Form: Mini Essay

  • On ‘Sh__Hole Countries’

    The most expensive,scarce, irreplaceable, capital that people produce and consume is normative and intertemporal.The physical universe can be physically transformed.But people must be trained by immersion,education,competition, incentives,and law. A sh–hole is so b/c its people. Bringing money to ‘bad people’ merely feeds bad behavior. Basic economic law: anything you subsidize will increase. Bad people bringing money to worse people produces malincentives at source and destination. Bringing bad people to good people is costly. The economics of immigration is contentious only because we do not measure the changes in capital, only the change in productivity (lowering) and consumption (only maintained by increasing population). Not that you’re likely able to have this discussion with me. For the temporal and experiential *animal, consumption is an understandable measurement of ‘success’. For the intertemporal, empirical and cumulative *human, consumption without a decline in intertemporal capital is a measurement of ‘success’. The temporal and consumptive, vs intertemporal and cumulative, is the causal difference in gender, class, tribal, cultural, national group reproductive and evolutionary strategies, and is the source of our ‘moral’ perceptions, and political expressions of those perceptions. For those with the western aristocratic (meritocratic) high trust, low corruption, high investment commons, whose sentiments favor empirical rule of law over justificationary rationalism and rule by discretion, we are conscious of, concerned with, the defense of, those commons. You get what you measure.
  • On ‘Sh__Hole Countries’

    The most expensive,scarce, irreplaceable, capital that people produce and consume is normative and intertemporal.The physical universe can be physically transformed.But people must be trained by immersion,education,competition, incentives,and law. A sh–hole is so b/c its people. Bringing money to ‘bad people’ merely feeds bad behavior. Basic economic law: anything you subsidize will increase. Bad people bringing money to worse people produces malincentives at source and destination. Bringing bad people to good people is costly. The economics of immigration is contentious only because we do not measure the changes in capital, only the change in productivity (lowering) and consumption (only maintained by increasing population). Not that you’re likely able to have this discussion with me. For the temporal and experiential *animal, consumption is an understandable measurement of ‘success’. For the intertemporal, empirical and cumulative *human, consumption without a decline in intertemporal capital is a measurement of ‘success’. The temporal and consumptive, vs intertemporal and cumulative, is the causal difference in gender, class, tribal, cultural, national group reproductive and evolutionary strategies, and is the source of our ‘moral’ perceptions, and political expressions of those perceptions. For those with the western aristocratic (meritocratic) high trust, low corruption, high investment commons, whose sentiments favor empirical rule of law over justificationary rationalism and rule by discretion, we are conscious of, concerned with, the defense of, those commons. You get what you measure.
  • No. No Exit. It Is Time For Us To Fight

