What's the deal with the Rohingyas
Myanmar opened up to the West, agreed to "democratize", and release Aung San Suu Kyi, in 2011. I blogged about it back then. The rationale between the military junta dissolving itself was that China was eating up the whole economy. 100,000 Chinese have basically colonized downtown Mandalay, so the idea was to play USG against China. Which is a pretty good idea. Kim Jong Un is playing the very same game right now. Duterte in the Philippines kinda is too. This will be basically geopolitics 101 in Asia from now on.
Westerners of course didn't see it like that. They thought this was a great victory for Human Rights and Progress. Soros set up shop, and every American businessmen with spare change was in Yangon the very next weekend. Myanmar, The Last Frontier they called it. Plutocrats starved for yield were watering their mouths watching a new virgin country with actual possibilities of growth, i.e. with a native population with an 80+ IQ.
So what happened? Not much happened. And not much is happening right now. The generals didn't really go away. And the democratic government isn't quite sold on the idea of selling out the country to Cathedral-aligned plutocrats. Doing business in Myanmar is still a nightmare, and very few palefaces have managed to make a buck out of their country. So what did USG do?
The usual trick, run a divide-and-conquer worldwide media campaign. And this one was extra easy, because USG didn't even have to pay for it. Myanmar has a problem with Muslims in Rakhine state. Why? Well there's plenty of theories about it. Foreign jihadis infiltrating the community and attacking the Burmese army and stuff. But even if that isn't true, which I guess it likely is true; there's still plenty of reasons to dislike the Rohingya.
https://twitter.com/taslimanasreen/status/910052174192709632
The thing is these guys are Muslims, and Muslims abroad got money. Gulf money has pretty much bought half of London, a big chunk of Paris, half the American congress, and I believe a very big chunk of worldwide media. You don't need to watch Al Jazeera anymore, it's the same stuff in our own Westerns tations. There's a reason why they won't shut up about Syria. There's a reason why "Islamophobia" is a word. It started as marketing copy by CAIR. Surely somebody is greasing CNN and the wider fake news media. Some little example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p54hHhlLjRk
Muslims have money, and they like their signaling too. Muslim governments all across the world are rushing on, climbing on top of each other in order to be the one who is more vocal in defending gaymarriage the Rohingya and denouncing those evil white supremacists Buddhist supremacists in Rakhine. Erdogan is putting big money on the proejct. Politicians, even local mayors in Malaysia and Indonesia are wasting their time talking about the plight of the Rohingya.
So USG is playing along, letting the latest Muslim signaling spiral work for their own objectives. It seems to me this is a long term plan of them. They certainly make good use of Chinas crackdown of militant Islam in Xinjiang in order to make China look bad. Fortunately Myanmar seems to understand what's going on, and it's not apologizing. Even the yesteryear London socialite Suu Kyi, in exquisite RP of course, masterfully dodged the question and announced to the whole International Community (i.e. Bluegov and its vassals) that the Burmese government has done nothing wrong. Well done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmp0FlONC88
The 400,000 or whatever Rohingya who have fled will be able to return to their homes (what's left of them) after a "verification process". And you know, that stuff takes time. Wow, tons of paperwork. And Burmese bureaucrats don't work long hours. Buddha no like that. So there you go. They can remain in Bangladesh to keep churning their 10 babies per woman.
Meanwhile Koreans and Japanese do get to make money in Myanmar. Why? Maybe because they're Redgov vassals. A different empire for all that matters.
84 comments
[…] What’s the deal with the Rohingyas […]
I remember when the cause célèbre for Western Goodthinkers was the Karen people. Apparently they made it into the 2008 Rambo film, and they certainly showed up in Top Gear. Hopefully there's some scope for redpilling people over how this entire campaign essentially popped up overnight.
Spandrell: You shall tell me if I don't understand you here, but. Why would Daesh/ISIS/ISIL/Whatever chop the heads of Western aid workers? The aid workers are helping their people, what gives? I think you explain it here. Why did Mao make relief of poverty and hardship and natural disasters the exclusive responsibility of the State why did China not allow any private charitable organizations until very recently? I think you explain that too. Please tell me if I have your explanation wrong, because this is a very serious point you are making about "how the world works." Thanks!
