—“Mutual agreed upon contracts spelling out reciprocal arrangements is all the “diversity” human kind has ever needed and does a mighty fine job of it. … One key esoteric or side-benefit is that these voluntary arrangements tends to make all parties smarter, making such arrangements better and better, evolving to enrich and benefit even more, amassing more and more wealth. … Civilization.”—Richard Nikoley
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 16:40:00 UTC
—“Diversity transforms specific racial hatred into universal hatred. It already happened in most western countries.”– Danny Seis
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 16:14:00 UTC
—“The choice is between suppressing the underclass via propertarian methods, or watching society return to high infant mortality, ignorance, want and disease, never to rise again.”— Ryan Williams
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 16:01:00 UTC
by Ely Harman
Women participating in economic production, (beyond a very low level where their specializations are most helpful, or until marriage) are not participating in production but participating in consumption – especially the consumption of their genetic inheritance, in exchange for a single lifetime of careerism and sensation seeking. But all the status and memories they accumulate that way will die with them.
I don’t see what was wrong with the post agrarian norms, where men were responsible for all of the war and politics and most of the economic production, while women were responsible for most of the reproduction and caretaking. That worked well enough for thousands of years.
I think the main reason it’s been abandoned is that defection is individually rational, but collectively irrational.
Nearly everyone would be better off, in their own estimation, if defection were effectively barred, though they may be better off still if they were able to defect while no one else could (fails existential possibility and reciprocity.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-03 15:43:00 UTC
—“So, solutions to class conflict require constraining the Pareto distribution.”— Bill Joslin
Yep.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-02 21:11:00 UTC
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelbeccaro/2017/02/22/ca-the-physical-collapse-of-a-social-state/#628494d56bdbTHE PHYSICAL COLLAPSE OF A SOCIALIST STATEUpdated Apr 2, 2018, 7:32 PM
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-02 19:32:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-morphological-differences-between-the-brain-of-a-highly-intelligent-person-and-a-person-with-average-intelligence/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=0cb0e37b&srid=u4QvPEAK HUMAN?
—“Are there any morphological differences between the brain of a highly intelligent person and a person with average intelligence?”—
Three positive factors:
1 – greater neurogenesis
2 – greater neural density
3 – greater white matter (reduced friction)
Three negative factors
4 – Lack of defect in biochemistry (or other illness)
5 – Lack of defect in personality trait (brain structure and chemistry)
6 – Lack of defect due to trauma (of any kind).
And one less obvious:
7 – False knowledge or beliefs (non-correspondence). Certain sets of ideas are incredibly attractive but entirely destructive to our ability to think.
We should note that so far, (as most of us expected)
a) intelligence is influenced by a very large number of genes.
b) unfortunately most influences are negative not positive.
HOWEVER
That means:
c) that potential intelligence does not require we increase any substantial capacity.
d) that potential intelligence can be incrementally increased by cumulative, specific, genetic corrections.
AND
f) Ot seems likely that intelligence then developed a long time ago by accident but through reproduction we have not been able to produce dominance in intelligence without controlled reproduction (like we do with animals),
OR
g) Or the innate possibility was there originally and we have actually devolved from it. This hypothesis isn’t as strange as it originally sounds. Its entirely possible that the rapid increases in our ability to communicate produced greater selection pressure on verbal ability than it did intelligence, and we began to function more as a collective (social) intelligence than individually intelligent agents who imitated each other. The relationship between brain size and intelligence isn’t linear but it exists, and we have smaller (less expensive) brains than both Neanderthals and Cro Magnon’s for example.
In other words, we might have passed peak genetic ability in the past but because of verbal communication reduced the cost and size of our brains, and as such, increased the survival of our weakest.
We don’t know yet.Updated Apr 2, 2018, 1:12 PM
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-02 13:12:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/Soon-the-world-will-be-filled-with-mixed-race-people-Will-racism-and-prejudice-therefore-end/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=9ac633ab&srid=u4Qv—-”Soon the world will be filled with mixed race people. Will racism and prejudice therefore end?”—-
It won’t happen. (Really).
A limited number of social orders are possible: i) genetically imperial (Han Chinese, Russian Empire), ii) large hierarchy of casts (india), iii) small homogenous and dynamic (europe, japan). iv) tyrannical hetero-tribal, v) failed peoples that cannot hold territory (diasporic unlanded people).
Every experience with heterogeneity has failed. (Middle East, Brazil, and most obviously, India.)
The most successful states are homogenous kin groups (China, Korea, Japan, the nordics, and until recently western europe.)
The Chinese/Japanese/Korean civilization will very soon dominate the world economic and political sphere, and their racial exclusion will be copied by the rest of the world.
The problem isn’t racism. The problem is that most unsuccessful races, subraces, tribes, and clans, consist of excessively large underclasses whose standards of living cannot be satisfied now that the advantages of western technology have been redistributed.
Look at brazil. Look at the USA. The ‘whites’ are trying to separate. The jews remain separated. The diasporic chinese separate. It’s underclass peoples that commingle.
The optimum social order is homogenous, for the simple reason that we redistribute to kin and resist redistribution to competitors.
The optimum possible social and political order is kinship. (Do the research)
Kin selection is an evolutionary advantage. (Do the research)
The experiment with Democracy has largely failed. (Do the research)Updated Apr 2, 2018, 9:50 AM
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-02 09:50:00 UTC
—“My experience with classically liberal academia is that they will acknowledge genetics to the extent that they can deny them.”— Kashif Vikaas
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-01 15:13:00 UTC
http://vidmax.com/video/67053-Wild-police-chase-in-the-Ukraine-with-molotov-cocktails-flying-ends-at-mayor-s-officehttp://vidmax.com/video/67053-Wild-police-chase-in-the-Ukraine-with-molotov-cocktails-flying-ends-at-mayor-s-officeUpdated Mar 31, 2018, 10:32 PM
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-31 22:32:00 UTC