Participation in the World Wars. German was in the right both times. If we did anything at all, it should have been to fight alongside the germans to defeat the Russians, and to defeat the Chinese. Pretty much, the USA is always wrong. Always has been. Puritanism, social democracy, and Communism share the same origins.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-biggest-mistake-ever-made-by-the-American-people
Skin color and genetic composition are two different things.
The principle difference between the different races is the degree of neoteny achieved before and during the agrarian phase. It was impossible for people in warm climates to achieve circumpolar degrees of neoteny because neotenic development (extending childhood by limiting maturity) exposes the child to environmental hazards longer. So people with darker skin from warmer climates evolved to mature early and deeply in order to survive (particularly africa, which is very hostile due to pests.)
While animals have white skin, hair and fur are insulators. So to run as we humans do (we are the most efficient runners on earth), required we lose our hair, lose some of our muscle mass, and develop dark skin to compensate. Some groups then redeveloped white skin and it was not that long ago. It’s just ‘preferable’ because it signals neoteny “youth”.
So peoples with darker skin have achieved less neotonic selection. This is really the only difference between races and subraces, other than we all seem to vary in verbal intelligence vs spatial intelligence.
Ergo, you can determine tribal origins from facial features and body structure, and skin color does not seem to affect it.
I have worked on this problem for quite some time. And it’s … politically incorrect. So like many things, research has been suppressed since the second world war. But that said research does exist, and many other nations are not as ‘challenged’ with the truth as westerners are.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-be-black-then-transform-into-a-white-person
I ANSWER UNPLEASANT QUESTIONS AS TRUTHFULLY AS POSSIBLE
You know, I answer controversial topics, because that’s my job, and I know the data. And so I’ve ended up being one of the people that counter-signals anti-everything.
So I sort of get angry now when I get asked to respond to questions like this, only to have my posts redacted by someone *helping to preserve ignorance and deceit* under the guise of protecting people from uncomfortable truths. In other words, protecting their market for falsehoods from correction. Because that is what all of us do. We all seek information that confirms our priors, because our priors reflect our age, gender, class, ethnic, racial evolutionary strategies. And it would be against evolution’s interests for us to seek the truth, rather than whatever is in the interest of our reproductive strategy
The main stream media tells stories that advance the postmodern (anti-aristocratic, meaning paternal, meaning anti-western, anti-meritocratic ) narrative. There are very good economic reasons for doing so. There are very good secular religious reasons for doing so.
There are a lot of self defense shootings, perhaps daily, but they media doesn’t report it so that they aren’t seen as advancing the use of violence.
Black on white hate crime is rarely reported. White on black hate crime is over-reported. The media tries to cast mass killers as conservative, yet as far as I know, all mass killers are liberals. The media tried to report that conservatives were less intelligent. This turns out to be an artifact of the population sizes, not reality. (There are a lot of self-identifying conservatives, and few self identifying liberals). For example, republicans are smarter than democrats, but liberals are smarter than conservatives. Libertarians are the smartest of all. THey’re just statistically insignificant.
I would go into the reasons for this but that’s for another time.
Research “False Consensus Bias”, and all the other social cognitive biases.
But for some of us, out of statistical consequence, uncomfortable truths are precisely what advance our reproductive strategies. And so we soldier onward, as does everyone else.
And those of us who understand science, economics, and history are forever the victims of the many who understand none of them.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-know-of-any-shootings-committed-by-white-people-that-are-not-reported-in-the-main-stream-media
Since when has any monopoly been good for anyone?
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-all-nations-on-Earth-should-unite-as-one
Itâs not possible becasue the two goals are incompatible. The answer is to reverse the mistake of the civil war, and separate the âcoastsâ from the âcoreâ.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-Americans-finally-bridge-the-political-âculture-warâ-between-conservatives-and-liberal-leaning-ideals
Invent a germ that rapidly kills rice and wheat. (Yes, there are people who think of how to do these things.) Or the equivalent that ‘eats’ hydrocarbons (petroleum products). In both cases, all governments and all civilizations would fall rather rapidly, and population would return to agrarian levels. In particular, a germ that would kill rice would kill billions cheaply and quickly, which would drive governments to revolt and war.
https://www.quora.com/If-someone-wanted-to-what-would-they-need-to-realistically-do-in-order-to-topple-all-current-world-governments
Dishonest (Postmodern) question in my opinion.
The USA prosecutes many more minor offenses than does any other nation which accounts for our ability to leave our doors unlocked, and not fence in our yards, or put bars or grids over our windows as does the rest of the world. The only places where we must act like the rest of the world is in our immigrant cities.
We have far less ‘petty crime’ than other nations (except japan for example). We have far less ‘observable’ corruption. We have a huge drug issue and many people in the system for it.
And we have (I will get the usual Quora punishment for truth speaking for saying this) but heterogeneous societies degrade trust, degrade norms, and increase crime. For the simple reason that homogenous and wealthy peoples are marginally indifferent and redistributive and heterogeneous and poor peoples are marginally different and resist redistribution (in either direction).
If you compare ethnic groups they have the same crime rates in america as they do in their home countries. The reasons for this are finally fairly well understood (see Emmanuel Todd’s work on europe for example, or the recent books on the wealth of nations being dependent upon the size of the underclasses, or even Trust by Fukuyama. )
These are just painful truths that are counter to both secular and supernatural religions, as well as marxist postmodernist pseudoscience of the 19th and 20th centuries.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-country-in-the-industrialized-world-that-has-more-students-per-capita-whose-parents-have-been-in-the-criminal-justice-system-as-does-the-US
No. the metric system was a mistake. “Human Scale” measurements are superior.
a thumb is an inch.
A foot is a foot.
A yard is an arm.
A mile is a thousand paces.
Fahrenheit is superior for temperature sensitivity.
The only reason for the metric system was to make calculations easier.
https://www.quora.com/Should-the-United-States-switch-to-the-metric-system
I’ve looked into this, and the answer is the same for any developing country: if you can produce a judiciary, police force, and military that will enforce property rights, moral (reciprocal) contracts, and where bureaucrats are open to suit by anyone for corruption, then eventually you will prosper.
Nigeria and Ghana at the very least have nothing but time holding them from becoming an advanced society. There are, in both countries, upper middle class (professionals), and those people are the ones who matter.
https://www.quora.com/You-have-complete-control-of-the-Federal-Republic-of-Nigeria-for-20-years-What-would-you-do-to-better-the-country-across-all-sectors-e-g-education-economy-military-national-unity
Legally and morally are two different things.
The law is not ethical, or moral, or good, or true. It just is.
It’s questionable whether Bezos is acting morally.
As far as I know, at least within reason, he is acting legally.
Asking whether something is legal or not is nonsensical.
Was it productive, fully informed (transparent), warrantied, voluntary, and without imposition of costs against the investments of others? If yes then it is ethical, moral, and hopefully legal.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-the-world’s-first-trillionaire-will-have-earned-the-money-legally