Any organization is a political entity. Especially if it's not about profit. What is it about then?
Man, how can I learn to speak like that?
[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]
What's the deal with the Rohingyas? They're saint-like victims being brutally murdered and oppressed because the primitive and easily-misled majority has been whipped into a killing frenzy by wicked hate-mongering Buddhist monks, proving once and for all that all religions are violent and evil, not just Islam, you bigot! Well, I mean, Islam isn't actually violent and evil, some people just misunderstand how beautiful and peaceful it is, but you get the picture.
To Summarize 1. Muslim group kills Non-muslims shouting Allahu-Akbar: Nothing to do with Islam 2, Yoga helps people's health and ;longevity: Nothing to do with Hinduism 3. Rohingya militants in Rakhine state killing Buddhists: *Crickets* 4. Burmese monk Ashin Wirathu leads Buddhist fightback against Islam: Buddhist Bin-Laden
Yes, exactly. The Western press has been salivating for this narrative for two decades: a story of religious violence where, not only are Muslims not the perpetrators, but they are the victims! The actual situation might be nuanced, complex, and ugly, with plenty of blame on the Muslim side, but we can't let that get in the way of a very important lesson that the whole world must learn: Islam is not more violent nor more oppressive than any other religion, and anyone who thinks otherwise is not only hateful, but also ignorant. Let every screen, speaker, and newspaper blast out a simple, black-and-white morality play of genocidal Buddhists and innocent Muslims until this vital lesson is stamped on every human brain.
The actual situation is not nuanced. It is very Black and White like "almost" every other conflict involving Muslims in the modern age. But it is Black and white in exactly the opposite manner has potrayed by the Islamo-progressive media. The nuance only comes up when discussing Muslim Perfidy. The fact that they are perfidious to start with is very cut and dried. Here is a simple timeline 1. Brits Conquer Burma 2. Brits facilitate massive migration of Bengali Muslims to Burma. These are the forbears to modern day Rohingya. Burmese watch helplessly 3. World war 2 arrives. Brits arm the Rohingya but not the Buddhists. 4. Rohingya promptly use arms to rape Buddhist women and kill Buddhist men which has always been the case when Muslims are armed and Kaffirs are not 5. World war 2 comes to an end, the Rohingya Parley with Mohammad Ali Jinnah of Pakistan to detach Rakhine from Burma and merge it with East Pakistan (Modern day Bangaldesh) 6. Present day: Encouraged by Wahhabi money and Saudi backers, Rohingya once again start killing Buddhists and raping their women 7. This time, the Buddhists have had enough. They Fightback 8. Islamo-Progressive media paints aggressive Rohingya as victims and Defensive Buddhists are Bin-Ladens and Genocidal maniacs. This video is somethine you will never see from the Islamo-Progressive media https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxgxxVsvymM
Media narrative flimsier everyday. Long live the internet. Stop the Buddhistophobes!
Here is India's Modi condemning attacks on Burmese security personnel by "militants". Which militants? Well, he would not elaborate. We all know it is the Rohingya, but he would not elaborate. No one asked him to elaborate either https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga76EAYPWSI&t=305s I think Modi an enemy of the Cathedral, but he is flying under the Radar. The cathedral is too occupied at the moment with Putin, Trump, Syria, Rohingya and Duterte to notice this guy.
Are you guys excited about the Japanese high speed train?
Should we be excited?
Not you.