    –“The thing which is intensely apparent the longer you spend looking at the world and people’s opinions about it and what to do is this: we are truly out of our depth here.”— I think it’s that there are two few people who are not. But let’s move on and see what we have here…. –“Just basic stuff like “birth control plus the nuclear family have produced the loneliest generation of women in history, and the gaps left by kids and extended family hurt.” Or the other one, which is that we just don’t have enough natural resources to provide the entire world with a basically adequate standard of living without extremely radical technological transformations.”— Correct. And Both are possible only because of keynesian debt – although that era is quickly coming to a close. And the purpose of keynesian debt is to accelerate consumption. And the surest means of accelerating consumption is increasing population until the malthusian limit is not supply but demand (think about that one a bit). It’s possible that this collapse is precisely what ‘the other side wants’. To reduce us back to pre-paternal poverty. –“These [failures] are extremely straight forward. But they are [failures] that exist in cultural and personal blind spots,”— I would say that they exist in economic ignorance, and political practicality. I mean, it’s non trivial to accumulate sufficient knowledge of math, logic, and economic and physical sciences to represent what you sense in scientific terms. Worse, addressing these failures means admitting that the enlightenment assessments of human nature were wrong, that democracy is a bad thing, and that one of the principle successes of western civilization was millennia of eugenics under aristocratic meritocracy. –“so although they are precisely the medicine required to bring people to an awareness of what is wrong and what could meaningfully improved in the world, nobody can hear them. You can sit there talking about this stuff all day long, but because it flies against the prevailing narratives of the day, it just washes straight past people.”– Well, that’s because people will always choose consumption, hyperconsumption, conspicuous consumption,virtue signaling, and virtue signal spirals *if there is no means of limiting them from doing so*. Usually the market, and the available resources prevent them from doing so. Keynesian economics misinforms them that there is no limit. HOWEVER, as you note, acting as if there is no limit merely consumes accumulated informational, habitual, normative, cultural, institutional, territorial, and genetic capital. —“Here’s another one: you can have your anonymous censorship resistant free speech platform, but it will become uninhabitable for women and minorities because of the constant seas of harassment they will encounter. It will also be a breeding ground for the very worse in human nature, that awkward place where utter personal failure meets the Nazi philosophy, and horrible men dream of redemption through shedding the blood of The Other.”— I dunno. Thats the market at work, right? Didn’t you yourself just fall to the same ‘unlimited resources, equality of human capital, equality of habit, norm, culture, institution, Who is it that is doing the hyperconsumption by hyper-reproduction? Reproduction is just deficit spending. Do we really have any other problem than underclass reproduction and middle and upper class under-reproduction? —“In each case, our lag in building cultural understanding means that good people are wasting their lives on bad ideas, because the news that these ideas are bad take a generation or two to trickle through academia to become a respectable truth.”— It’s not cultural understanding. It’s economics, genetics, and physics. And thats difficult because they are contrary to the ‘dream’. The dream is a falsehood. America is wealthy because we have spent a couple of centuries conquering and selling off a continent under the anglo rule of law of torts. That’s the only reason. IT’s true that anglo law is the best law discovered in history. Anglos had the benefits of the north sea civilization and the hansa to convert into an effective commercial code. —“And I just can’t get the help. I’m a man who occasionally swears oaths, things like “I will die before you do” which, in a safety critical situation, is as good a guarantee as one can give of your intentions and your seriousness. “I will not do anything for money I am not willing to do for free” was another very strong oath – which I kept for more than 12 years, and which rendered me continuously precarious and worse a few times, but also allowed me to live with integrity in a very, very dirty world.”— You are not alone. “Revolution Comes.” –“I realized recently that I don’t know anyone else who swears and keeps oaths. People just do what’s expedient.”— Loyalty provides long term very high returns, and is the opposite of short term consumption, conspicuous consumption, virtue signaling, and virtue spirals. Heroism, loyalty, truth and sovereignty are uniquely western values and always have been. So what does it say about you (positively) that you want such returns? —“And that’s when it clicked. The world is as it is because people are as they are. And the choices are as they ever were: the best force organization on the worse, or we spend our lives trying to improve people. To govern, or to teach, are the basic choices.”— Absolutely correct. The strong determine all else. If the world is shit then it is the fault of them men who CAN act, for not HAVING acted, such that they bring about THE BEST RULE BY THE BEST. —“I’ve picked govern. I’ve seen everybody who’s tried to teach fail to get major results, and it’s a hard, hard conclusion but I just don’t think the results are there. It’s just not that time or place.”— Correct. —“And here, sitting [?with govern?], I can just do the best I can, and nothing more. I don’t see how we can teach people a realistic politics: too few want to know the truth about how the world works.”— Um. the best we can is to fight. We are given an OPPORTUNITY FOR HEROISM. And opportunity WRITE OUR NAMES ON HISTORY FOR ALL TIME. This is not a tragedy but an opportunity. An opportunity men laying abed wishing for adventure, fame, and meaning rarely have. —“This leaves us with Straussian options, and conspiracy – Bannon who was a director of Biosphere 2 knows damn well that climate change is real, and believes that fortress America must be girded with iron to survive it.”— I have no idea why that’s relevant. The only reason we have any warming is the masses, and unregulated reproduction. —“Which brings me back to the simple expedience of make the money, spend the money, and enforce accountability. It may not be much, but it’s literally the only effective strategy I can see right now for enacting global change.”—- I would say that you are, like many, looking for an excuse to admit failure and unwillingness to fight to bring about governing, ruling best, by the best. —“I get clearer and purer in this understanding every time I derive it again from first principles. I just have to use the market and the mechanisms it affords for changing the world.”— The market for coopearation is a tool for seizing opportunities made possible by markets. The market for violence is a tool for constructing the opportunities, and LIMITS of those markets. The market for gossip, information, ideas, is a tool for organizing violence with which to create markets constructed of opportunities and limits. —“Nothing else will work. Which sucks, but there we are.”— No. You are, like many, trying to find a self justification for exit. There is only one exit: failure for all time. There is only one success: revolution and change, for all time. Love you brother, and I love all, but you were born with little other than a wealth of time and a wealth of violence and it is time to put your inheritance to work. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
  • THE VARIOUS RIGHTS AND WRONGS AND THEIR FRAMES Um. Saying pain hurts is a tautol

