February 19, 2018

New Europe Radio Episode 9: The European Revolution

New Europe Radio is a radio show about various topics that we will talk about. I am putting this heading here so it doesn’t look like trash with all of the citations popping up.

Download here:

Watch in youtube:

Stuff talked about:




PPL Sayin “why no soundcloud” okay guys here you go, be sure to say what your donation ihttps://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/s for:

For to get past the paywalls go here and type in the DOI:

Facebook Comments
  • Mailinated

    Re: Why China didn’t industrialize: I had a lecture about this at some point. The lecturer wasn’t a professor or someone that had done research, but it *was* someone who was updated on the latest theories about global history. His explanation was that Europe has lots more peninsulas and Islands (Spain, Italy, England, Scandinavia, Greece) as well as more mountains and other environmental barriers, hence it’s harder to rule it in a centralized fashion, hence you get more competition between rulers which allegedly fuels competition. China otoh has a mostly featureless coast. AKA the Jared Diamond explanation.

    The other explanation was that China “had everything” and had no reason to trade hence no reason to improve. I suspect this was a cultural belief more than anything, and that trade wasn’t very important at the time. The last explanation was that China was too far away from America and hence couldn’t get onto that.

    I don’t really buy these explanations, but there they are.

  • Thomas Rotbart

    Love your content!

    Please get a podcast host that’s not Google Drive.

    • Ryan Faulk

      The donation link is up at the top of the site!

  • Tha Right stuff niggas irritated another racial creationist

  • Jared Alexander

    Did I miss the point at which the explanation for the European Industrial Revolution stops begging the question? It seemed to me the verdict was it happened in Europe because the nobility had more children and they were downwardly mobile + there was a eugenic death penalty. So did the Chinese nobility not have more children / were they not downwardly mobile? Did the Chinese not have a eugenic death penalty to reduce crimes? And why?

    • Ryan Faulk

      Yeah I don’t know of any such thing. My suspicion is not, in that the area of China had been under state control since at least 1000 AD, whereas northwestern Europe some time around 200 AD.

      Look, different human pops have different evolutionary pathways for reasons that we don’t have to know. For example, the way people of the Andes and the people of Tibet evolved to cope with those conditions.

      Obviously East Asians have many of the first-world traits, moreso than northwest Europeans even, in terms of self-control and general intelligence. But they appear to be more conformist.

      Like, you’re asking “why didn’t these traits evolve in China”, and the fact is, most of them DID except for individualism.

      • Falcon9R

        You have to adjust for population structure and medicine. Lethal attacks today are about 3-5 times less lethal then in medival times.

        The “real” homicide rate in middle ages was about 5+ times higher than today, not 20.

        A 20 murder rate means 1400 deaths per 100 000 poplation, that is 1,4 % chance of being killed in a 70 year time-span. Maybe 2 % for males. Beatings without medicine are very deadly, maybe 1 in 50 will end in death without medications etc…(brain swelling, dislodged fat inside your body, infections)