Those with Hindu-nationalist sympathies are definitely very excited. But they are more excited about the fact that India is moving closer to Japan rather than the simple issue of the High speed trains. They see Japan as a civilizational partner, a nation of Warriors embodying the Kshatriya (Samurai) Spirit and have been agitating for this sort of relation ship with Japan since the late 1800s. This is what excites them. Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tikak (whom Gandhi unseated from Congress leadership with British connivance), Rash Behari Bose, Subhas Chandra Bose have always advocated that India ally itself with Japan. A Hindu Nationalist judge called Radha Binod Pal sat in the Tokyo Tribunal ( a mistake by the Cathedral to appoint him) and declared Japanese General not guilty of war crimes. For his trouble, there is a memorial to him in Yasukuni Shrine and his verdict is used by Japanese Right wing groups to press their demands for Japanese re-armament Now that a Hindu-nationalist government is in charge of India for the first time, this is finally happening. Let me display two videos released by the Indian ministry of External/Foreign Affairs to give you an example of how Hindu nationalists see Japan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WaenzbSJwkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff95twceJR4&t=724s Finally, a close Japanese associate of Subhas Chandra Bose of the Indian National Army, saichiro Misumi by name, was awarded the Padma Bhushan which is the highest award they can award a non-citizen. Already Hindu-nationalists are demanding that he be offered the Bharat Ratna which is the highest Civilian honor India bestows, but only on citizens. They are demanding an exception in his case. The Ministry of External affairs has released this video document on Saichiro Misumi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou6BnPqLlPE&t=131s As for the high speed trains by themselves, not too many people are thinking about them or talking about them apart from some eggheads who are for or against it for one reason or the other. The nationalists signal love for the trains and the progressives signal their hate. The bigger picture for thinking nationalists (as opposed to those who merely signal) is that India and Japan are moving closer, will continue to move closer, will possibly become military allies with a security pact to come to each other's aid in case of Chinese aggression on either territory.
Yes, Justice Pal is well known in Japan. Never heard of this Misumi guy though. He doesn't even have a Japanese wiki page. Unlike the Chinese, the Japanese love Indian food; there's a restaurant in every corner, even in rural areas, and they're always full. Beyond that they have little love for India, but if this alliance goes on, the nationalists will start loving India more. And who knows, maybe Japan ends up with 50 million Indian migrants. If they need people, they better choose from friendly nations, and India sure has people to spare.
You serious? With Japanese labour laws and job expectations I'm pretty sure Indian immigrants would have a stratospheric unemployment rate. Not to mention the challenge of mixing a population formed by the caste system with one of the most outbred groups outside Hajnal whites. There aren't 50 million Tamil Brahmins and even if there were they are moving to America, not Japan.
There's a charmingly-titled book by an Indian Objectivist, "India: The Third World, Why? God Made Only One! Can India Overtake the USA?" in which the author recounts the culture shock of going to work for a Japanese firm in India. Even though he was hired as a subcontractor, when he once arrived for work five minutes late, he was stridently reprimanded by the floor manager in front of all the other staff, for encouraging lax discipline.
I don't think Japan is about to import bucket loads to immigrants, Indian or otherwise, anytime soon. Hindu nationalists, for their part, want Japan to remain Japan, not turn into another version of Little India. A Hindu nationalist does not want Muslim Bangaldeshi immigration to India. He easily understands the need for Japan to stay Japanese.
That's until Congress wins the election and uses the hardly fought for military alliance for their own purposes.
Can you please elaborate?
Say India and Japan make a formal or semi-formal alliance. The Japanese and Indian PR machines start to run promoting each others countries. Indians all buy Japanese cars and the Japanese eat curry 5 days a week. Then, say after 10 years, congress or whatever cathedralite coalition wins the Indian elections. India's overpopulation is getting pretty bad, Japanese industry has always wanted cheap labor, and so an agreement is reached.