    THE VARIOUS RIGHTS AND WRONGS AND THEIR FRAMES

    Um. Saying pain hurts is a tautology (meaningless).

    But this is an excellent opportunity to discuss an interesting defect in language and concept. And perhaps, it might help to remind us that english grammar (the verb) contains the time dimension of “always happened -> happened -> is happening -> will happen -> always shall happen.”

    Pain alerts us to damage so that we remember not to repeat the actions that caused that damage again, or avoid further opportunities for damage.

    Now it’s true that we humans often conflate:

    1 – ‘correct and incorrect’ (testing or calculation of a known),

    2 – ‘beneficial and harmful’ (human change in state – immediate)

    3 – ‘right and wrong’ (operations to produce an intended outcome OR ‘ethical vs unethical’, OR ‘moral and immoral’ – intertemporal),

    4 – ‘good and bad’ (moral actions that produce gain or loss upon others – moral being indirect, and ethical being direct – intertemporal.),

    5 – ‘positive and negative’ (economic, financial, entrepreneurial change).

    5 – ‘true and false’ (testimonial that is consistent, correspondent, operational, and coherent – intertempral), and

    6 – ‘true and false’ (analytic – technically ‘testimony of correctness’ – intertemporal – this is the source of the ‘problem’ since ‘true’ in math and logic is equivalent to ‘true’ in carpentry, not true as in testimony. Mathematical and logical statements are either correct or incorrect or unknown, the are not true or false. Because all we are doing is testing deduction and inference between two states.)

    And it is very common for people to use the MEANS OF CALCULATION most common to them:

    1 – those people of a religious frame to rely upon ‘good and bad,

    2 – those of a moral frame rely upon right and wrong,

    3 – those of a rationalist (philosophical) frame ethical and unethical, moral and immoral

    4 – those of a legal frame legal and illegal.

    5 – those of a scientific frame rely upon beneficial and harmful’,

    6 – those of an entrepreneurial, financial, and economic frame rely upon ‘positive and negative’.

    And most of us conflate them depending upon the virtue signal we are trying to send. And sometimes we do so deceptively so that we attribute more authority to our assertions than exists: the most common being the pedestrian conflation of moral and legal.

    When speaking on this subject we are confronted by in a noun-verb challenge. In that we are discussing both cause and effect and must choose a compromise term because of a deficiency in our language. We have no equivalent of ethical and moral with others for the INDIVIDUAL with himself. We have ethical: directly to others, and we have moral: indirectly to others. But no equivalent for the self.

    And therefore are trying to answer a question is this ‘ethical (not harmful) ‘ between the person you are now, and the person you will be in the future. (Although that may be an unfamiliar means of analysis, it provides commensurability that’s a extremely beneficial addition to our linguistic and conceptual inventories. )

    1 – Doing something wrong. (harmful).

    2 – Done something wrong. (harmful).

    3 – Cumulatively done something wrong (harmful).

    4 – Something is going wrong despite our efforts (harmful failure).

    5 – We are indecline and noting we can do but conserve energy. (chronic harm).

