A sensible moderation policy might involve automatically holding back any comment from a commenter who hasn’t yet been approved. But agnostic holds all new comments under moderation by default and sometimes just doesn’t choose to approve them. Knowing this, I saved a copy of the last one I tried to submit in reply to this, and am pasting it below.

Declaring that lawyers are a leading indicator sounds like an epicycle introduced after I pointed out that lawyers grew more in the 30s & 40s than the 20s, after you previously said this declined in the New Deal era.

“It got flattened after a brief surge”
What got flattened? Is there some measure you’re referencing?

“Europeans did not conquer most of the world — the Spanish did […] And the British conquered the rest”
If we’re going by population, South Asia has a lot more people in it than South America (although the most populous South American country was Portugese rather than Spanish). And of course the British also conquered places outside South Asia like Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, Rhodesia, South Africa, Australia, Singapore & Hong Kong (which they retained until 1997). They gained a lot of these territories even after losing the 13 US colonies. By what standard is the British empire, on which the sun proverbially never set, “the rest” compared to the Spanish?

“They didn’t colonize anybody, even after they had nationally unified and industrialized.”
Wrong. They colonized Somalia, Eritrea, Libya, and while they were defeated in their first war with Ethiopia, they conquered it in their second. How did they do that with their lack of asabiyah? Better technology.

Russia was expanding to the east around the same time western European countries which the Mongols never reached were forming overseas empires.

“Disease played a role, but mainly it was who was strongly unified and who was fragmented.”
This discussion of the conquistadors downplays of their technological advantages, but it also makes plain they were so disorganized as to often fight among themselves and against the government to which they were nominally subject:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ivpKSjM4D6FbqF4pZ/cortes-pizarro-and-afonso-as-precedents-for-takeover

“The tech-heavy view is that they should never have dropped their colonies or their campaigns against one another in Europe (i.e., Germany should have instantly tried to invade and dominate the more backward Balkans).”
Colonies may have been profitable for a relatively small number of colonizers whose operations were being subsidized, but they were mostly a cost for the parent country (something Greg Cochran brings up a lot). Lenin was wrong about the viability of those imperial powers once they lost their colonies, just as Hitler was wrong about the necessity of acquiring lebensraum.

Afghanistan is the “ESPN Zone of empires”: a place where a number of wasted time & expense before returning the normal. The British eventually had enough of it, but continued being an empire, and even acquired more territory after WW1.

“The rising vs. falling asabiya view makes perfect sense of the decolonization and non-colonial policies of Europe today.”
I say Sailer’s “dirt theory of war” explains its decline (and that so many wars since WW2 have been intrastate rather than interstate). We don’t really see any empire rising to take the place of the ones that receded.

I don’t follow Aimee, but has she ever acknowledged the existence of this blog?

Another post, another comment

Agnostic created another post on meta-ethnic frontiers, and again one of my comments was approved while a follow-up was not. In reply to this I wrote the following:

I don’t recall Turchin claiming the Romans had a meta-ethnic frontier with the Carthaginians, seeing as how there was a sea separating Carthage from Rome, rather than a land border where marcher lords where constantly squabbling. And the Romans only butted up against the Carthaginians because they’d already expanded enough to dominate all the Italians between them, and then gone on to Sicily (then colonized by Greeks).

I agree that east coast accents are relatively distinct (partly because they’re older and had more time to diverge). But my understanding is that Midwest is still considered more generic than West coast/California. I think the Californian working-class today would tend to sound Mexican.