While Indians are quite unpredictable (tending towards foolishness of course), in what they will do next, I feel the Japanese bureaucracy is too sensible to permit the industry to get it's way in this manner. The Bureaucracy has been pressured to allow cheap migrant labor before by the industry and each time the Bureaucracy has stymied them. It has told the Industry boys to either cut costs in other ways, innovate, automate or else manufacture offshore. But they will not allow hordes of low skilled migrants to come to Japan. I can go dig up the links for this if you insist. As of now, the public mood in Japan is decidedly anti-low-skilled-migrant after seeing what is happening in France, Germany, Sweden etc on their TV sets. One Japanese Professor has publicly stated she cancelled her visit to a conference in Germany as she was afraid of getting raped. Japanese tourism to Paris is at all time lows. The events in all these other countries have basically affirmed the Japanese bureaucracy's view points in the minds of the Japanese people. Finally there was the beheading of Goto and Yukawa which received widespread publicity in the Japanese media. This can't but help harden Japanese public opinion against allowing allowing Foreign immigration, even if of people as timid and docile as Indians. Besides the Japanese Bureaucrats have got to know that India has lots and lots of Muslims who will behave very differently from Hindu migrants. But they look the same. And the Japanese consulate cannot discriminate on the basis of religion while issuing work permits, lest it bring the wrath of the Cathedral down on them. Much simpler to simply ban all foreign low wage immigrants. Predicting the future is always a risky business, but I think the odds are very much against hordes of low skilled migrants immigrating to Japan in this generation at least.
I lived half my adult life in Japan, I speak the language better than an average native. I know the place, and indeed what you're saying is true. But shit happens, and immigration, if slowly is happening steadily.
I just don't see a grand alliance either, though. The cultural mores seem too distant.
Thing is, as long as the gene flow is small (tenths of a percent per generation) and there is some degree of eugenic selection, this will just import any alleles beneficial in the local environment. Ashkenazis managed to evolve and become a very distinct population "even in the presence of as much as 0.5% inward gene flow per generation from the general European population".
I can't tell if that is sarcasm or not. As a Han racial nationalist, nothing would please me more than a Japanese/Indian alliance and the thought of Japan being inundated by 50 million Indians brings a tear to my eyes though in truth there are few peoples as oil and water as the Japanese and Indians in terms of temperament. The Japanese nationalists do not so much as love India as they like the idea that others love them. You know as well as I do that Japanese nationalist courting of India is basically the Japanese courting of those weird Western netouyo writ large, for third party self validation purposes only. A few white guys singing Kimigayo and hating on the Chinese and Koreans on Youtube is one thing, a few million Indians moving into their country is another. The British negotiated a trade deal with India that basically required them to lower immigration barriers to Indian nationals in return for lower barriers for British goods. Japan can expect the same and they may not be willing to agree which likely puts any potential India-Japan bonhomie on hold. Then again, cathedralist infiltration of Japan has been going on for a long time and Japanese companies like cheap labor just as much as any other, so who knows. They've already replaced Chinese and Korean migrants, whose population growth have either stalled or are shrinking, with Vietnamese and Indonesian migrants in the last decade so who is to say that Indian's cant replace them.
I want to see the rest of this movie play out.
You and that Duke of Qin liar can fantasize all you want, but as I said in my earlier comment to Spandrell, there is simply no way the Japanese bureaucracy will permit mass immigration of low wage immigrants, Indians or otherwise, to Japan. This will simply not happen. Neither does any Hindu nationalist want this to happen. Japan must remain Japanese and India must become Hindu (Faiths originating in India such as Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism etc are seen as Hindu by the nationalists). Good fences make good neighbors and well defined boundaries make good friends.
Well, I agree that this probably won't happen.
"The British negotiated a trade deal with India that basically required them to lower immigration barriers to Indian nationals in return for lower barriers for British goods." This is what brings a tear to my eye and a smile to my lips. As for Japan, no nationalist Indian government will ask for it and if a Cathedralist Indian government does ask for it, then I fully trust the Japanese bureaucracy to tell them to Fuck off. While we are certainly trying to screw over Britain with those trade Vs immigration deals, and the brits know it, Japan is too respected in India for that sort of quid-pro-quo thing to take place.
My good 秦公 you know your stuff.
I can't help feeling it's a healthier attitude than loving foreign peoples.
The healthy attitude is to not love foreign peoples and not delude yourself that foreign peoples love you. Most countries manage to do that. Japanese TV shows on how foreigners just love Japan are cringing.
Well of course it's better to be rich and handsome than sick and ugly. I said it was healthier than the other one, and much better than the two combined.
>India sure has people to spare India desperately needs some feminism.