    So, from the relationship between our physical body and our acting minds, I choose to use the word “wrong’ to satisfy that relationship between body and mind, where we should, if we can, do something differently from how we are currently doing it.

    Because that is the evolutionary origin of pain: to provide information that immediately overloads all other information competing for attention in that network we call the nervous system.

    To inform you to do something other than what you are doing.

    In the most severe case, that is, to find an answer to the harm that has befallen you by accident, intent, negligence, or fate.

    Cheers.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-07 11:59:00 UTC

  • The Various Rights And Wrongs And Their Frames

    Um. Saying pain hurts is a tautology (meaningless). But this is an excellent opportunity to discuss an interesting defect in language and concept. And perhaps, it might help to remind us that english grammar (the verb) contains the time dimension of “always happened -> happened -> is happening -> will happen -> always shall happen.” Pain alerts us to damage so that we remember not to repeat the actions that caused that damage again, or avoid further opportunities for damage. Now it’s true that we humans often conflate: 1 – ‘correct and incorrect’ (testing or calculation of a known), 2 – ‘beneficial and harmful’ (human change in state – immediate) 3 – ‘right and wrong’ (operations to produce an intended outcome OR ‘ethical vs unethical’, OR ‘moral and immoral’ – intertemporal), 4 – ‘good and bad’ (moral actions that produce gain or loss upon others – moral being indirect, and ethical being direct – intertemporal.), 5 – ‘positive and negative’ (economic, financial, entrepreneurial change). 5 – ‘true and false’ (testimonial that is consistent, correspondent, operational, and coherent – intertempral), and 6 – ‘true and false’ (analytic – technically ‘testimony of correctness’ – intertemporal – this is the source of the ‘problem’ since ‘true’ in math and logic is equivalent to ‘true’ in carpentry, not true as in testimony. Mathematical and logical statements are either correct or incorrect or unknown, the are not true or false. Because all we are doing is testing deduction and inference between two states.) And it is very common for people to use the MEANS OF CALCULATION most common to them: 1 – those people of a religious frame to rely upon ‘good and bad, 2 – those of a moral frame rely upon right and wrong, 3 – those of a rationalist (philosophical) frame ethical and unethical, moral and immoral 4 – those of a legal frame legal and illegal. 5 – those of a scientific frame rely upon beneficial and harmful’, 6 – those of an entrepreneurial, financial, and economic frame rely upon ‘positive and negative’. And most of us conflate them depending upon the virtue signal we are trying to send. And sometimes we do so deceptively so that we attribute more authority to our assertions than exists: the most common being the pedestrian conflation of moral and legal. When speaking on this subject we are confronted by in a noun-verb challenge. In that we are discussing both cause and effect and must choose a compromise term because of a deficiency in our language. We have no equivalent of ethical and moral with others for the INDIVIDUAL with himself. We have ethical: directly to others, and we have moral: indirectly to others. But no equivalent for the self. And therefore are trying to answer a question is this ‘ethical (not harmful) ‘ between the person you are now, and the person you will be in the future. (Although that may be an unfamiliar means of analysis, it provides commensurability that’s a extremely beneficial addition to our linguistic and conceptual inventories. ) 1 – Doing something wrong. (harmful). 2 – Done something wrong. (harmful). 3 – Cumulatively done something wrong (harmful). 4 – Something is going wrong despite our efforts (harmful failure). 5 – We are indecline and noting we can do but conserve energy. (chronic harm). So, from the relationship between our physical body and our acting minds, I choose to use the word “wrong’ to satisfy that relationship between body and mind, where we should, if we can, do something differently from how we are currently doing it. Because that is the evolutionary origin of pain: to provide information that immediately overloads all other information competing for attention in that network we call the nervous system. To inform you to do something other than what you are doing. In the most severe case, that is, to find an answer to the harm that has befallen you by accident, intent, negligence, or fate. Cheers.
  • The Various Rights And Wrongs And Their Frames

