positively(don't know about buddha). And yes making your opponents "d*ssapear" is good if it's my opponents.
19:49 not sure about germany or even france. I mean yes, they believed that people can believe better world but I don't remember any complete rejection of religious beliefs.
20:19 whether they actually exist or not, demons are external beings with their own will, they don't identify as the person basically at any moment
27:22 it wouldn't be that much different if it was for something we could change. Imagine if west hated itself for any v*olent actions of having a m*litary. On top of that, seems counterintuitive, but if you have strong political opinions, you only can love who you are or hate. Far left hate who they are(g*nes), and far r*ght love.
28:30 you care too much about what other people say. In any society there will be some disagreement about if your t-shirt is good or not
30:50 that would probably advocate against societies of the past. I disagree and think that trying to figure out the general scheme of how the world works is inherently required for psychological comfort of the people
34:29 it's not all, left have a good reason to hate the great people or groups of people ā envy. And therefore great have a strong reason to h*te and d*spise the meek, as the latter will always feel envious. This envy from the disadvantaged people is called ressentiment.
35:11 it can be argued that c*nnibalism is not immoral if it happens after person died and he specifically agreed to this.
35:16 here there doesn't seem to be any justification. Left picture argues that it is a illn*ss, center one talks about being t*rgeted by vigilants(could have been about different cr*me, like m*rder). The right picture is most likely about specific c*nviction process when the v*ctim is actually above the min @ge.
39:00 I don't see pr*blem with that. If it brings v*ctory and s*ves us and s*cures future for our ch*ldren, why not?
39:38 lol, this may be true. Guess they were architects of their own "doom"ā
42:17 gonna be fun
42:37 seeing demon worshippers would be interesting
48:37 "m*ce ut*pia" experiment seems a bit fishy. First of all, it seems conditions were somewhat crowded and unsanitary(it was cleaned rarely). Second of all, every article that I read about it, sounded like c*nservative pr*paganda.
49:43 I would advice to find GodS. As an advantage, p*ganism doesn't require you to reject your descent and consider all people br*thers. And no, religion doesn't require you to adopt universalist morals, probably only chr*stianity and isl*m do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think that the last part of video failed to grasp that US already colonized Europe, with process starting after WW1. Before it Europe was on its peak, and after the war new powers emerged, with US becoming a "sleeping giant". But instead of throwing away their disputes, Europeans started a new war, which led to most European countries de-facto becoming colonies of US or USSR during Cold war. With fall of USSR, USA just included Eastern Europe in its sphere of influence. But now, with US being torn by radical left and moderate right, and China trying expansionism, drawing US efforts to the Pacific, Europe has chance to become free and stop being a colony.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'd say that one big disadvantage Chinese/Russians would have is that they will be aggressors. While South Korea, Taiwan, Ukraine, Baltics and India would be protecting themselves. I also think that nuclear weapons will be use on later stages of war, mostly against opponent's factories/nuclear launch sites.
My personal opinion is that Russia has very low cohesion and despite initial success will quickly collapse after crushing defeats in the middle of the war, loosing Kaliningrad to Poland, Crimea to Ukraine, Caucasus to Chechnya and Dagestan and Karelia to Finland, and probably will break into confederation(or a federation) of states.
War would be won by US coalition, with India playing major role and probably turning Burma, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Tibet into puppet states.
Taiwan has a chance of becoming independent again, drawing towards Japan. North Korea would be annexed by South Korea. China would be partitioned, with Sinkiang becoming independent, and mainland China breaking into several states. Hong Kong and Makau will become independent, probably annexing neighboring territories.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Woefully I think that moderate conservatives will win in US against all odds(including their passiveness), while I would like ethnic nationalists(ideally pagan), or at least anti-black traditionalists to win. I however hope that those far-right factions will win in europe.
Upd. I think I need to clarify why I prefer pagan ethnonationalist traditionalists instead of civic nationalist conservatives(note the distinction I make between traditionalism and conservatism)
1)Pagans are less driven by disgust and more by machist masculinity. It is expressed in following:
a) Attitudes to polygamy(particularly polygyny) and having or not having children. While christians are against it since like vii century, pagans are mostly tolerant to it. I want polygamy for several reasons, both personal, and not.