You mean Indian Muslims desperately need some Feminism. Or to put it more accurately, Hindus desperately need Indian Muslims to get some Feminism. High Hindu TFR (2.6/woman) is strategic. It is a reaction to High Muslim TFR (3.4/Woman) to prevent from becoming a minority in the last homeland that Hindus have left. Malaysia, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangaldesh all used to be Hindu-Buddhist once and are now irrevocably lost. We may be breeding ourselves into poverty but as long as we exist as a people, we have hope.
How would Muslim ascendancy make you cease to exist as people? Would it not, on the contrary, make you more genetically successful (as it would, no doubt, Europeans, which conversion is something Spandrell proposed a couple of times). Aren't you a nationalist? Why would you care about the religion, when Indian Muslims share the same genes and language?
Indians are not an ethnic group, but a few ethnic groups united by Hinduism. A bengali would have little in common with a tamil.
There is no such thing as Indian nationalism without Hinduism. Without Hinduism, India as a nation ceases to exist. You cannot be a Indian nationalist without being a Hindu nationalist. It is no mere co-incidence that parts of India undergoing secession at the moment do not have a Hindu majority. Kashmir is majority Muslim and the north east is majority Christian. The next to follow will be Assam, Bengal and Kerala all with significant Muslim minorities on the cusp of turning majority Muslim within a Generation. As a side note, my personal beliefs match those of Buddhism and my individual identity is as a Buddhist. Yet, my group beliefs match those of Hinduism and politically I am a Hindu and support Hindu causes. Xiaohu Dun has pointed out the essence of my argument but not the whole. India is a NOT a few Ethnic groups unified by Hinduism. It is a few Linguistic groups unified by Hinduism. A Tamil is not all that Genetically different from a Bengali. Tamilians settled in North India are indistinguishable from native North Indians within a generation. Even the damned facial features start undergoing a change. Perhaps the Food we eat and the weather conditions do impact facial features as Nicholas Nassim Taleb posits. You cannot separate nationality and religion just as you cannot separate politics and economics. The ancients would have scoffed at the concept! The Shintos and Muslims still scoff at the concept and rightly so. The two being binding forces between groups of people have to be tightly coupled for any sort of cohesiveness. Ever wonder why Japan is so cohesive? Could Japan have been so cohesive if it was 20% christian? Note South Korea's social cohesiveness just beginning to fray as Christians and Buddhists are now roughly equal in number. Couple the two tightly Or else watch as any conflict between the two identities pulls the entire group apart due to the contradiction. This has been demonstrated time and again in history and even in modern times with the Muslim soldiers in a Kaffir Army. Apart from Muslims, no one seems to understand this concept today. You will note that Muslim countries keep kafirs out of their armies. If we become muslims, we become the servants of the Arabs because Islam is in one sense, an ideology of Arab Domination. Spandrell needs to keep this in mind when he suggests Islam for the White nationalists. Is he sure that white nationalists converting to Islam will be able to maintain their ehtnic identity as whites? Will their Muslim identity supersede their Ethnic identity as we have seen happening in India, Malaysia, Albania, Kosovo, Xinjiang? History gives no reason for optimism on this count.
>You cannot separate nationality and religion just as you cannot separate politics and economics. Of course you can. Christians used to be good at it. When nationalism was heresy Europe was united and the entire continent (not just one country) was cohesive. When Europe abandoned Christianity for nationalism what we got was two world wars. >Is he sure that white nationalists converting to Islam will be able to maintain their ethnic identity as whites? Sure they would. Balkan Mohammedans are genetically purer than are their Christian counterparts (e.g. Bosniaks vs. Serbs). Note that Balkan Christians preserved their language, culture, and even faith despite centuries of the Ottoman rule. By all accounts it would appear that being under Mohammedan boot, even as a dhimmī, is not as bad as being under Progressive boot.