    Um. Saying pain hurts is a tautology (meaningless). But this is an excellent opportunity to discuss an interesting defect in language and concept. And perhaps, it might help to remind us that english grammar (the verb) contains the time dimension of “always happened -> happened -> is happening -> will happen -> always shall happen.” Pain alerts us to damage so that we remember not to repeat the actions that caused that damage again, or avoid further opportunities for damage. Now it’s true that we humans often conflate: 1 – ‘correct and incorrect’ (testing or calculation of a known), 2 – ‘beneficial and harmful’ (human change in state – immediate) 3 – ‘right and wrong’ (operations to produce an intended outcome OR ‘ethical vs unethical’, OR ‘moral and immoral’ – intertemporal), 4 – ‘good and bad’ (moral actions that produce gain or loss upon others – moral being indirect, and ethical being direct – intertemporal.), 5 – ‘positive and negative’ (economic, financial, entrepreneurial change). 5 – ‘true and false’ (testimonial that is consistent, correspondent, operational, and coherent – intertempral), and 6 – ‘true and false’ (analytic – technically ‘testimony of correctness’ – intertemporal – this is the source of the ‘problem’ since ‘true’ in math and logic is equivalent to ‘true’ in carpentry, not true as in testimony. Mathematical and logical statements are either correct or incorrect or unknown, the are not true or false. Because all we are doing is testing deduction and inference between two states.) And it is very common for people to use the MEANS OF CALCULATION most common to them: 1 – those people of a religious frame to rely upon ‘good and bad, 2 – those of a moral frame rely upon right and wrong, 3 – those of a rationalist (philosophical) frame ethical and unethical, moral and immoral 4 – those of a legal frame legal and illegal. 5 – those of a scientific frame rely upon beneficial and harmful’, 6 – those of an entrepreneurial, financial, and economic frame rely upon ‘positive and negative’. And most of us conflate them depending upon the virtue signal we are trying to send. And sometimes we do so deceptively so that we attribute more authority to our assertions than exists: the most common being the pedestrian conflation of moral and legal. When speaking on this subject we are confronted by in a noun-verb challenge. In that we are discussing both cause and effect and must choose a compromise term because of a deficiency in our language. We have no equivalent of ethical and moral with others for the INDIVIDUAL with himself. We have ethical: directly to others, and we have moral: indirectly to others. But no equivalent for the self. And therefore are trying to answer a question is this ‘ethical (not harmful) ‘ between the person you are now, and the person you will be in the future. (Although that may be an unfamiliar means of analysis, it provides commensurability that’s a extremely beneficial addition to our linguistic and conceptual inventories. ) 1 – Doing something wrong. (harmful). 2 – Done something wrong. (harmful). 3 – Cumulatively done something wrong (harmful). 4 – Something is going wrong despite our efforts (harmful failure). 5 – We are indecline and noting we can do but conserve energy. (chronic harm). So, from the relationship between our physical body and our acting minds, I choose to use the word “wrong’ to satisfy that relationship between body and mind, where we should, if we can, do something differently from how we are currently doing it. Because that is the evolutionary origin of pain: to provide information that immediately overloads all other information competing for attention in that network we call the nervous system. To inform you to do something other than what you are doing. In the most severe case, that is, to find an answer to the harm that has befallen you by accident, intent, negligence, or fate. Cheers.
  • Why Is The Middle East So Mystic?

    If I told you the correct answer I’d probably be banned for ‘unpleasant but true speech’, but
    1) it has a significant genetic component,
    2) as well as demographic,
    3) as well as cultural .
    But let’s say it always has been this way.

    If I ask you to look up IQ by country. And then ask you to look up literacy by country. And then look up the number of books translated in that country. And then look up academic publications by country. And then if I ask you to look up the IQ demographics for religious, moral, legal, western-philosophical, and scientific classes. And then ask you to look up the content of the language, laws, narratives, and marital structures.

    What you can’t (readily) look up is the distribution of (psychotic)female-to-male(autistic) brain structures and therefore personality traits by IQ, Nation, Race, Subrace, and Class. What is harder to look up is the degree of neoteny or its reversal by race and subrace. And it’s somewhat difficult to look up how neoteny or its opposite, can work in both male and female directions. Because it will take you months to put together all the research from all the different sources.