Personal reason is very simple: as a man with a quite high testosterone, strength and ambition, I don't want just to have one girl. Actually, I would rather be alone and satisfy myself with ph, rather than have a conservative family with one woman.
There's however another arguments against monogamous conservative families. One is that it basically equalizes all men in amount of offspring they can produce(or actually there's a hard cap on it, since average woman barely can have more than 16 children, even if you start very early). My opinion is that there are men in society who deserve more children due to better genes.
Another is that while birth rates on the west need to be fixed, they can't really go up that high because low child mortality still exists. If christian conservatives win, they will likely enforce, either legislatively or culturally, requirement for almost all women to have children. You think it's good? Nah. If women would have copious(or just relatively high, for example 3-5 averagely) amount of children, we'll see insane population boom. It may sound nice(and will be good at the beginning), but in few generations will, ironically, lead to overpopulation.
Therefore the only way would be to somehow limit average birth rates so they won't much exceed 2.1 per woman. Now we get back to why I don't like christian conservative model. Such limitation(remember, almost all women need to get married and have children under conservative rule) will lead to very small(almost as small as now, or even smaller) families, usually with 2 or 3 children. And I think it's an idiotic idea, for any individual family it would be equivalent to putting all eggs in one basket(ok, two or three). While paganism is much less likely to force all women to have children, which will give those of them who wants chance to have really lot. Not to mention that not all women would want to have children at all, so requirement to start families would make them really unhappy, and that said requirement will hinder the natural selection.
b)Attitudes towards early marriages and especially marriages with significant age gap. I would expect christian conservatives to keep or even raise age of consent or minimal age of marriage. This, however, will lead to situation in which men have trouble finding virgin wives because nowadays girls mature quite early and won't wait 6 to 4 years to get married, but instead will date their peers. But their peers most likely wouldn't be able to support family unless there's a strong socialist welfare system. I think socialist option won't work. And without it we basically just going back to 80s or something, keeping all the problems that society had back then.
Pagans, however, are less prone to idealizing and infantilizing women and therefore probably won't be against couples like 34 yo male and 14 yo female.
c)Attitudes towards lgbtq and transgenders. There's high chance that conservative christians will not just outlaw propaganda/indocrination, but also same-sex relationships(including those between women) and changing gender(either documentally or medically) whatsoever.
2)Christianity has problem with treating different ethnic groups differently. Under christian assumption, all men are brothers, and ethnicity doesn't matter as much as faith. Needless to say that while such ideas are inseparably ingrained in christianity, for entire western history they basically were ignored, except for the last decades when leftist actually made this multiculturalism a practice.
Pagan faith is, conversely, not universalist, and doesn't require consider different populations as brothers or mix with them.
3)Christianity actually has strong socialist sentiment. While it's highly debated topic if christianity is a proto-communism, it's impossible to deny that in bible being poor is encouraged, same as sharing a lot of your resources. I would say that protestant work ethic existed rather despite christian values than because of them.
Together with the previous one this leads to idea that even if populations are not born or placed equally, west should be helping poorer countries(maybe even at its own expense).
4)General christian sentiment towards pacifism. While for most of the history christians were quite prone to conquests and wars, it's hard to deny that idea of "turning the other cheek" is ingrained in christianity. Ironically, modern leftist propaganda basically tells men to be ideal christians(almost) -- docile, non-aggressive, non-judging and non-masculine(yes, there's difference, since christianity preached asexuality and modern propaganda preaches femininity).
5)Constant preaching of guilt. Christianity's entire idea is that people are prone to sin, and the requirements of good behavior are so impossible that it basically makes all people guilty by default. That is actually quite similar to modern leftist ideologies, it's just that christianity considers a sin all desires: to eat good, to have sexual pleasure, to feel anger(which are impossible not to feel if you're healthy); and modern leftist ideologies consider a sin to not be black, female, lgbtq, disabled, etc.
These are the reasons I don't like the idea of conservative christian takeover.
*)Now let me explain my view on the difference between conservatism and traditionalism. Basically all conservatives that I've seen want just to return society to the stage somewhere between 1910s and 2000s(and usually after 50s), depending on their individual views. I think that it's a faulty idea, and will just lead us to repeating transformation to leftism once again. Traditionalism, on the contrary, seeks to return society to at least XIX century or maybe even much earlier.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1