"Of course you can. Christians used to be good at it" I don't think so. Every European country had it's own church with it's own interpretation of Christianity. You had the Catholics and the Protestants and the Orthodox. Within the Protestants, you had the Anglicans (church of England), the Lutherans in Germany and so on and so forth. Yes, Europe was more unified than otherwise, but you need to have differing interpretations of the same religion if you are to cohere as a separate nationality. When two protestant countries go to war, how do you explain to the soldiers risking their life that God is on their side and not the enemy if you both have the exact same interpretation of the doctrine? "When Europe abandoned Christianity for nationalism what we got was two world wars." This is a very biased statement coming from someone very attached to Christianity. it can be disproved merely by giving one counter example out of many, that of the 30 year war? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty\_Years'\_War Seems like Catholics and Protestants, both nominally Christian, butchering each other. On a per capita basis, I'd say this war was way more damaging to Germany than the two world wars. People forget that the English might have gone protestant in large part to avoid Kowtowing to the Italians in the Vatican. Need I even talk about the 100 years war? Or the 7-years war? Or the myriad other damaging wars? "Balkan Mohammedans are genetically purer than are their Christian counterparts (e.g. Bosniaks vs. Serbs)" Sure, but it did not prevent them from Butchering the Ethnically related Serbs (whites) in response to the codified ravings of an Arab Sociopath. Religion might be stronger than Blood, or at least mighty close, I'm afraid
>I don’t think so. Every European country had it’s own church with it’s own interpretation of Christianity. Very, very late, and even then peaceful discourse was in place. >When two protestant countries go to war, how do you explain to the soldiers risking their life that God is on their side and not the enemy if you both have the exact same interpretation of the doctrine? Consider what Guglielmo Ferrero says: “Before the French Revolution, wars scarcely affected the masses. They were fought out between sovereigns – the emperor, the kings, or the aristocratic republics which were still numerous in the eighteenth century – between ruling classes few in numbers, homogenous, cultured and refined. These classes could fight each other without excessive animosity; they could recognize that the enemy’s cause was as righteous as their own; they could wage was as a game, respecting its rules even when it would be more advantageous for the moment to break them; and admit defeat as soon as it became too dangerous to keep on. Today it is the people who fight, even when they have not the slightest wish to do so. Workers and peasants have to supply the rank and file, the middle classes the officers, the well-to-do and the rich the funds; the result is an enormous, heterogeneous, mobile and impressionable mass, torn by complex antagonisms of passions and interests. This mass cannot keep up the efforts of a war unless it is fired by some passion common to it all. A nation at war must therefore hate the enemy, which means that it must be convinced that it is defending the most righteous of causes against the most infamous aggression; that it represents innocent Good fighting against Evil armed with the most diabolical of long-premeditated designs. The danger which most dismayed the theorists of the eighteenth century then becomes a necessity. War of this kind makes it essential that each nation shall have a mystical conception of the exclusive righteousness of its own cause, a conception which is equally violent and bigoted in both belligerents. It is, moreover, so easy for men to convince themselves that they are right and others are in the wrong.” > it can be disproved merely by giving one counter example out of many, that of the 30 year war? Again, read Ferrero quote above. To be sure there were wars, but they weren't as destructive as total wars. And besides they weren't religious wars at all. Whig historians invented "religious war" clause as a stick to beat down the church with, and to subvert the power of religion in society. In reality those were the wars between the sovereigns, and as always waged for the lucrative pieces of real estate. It was only after the fact that state-owned intellectuals said "see, religion is dangerous maaaaan, we need the state to step in and protect us from the church" despite the fact that it was states waging those wars. Of course, the myth was beloved by Progressives, and thus persisted to this day. >Need I even talk about the 100 years war? Or the 7-years war? Or the myriad other damaging wars? Think about it. Given the length of those wars, how destructive could they have been if they lasted that long? Especially at medieval levels of economic productivity. Well, not very destructive, or else there would have been nothing remaining of Europe. Can you imagine a war of the intensity of WWII lasting a 100 years? >Sure, but it did not prevent them from Butchering the Ethnically related Serbs (whites) in response to the codified ravings of an Arab Sociopath. Groups involved in Yugoslav wars of the 90s weren't slaughtering each other because of religion. In fact it was happening in what was officially a Communist country, nobody cared about religion there, least of all pork-eating Muslims of Bosnia. As for the Kosovo, it's likewise not a religious conflict. There's Albanian Orthodox Church in Albania, and it's doing fine. No Muslims are demolishing monasteries there.