    And what you might find is that:
    a) small things in large numbers make vast differences.
    b) that IQ and industriousness pretty much produce deterministic distributions.
    c) countries have to govern for the middle of the population and the further than number is below IQ105 the worse it gets.
    d) The underclasses (below 105) are 5 to 6 times as costly as the upper classes are productive(above 120), and are an outright burden as the number decreases.
    e) That the middle east has the worst of all conditions, which is high population density of many competing tribes with high genetic ‘clannishness’ through centuries of inbreeding, as well as pervasive poverty, as well as centuries of ignorance, a justification of ignorance, the habituation of impulsiveness, none to little concept of objective scientific truth as we understand it, a primitive poetic language lacking operational grammar and semantics.

    Just how it is.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-middle-east-so-mystic

  • Um Are You Saying All Whites Look The Same?

    —-”Q: Why do most Americans assume Arabs are a single racial group?”—- Because **Arabs ARE a single subrace**. Arab speakers are not(language). Muslims are not(religion). Arabs are(genes). **GENETICS** Now, genetically it appears that Arabs originated at the Ethiopian-Arabian Peninsula narrows between what is today Djibouti and Yemen, as an admixture between west asians (Anatolia-Levant-Iran today) and Africans. During the Arab expansion (wars of conquest) that destroyed the ancient world’s great civilizations (Egyptian, North African, Levantine, Persian, Byzantine, and Roman), and led to the Abrahamic (jewish, christian, islamic) dark age, arabs interbred, particularly with slaves, because interbreeding of slaves was permitted. So while Arabs INTERBRED with the civilizations they destroyed, and exploited for slavery, they remain a genetically and morphologically identifiable subrace. **West Asian Race ** **===West Asian (Iranian) Race** Iranian Race ( Armenian**(R1b/J2)** – Jewish**(E1/J)** – Greek**(I2) **— Southern Italians**(I2)** — Turk – Kurd – Iranian – Jordanian – Iraqi – Assyrian – Druze – Lebanese – Georgian – Caspian – Palestinian) Tajik Race (Tajik – Bukhara Arab – Shugnan – Kallar – Sourashtran – Yadhava) **=== Arab (Semitic / Iranian-African?) Sub Race** **(J)** (Kuwait, and southern peninsula) Kuwaiti Race* (Kuwaiti) Arabian Race (Saudi – Yemeni – Bedouin)* Egyptian Race (Egyptian) **=== North African Sub Race ** North African Race (Moroccan – Libyan – Tunisian – Canarian) Berber Race*** (Berber) Algerian Race (Algerian) ============ **CONFLATION** We westerners ‘conflate’ *Islam*, *Arab*, and *Arabic* out of convenience and frankly inability to tell the difference (and lack of interest) – and rationally, because stereotypes are the most accurate system of measurement in the social sciences. Most of us still can’t tell east asians apart either. Yet we can tell which tribe or clan ethnic europeans come from. **CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHITES?** I mean, it’s hard for most, but I can tell high, middle, low german, celt, scandinavian, east baltic, polish-ukrainian, russian apart. It’s less easy to tell finno-hungarians, romanians, and southern slavic peoples. and it’s pretty easy to tell northern europeans (germanics) from southern europeans (with black hair), from sardianins, from greeks, from turks. Even if they’ve been intermarried over generations. Can you? Probably not. So, you call us white, or western, but we differ substantially. And if not, why would we not treat you likewise? (I do science.)
  • Um Are You Saying All Whites Look The Same?

