The political consequences of urbanization

I guess its true that many are forced and pressurized to move into the cities but in all honesty I have a hard time imagining a world where urbanization, at least to some extent, is not necessary. So if we then can establish this connection between urbanization and losing your culture, spirit etc etc.. how do we mitigate this? is it even possible?

Yes, cities give birth to nihilism

Urbanisation leads to oversocialisation and thus left-wing ideals. It's all covered in this handy guide: washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

Cities are a problem but cities with zoning laws and an international real state are the big problem.
Wath they do is making it unaffordable to own more than one house meaning zero kids.
The cities of all aprund the world are absorbing the youth and making them go chidless

Less population density and less jewish bullshit in general. End shitty corporations and businesses, destroy the pozzed government and put something that makes sense in its place, replace mass schooling, reduce anything that causes stress frequently and unnecessarily...
You need to dismantle the ZOG hellholes, the current and future(?) communications and transportation technologies can help with this.
There is no need for everybody to be tightly compacted in Goldenberg's Inferno anymore (you only do it because you are retarded).

>- is there a correlation between level of urbanization and general pozzification? and if so, how do we tackle this?
well I get your point but even the best urbanized european cities produce the same kind of fagots.
europeans are all low test fagots thats all

Quality post, Hans. Thank you.

I will take the time to read his manifesto at some point, like many others I was previously, pre-redpilling, just discarding him as a looney based on his actions which is not really a sufficient way to discredit an idea. PS. I was like "wtf?" when I first saw that you linked to washingtonpost, kek.

>Urban areas are pure service economies
It wasn't always this way. There were factories in urban areas before, even in the New York metro area, now hollowed out and abandoned or repurposed for service sector nonsense.

Attached: gamingetc.png (299x288, 143.58K)

>This a video of a former party leader of Moderaterna ("""conservatives""") saying "People from Stockholm are smarter than hillbillies in the countryside"
We have this type of lunacy in Germany as well. That reminds me of something. The thing with urban vs rural/suburban life is the way our brains are hardwired. We perceive "smart" traits differently.

You see, the first Europeans were hunter-gatherers, the roles were assigned by gender and physical capability, i.e. men hunt, women and children gather.

Even though hunter-gatherer populations make up only a fracture of Overall European ancestry, you have to remember that at one point during the paleolithic ALL humans were hunter-gatherers, and only later did some develop agriculture and pastoralism.

Those are 500k years of pre-historical evolution hardwired into our brain. And I may remind you, human evolution is FAST. Europeans developed wide-spread lactose tolerance and blonde hair only within the last 10k years.

So what does this mean nowadays?

You see, hunters, i.e. men, would remember paths, tracks and ways overall. They had to orientate the entire time while following the herds of their prey (mammoths, deer, wild cattle etc.). They had to remember exact and safe routes, or else they would bump into the territory of wolves or sabre-tooths.

Women on the other hand, only had to remember fixed places, where to pick berries, honey, mushrooms, mussels etc.

The thing in a modern city is, a wild man is COMPLETELY lost. It is completely unatural. Why?
Men would orientate around the stars (who are gone at night, due to thick smog) and at day around the sun (which is often obscured by tall buildings). Also, in a city you completely lose the personal space that rural/suburban life would offer and that your ancestors had.

Only women can cope with this, due to their fixed-place-association.

TL;DR: Urban areas might be associated with effeminate traits.

>It wasn't always this way.
I am quite aware. But old cities /=/ new cities. The old industrial urban areas in Germany are now abandoned, what used to be irrelevant is now "the economy". The modern economy is based on services and debt, essentially sophisticated slavery.

I agree in general with your take, but "mass schooling" as a general principle doesn't, at face value, seem like a inheritly bad idea since it would promote some sort of social cohesion. It's the absolute cancerous content of the schooling that is the problem in my mind, sure, it could lead to indoctrination (and in turn suppression of freedom of speech).

Sweet Jesus is that a shoop? Where is that hellhole?

And before anyone says I pulled this out of my butt, I was reminded of seeing a related experiment done by ZDF a few years ago (German TV for those who don't know). They set out a bunch of men and women to make it to the same place so as to see how much time each would take. The conclusion was exactly this; men looked for paths, women for fixed places (meaning the latter had to ask for directions more often) and that was indeed due to evolutionary traits.

They will make their way to your hometown eventually. Much like cancer immigrant communities metastatise over the course of generations. First a trickle, then a stream, then a flood.
t. American

You're exactly right, I just wanted to put it out there before people started claiming that cities are inherently all about money shuffling and perpetually selling and buying nonsense services to and from each other without actually producing anything and being smug about it.

>The thing in a modern city is, a wild man is COMPLETELY lost
Still, if you are just talking about orientation, men seem to be better equiped to get to a new location in urban areas. Women would often become confused about where they are and the distance and directional relation between different places.

It's so funny, I don't know if you people also have noticed this but many women, when sitting indoors, when they talk about going somewhere or a place in general. They would point at the completely wrong direction when talking about at place. Of course not 100% of the time, but to a large extent in my experience.

Anyway, just playing a bit of a devils advocate here and agree with your take that women seem to thrive more in urban areas nowadays when compared to men.

I just googled "urbanization", can't seem to find the source again now tho but it sure as hell looks surreal and terrifying.

Yes, of course I am aware of this but my point was not really that immigrants congretate in cities but rather that there is a difference on how my own defense mechanism is triggered almost in a primitive and emotional way when I see the few ones that have arrived in last few years in my home town when compared to visiting other cities in Sweden. Then I would still arrive at the same conclusions, but through a rational and non-primitive mental process.

Sounds interesting, would you have a link by any chance? Was it done in the "wild" or in an urban area?

Considering the low productivity of most people today, we see that cities create a demand for something akin to busy work, employing mindless drones to do menial tasks which wouldn't even be necessary in the first place. Think of the tertiary sector today.

Instead of progress, we see futile loops expending the potential for progress.

>is there a correlation between level of urbanization and general pozzification? and if so, how do we tackle this?
Yes. Big cities are the worst centers of degeneracy.

How do we tackle this? You have to decentralize wealth, so it's possible to have a life in smaller towns.

>are there any studies or talks that covers this topic?

Yes. See for reference Rousseau's Project of constitution for Corsica.

Nice observation, have a bump.

Also, We've had some quality posts here covering interesting aspects of urbanization. But let me pose another question, which might not have been coming across clearly in the OP.

If we accept my claim, that the biological instinct of protecting ones territory is being triggered stronger in your own actual home town. Do you think there would be a difference between people who are born in a city, often a big one, where their family has only lived for 1-2 generations? I feel that the obvious answer is yes, but why? is the territorial protection impulse just weaker, strictly genetically, among city dwellers?

It's inherently bad and impossible to be done for real. Teaching was never a mass experience and at the current costs of education, smaller local initiatives by NGOs and the private sector could be cheaper and massively better than anything the government puts his crooked inbred green finger on (there are many previous experiences confirming this theory).

>You have to decentralize wealth, so it's possible to have a life in smaller towns
There is actually a lot of talks in Sweden about this, "saving the rural areas" and to their credit I think they have actually been relocating some governmental from Stockholm to more rural areas of the country.
>Rousseau's Project of constitution for Corsica.
I'll check it out, thanks!