Ferrero is full of shit. Read up on the 30 years war. Germany ended depopulated. Yes, of course premodern wars wanted to leave peasants at peace, but things always get out of hand sooner or later.
>Ferrero is full of shit. Oh, but is he? Extremely civil wars waged during the Kabinettskriege years made some of the people who lived during the period predict the end to war.
That was a limited period in a limited area. To say that all war in Europe until 1789 was like that is, well, to be full of shit. The same way those people who were "predicting the end of war" were full of shit themselves.
>To say that all war in Europe until 1789 was like that is, well, to be full of shit. To be sure they weren't all like that. But, the Church wanted to civilize wars ever since Peace and Truce of God, and the argument was whether Christianity deterred or inflamed wars.
Do you mind if I ask about your background and kind of Buddhism (e.g. if you're a Ladakhi, an Ambedkar follower, or got to Buddhism as a single individual)? I think the Albanians are more Albanian than Muslim (and I don't know of any persecution suffered by the Christians), though that could change the instant the Greater Albania plan succeeded.
To answer Michael RothBlatt, Spandrell has said it better than I ever could To answer Silva, I am an individual practicing certain meditation techniques that the Buddhist Sangha claims to come from the time of the Buddha. To this extent I am a Buddhist. However, Buddhism is quite ambiguous regarding the topic of taking human life in self defense (the Buddha was never asked this question) and is even more ambiguous when it comes to retaliation (seems to disapprove strongly but no clinching statement). It seems Buddhists as a group cannot survive unless they have some one willing to kill aggressors on their behalf. To this extent, I would not identify as a Buddhist, rather as a Hindu where there is no ambiguity regarding violence and taking life in self defense (compulsory), or retaliation (necessary) or even aggression (Will go to hell if not confront evil doer and take war to him).
>To answer Michael RothBlatt, Spandrell has said it better than I ever could What?! He did no such thing. You asked what would protestants do when going to war with another protestants. Well that was exactly the post-Reformation Kabinettskriege period which the quote was chiefly about, and which Spandrell admits is true, so you can't use him as your excuse. Sure, earlier wars may not have been Kabinettskriege, but they're still far cry from nationalist total wars, which was the point. And consequences of those wars? From 1648 (the end of the 30 years war) to 1848 (nationalist revolution) Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was doing great. On the other hand, Germany from 1848 to today is on the path to extinction. Finally, ask yourself this. If Christianity was so bad for cohesion why was it Christendom that conquered the world, and not say, the Japanese?
Because internecine wars among West European Christian nations gave impulse to the longest arms race in human history, creating war machines which nowhere else on earth could compete with. European strength came from division, not unity. This argument is old as sin. Ottomans had unity. Chinese had unity. Big cohesive empires tend to not like war that much. It's dangerous.
I have to correct that. It came from both division and unity: political division and broad cultural/civilizational unity, not infrequently across religious divisions too. Scientists, Jesuits, Masons &c &c corresponded and published and moved more or less freely all over Europe. No single country was big enough to support the rise of European strength and pre-eminence all by itself.
Are high speed trains still economically viable with the low cost of modern air travel?
Totally. Prices tend to be slightly higher but for <4 hour trips people prefer trains; more reliable time and less security hassle. This applies to Europe, China and Japan.
This applies to anywhere capable of a) putting together an engineer-class to build, run, and maintain the infrastructure and b) getting out of its way instead of milking it to death with overcredentialization and rent-seeking. So Europe only in parts (like Switzerland).
High speed rail works extremely nicely in France, Italy, Germany or Spain. I don't know if political payoffs make the national rail companies unprofitable, but the economics are solid and they could be made profitable overnight.
I need you to come make the pitch for rail in California.
Rail doesn't work well in diverse enriched societies. It won't be long until it stops working on Europe for that reason. California is really out of the question.