    —-”Q: Why do most Americans assume Arabs are a single racial group?”—- Because **Arabs ARE a single subrace**. Arab speakers are not(language). Muslims are not(religion). Arabs are(genes). **GENETICS** Now, genetically it appears that Arabs originated at the Ethiopian-Arabian Peninsula narrows between what is today Djibouti and Yemen, as an admixture between west asians (Anatolia-Levant-Iran today) and Africans. During the Arab expansion (wars of conquest) that destroyed the ancient world’s great civilizations (Egyptian, North African, Levantine, Persian, Byzantine, and Roman), and led to the Abrahamic (jewish, christian, islamic) dark age, arabs interbred, particularly with slaves, because interbreeding of slaves was permitted. So while Arabs INTERBRED with the civilizations they destroyed, and exploited for slavery, they remain a genetically and morphologically identifiable subrace. **West Asian Race ** **===West Asian (Iranian) Race** Iranian Race ( Armenian**(R1b/J2)** – Jewish**(E1/J)** – Greek**(I2) **— Southern Italians**(I2)** — Turk – Kurd – Iranian – Jordanian – Iraqi – Assyrian – Druze – Lebanese – Georgian – Caspian – Palestinian) Tajik Race (Tajik – Bukhara Arab – Shugnan – Kallar – Sourashtran – Yadhava) **=== Arab (Semitic / Iranian-African?) Sub Race** **(J)** (Kuwait, and southern peninsula) Kuwaiti Race* (Kuwaiti) Arabian Race (Saudi – Yemeni – Bedouin)* Egyptian Race (Egyptian) **=== North African Sub Race ** North African Race (Moroccan – Libyan – Tunisian – Canarian) Berber Race*** (Berber) Algerian Race (Algerian) ============ **CONFLATION** We westerners ‘conflate’ *Islam*, *Arab*, and *Arabic* out of convenience and frankly inability to tell the difference (and lack of interest) – and rationally, because stereotypes are the most accurate system of measurement in the social sciences. Most of us still can’t tell east asians apart either. Yet we can tell which tribe or clan ethnic europeans come from. **CAN YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHITES?** I mean, it’s hard for most, but I can tell high, middle, low german, celt, scandinavian, east baltic, polish-ukrainian, russian apart. It’s less easy to tell finno-hungarians, romanians, and southern slavic peoples. and it’s pretty easy to tell northern europeans (germanics) from southern europeans (with black hair), from sardianins, from greeks, from turks. Even if they’ve been intermarried over generations. Can you? Probably not. So, you call us white, or western, but we differ substantially. And if not, why would we not treat you likewise? (I do science.)
  • Why Are Whites Now Moving Back To The Cities As Opposed To The White Flight That Was Happening?

    —-”Q: Why are whites now moving back to the cities as opposed to the white flight that was happening?”—-

    I’m going to scare you.

    1. The big sort continues. (look it up)
    2. The nine nations of north america continue to form (look it up)
    3. American domestic empire’s economy is collapsing a city at a time. (look it up)
    4. People are fleeing to the only viable centers of remaining work (look it up)
    5. So we eliminated agrarianism by 1950.
      We eliminated heavy industry by 1990.
      We eliminated volume production by 2000.
      We eliminated clerical work by 2005.
      We exported technological innovation by 2010
      We are have rapidly automated (eliminated) service work since 2012

      We collapsed advertising nationwide.
      We are collapsing retail nationwide.
      We are even crashing the movie business

      We have increasingly financialized the economy from the founding of the FED (probably necessary in retrospect),
      Then under FDR,
      Then for the Petrodollar (Nixon),
      Then to defeat world communism (Reagan),
      Then to promote post-communism neoconservatism (Bush, Clinton),
      Then to the tech crash (Clinton, Bush),
      Then to islam’s replacement of Communism (Bush),
      Then to the financial crash (Obama),

      And now we have only land to sell to immigrants, and high tech, high tech manufacturing, and more finance.

      You must have underutilized capital to put credit to work.
      WE DON’T.

      Ergo we are powerless to adjust.

      So people are fleeing to cities when they are young because it is the only viable work with viable returns. They will, as soon as possible move to the suburbs when those cities that are now full of young labor, are just as saturated with rent seekers as the older cities are. (really).

      Economic and demographics.
      In the long run it’s just math.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-whites-now-moving-back-to-the-cities-as-opposed-to-the-white-flight-that-was-happening