Unfortunately, mass transit allows for blacks to enter wealthier areas and cause trouble. Even when otherwise well behaved, you see nicer train stations where I live with black drug dealers who take advantage of easier commute. Its a solvable problem IMO(more law enforcement), but not in the current political environment.
Unfortunately for America, there are more prosaic reasons why it won't work there for a long time yet: density. If the rail isn't going to be a government charity project but a business, it needs ridership, and with American-style dwellings it is just too much hassle to drive to a station, leave the car somewhere, and then possibly have to get a car at the other end to get to where you're going. American suburbs' population density is less than 1/10 of the Japanese, often much less. Until mass migration of SWPLs back into core cities and of the diverse population out into the sticks is complete, American rail is going to be a niche market. Though having ridden Shinkansen and TGV on the one hand and Amtrak and local trains on the other, I can sympathize with those SWPLs who are pissed about the latter. It must be humiliating.
Yes, although I guess you can always take Uber to the station these days. Still the numbers aren't really there except for the NE corridor I guess. Abe fans make wet dreams about exporting the Linear there. Chinese trains are quite nice too, I was gladly surprised. Looking forward to Kunming-Singapore.
I was talking about NE corridor, that's what I saw myself. I gather that elsewhere the economics is completely out of the question.
Your definition of high-speed and my definition of high-speed differ, it seems.
What are you talking about? If the TGV isn't "high-speed" for you, you're just playing with words.
I consider bamar people to be east Asian with a bit of south Asian admixture. I think their IQ should be closer to 90 , which is better then most of south east Asia about on par with Vietnam.
Yeah, that sounds about right. I've been there and I did feel the locals looked a little bit smarter than an average Thai, but not as smart as an average Viet.
The viets are dai who speak a different language though. http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/8020624/1/ Modern Thai are a dai who assimilated the mon khmmer population. I think the lowest IQ in island south east Asia would be the khmmers, which explains why Cambodia is still quite dysfunctional despite a lot of foreign aid.
Yes, they're also darker and more australoid looking. Viets must have a lot of Chinese admixture, more than the Dai, and way more than the Bamar.
The Vietnamese aristocrats ran a successful eugenics policy on themselves and got fairly bright.
That's original research by Jim. Haven't seen his sources.
"Vietnamese aristocrats" aka Chinese. Several Vietnamese dynasties were founded by Chinese immigrants. Even by the time Harvard's friends took over Vietnam and sent the bourgeoisie to concentration camps, over half the elite were Chinese.
I guess that's one way to run a successful eugenics program. Or, in the case of the West, a successful dysgenics program.
That's how Thailand manages to be a functional country, by having adopted a Chinese aristocracy but keeping them loyal to the Thai nation. Works pretty nicely.
Isn't the Thai king part Chinese? I believe Thai patriotism and nationalism are strongly identified with the monarchy.
"Meanwhile Koreans and Japanese do get to make money in Myanmar." I doubt that the Koreans or the Japanese would be able to do much about it if, in the future, the Burmese need to kick out their expats. Americans would be a different story and, whatever the long-term prospects of this relationship, kicking out Europeans would be a hell of a lot more likely to get the US to intervene on behalf of a third party than a bunch of other Asia
The perverse incentives of protection.
Well, at least Burma has the balls to stand up to the West (for now). I can't say the same for other countries in the region, like South Korea or Taiwan.
Learn more about Rohingya in one spandrell blog post than 10 NYT/WaPo op-eds! Muslim governments all across the world are rushing on, climbing on top of each other in order to be the one who is more vocal in defending gaymarriage the Rohingya and denouncing those evil white supremacists Buddhist supremacists in Rakhine. This of course includes Kadyrov's Chechnya.
I read nothing about Gay Marriage there. It was all Rohingya! That being said, you write well, Mr. Anatoly Karlin
He copy pasted my sentence but the formatting didn't get through.
Very kind of you. But even silence is more informative than fake news.
[…] Bloody Shovel: […]
[…] wonders What’s the deal with the Rohingyas. Which is one better than I wondered: What is the Rohingyas? Also there: Musings on the attractions […]