The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
A Problem with the Developed World
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Almost Missouri views localism and agorism as dead ends:

Several states tried this in 1861. It turned out the the President did indeed have that power, that power and more, so much more, never mind it wasn’t in the Constitution.

A couple of generations ago a few school districts tried to go their own way, not even seceding, and wouldntcha know it suddenly they were filled with Federal troops even though the Governors hadn’t asked for them. Again not in Constitution.

Kinda weird how that keeps happening.

Just because you’re a decent guy who will leave others alone to pursue their own happiness, doesn’t mean that they will do the same for you. They won’t. If the cities—and the City of DC in particular—were content to do things their way while the outback did things a different way (i.e., if they were truly “multicultural”), then you would be correct: leave them to their own devices and they’ll leave you to yours. But they aren’t truly multicultural, and they won’t leave you alone.

Contrary to the frame you apparently carelessly accepted from the media, it is not the Red Rustics who incessantly poke the hornets’ nest on the other side of the political fence. It is the Blues who cannot rest until all Redland bakers are gay-sued, all Red towns are Section 8-ed, all Housing is Affirmatively Furthered, all refugees are resettled, all bathrooms are trannied, all schoolchildren are gender neutered, all abortions are on-demanded, all guns are controlled, and all speech is policed and all pronouns are preferred. Red America didn’t send Trump to Washington because we want to move into Georgetown condos. We sent Trump to Washington to make Washington’s provocations stop. He failed. So a bunch of us went there personally to make our displeasure known, or “petition for redress of grievances” as a quaint but apparently long obsolete document puts it.

But hey, if you can get Blue America to sign up for the same thing, you’ve got a deal. (Note that the deal will have to have a nuclear-strength enforcement clause as Blue America has never once stuck to its side of a political deal.)

tl;dr: Localism only works if both sides agree to it. One side never has. That side happens to have infinite currency, the world’s most powerful military, a global media monopoly, and as of Monday a permanent hammerlock on the political process, oh and a bottomless appetite to impose its will on others. Plan from there.

Marijuana legalization came about in the face of federal opposition. It occurred in direct violation of federal law. States started legalizing it, the feds pushed back a little, and then essentially gave up. The feds couldn’t enforce compliance without the cooperation of the states. Well, they could have tried to force the issue militarily, but the public backlash would’ve been very hostile to that kind of federal action. The herculean task at hand is to foster an atmosphere where the same sort of negative public backlash will occur in the case of a part or parts of the country being militarily prevented from partially seceding.

Full political dissolution is unlikely prior to the breaking of the US dollar, but decentralization can begin in a thousand different ways before that. As far as “plan from there” goes, what is the better approach? We’re perilously close to what could be the beginning of an American Thirty Years’ War that will leave everyone worse off for the wear. Maybe it’s too late to diffuse the situation, but it’s worth trying.

dfordoom on fertility and modernity:

In the developed world fertility rates have plummeted pretty evenly across all races and ethnic groups.

It’s not a race problem, it’s a problem with the developed world.

In anticipation of the objection that sub-Saharan Africa refutes this, consider South Africa. The country has a TFR of 2.2, just a smidge above replacement. Niger, in contrast, has a TFR of 7.0. South Africa’s purchasing power parity is over ten times that of Niger’s. Developing Africa–easier said than done, though China is giving it a shot–is probably the best chance the continent, and the rest of the world, has of managing the population explosion Africa is experiencing.

Wency on the same topic:

Do lack of resources have an effect on fertility in the present age? That seems a matter of some dispute, but it’s at least a much, much less important factor than it was in the pre-industrial world.

Setting aside Christian morality, a matrilocal free-for-all with early first pregnancies, weak marriages, relatively few patriarchal features, and men and women mostly living separately, was historically the optimal arrangement for maximizing fertility, as existed in those parts of Africa where the population size was primarily kept in check not by a dearth of resources (as in Eurasia) but by an excess of deaths due to violence, animal attacks, and disease.

But right now, while matrilocal free-for-alls are far more viable in Eurasia than they’ve ever been, they’re still not all that common, or producing all that many children, despite some exceptions within the lower classes (especially but not exclusively among the African diaspora). I think a large cause of this is that such arrangements are considered very low status — civilized places have discriminated against single motherhood for untold millennia, and that’s not going to change overnight. While the stigma has softened quite a bit against the sort of single mother who slipped up a time or two and got impregnated by a cad, the “Octomom” example of willfully producing a gaggle of children without a father figure is still widely reviled.

Another factor is that matrilocal arrangements seem to have arisen out of the state of nature, and they’re highly vulnerable to suppression by any sort of birth control, perhaps more so than under patriarchal, monogamous systems where birth control of one form or fashion has always existed and the birth of children was generally more deliberate.

So right now, society doesn’t really have a model for producing children that’s adapted to present cultural and material circumstances. And for such a model to arise spontaneously via natural selection would take a very long time, and it’s made harder by the fact that cultural and material conditions keep changing at a pretty rapid pace.

The result is that fertility is highest right now in cultures that place themselves in opposition to modernity — a force that caused the old patriarchal, monogamous model to both weaken and to produce fewer children even where it’s mostly intact. There hasn’t been enough time to invent a new model, and so what works is the old model, kept in a time capsule. Hence the Anabaptists and Hassidim, who have religious reasons for rejecting modernity and for passing this down from generation to generation.

Though the religious outbreed the irreligious in the developed world, religiosity and fertility both continue to decline. At some point this may reverse but it looks like it will be generations in the future with a long way for total population to decline between here and there.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Economics, Science • Tags: COTW 
Hide 164 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. If Mr. Unz had a [Strongly Agree] button, I’d have mashed that one instead. Nice job, Almost Missouri!

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Both the immediate problem with the parasitic American axis of evil--Wall Street, Washington, Big Tech--and the longer term modernity-fertility problem are problems of the developed world, globohomo. But they aren't completely the same problem.

    AE i think it would be goodness when you pull in some quality comments to do it with separate posts. Tightens up the conversation.

  2. The anti-Establishment rebellions have been crushed. The swamp has won.

    Trumpism – which was the least rebellious of these – will be wiped out. The Capitol insurrection was a fatal mistake, which could leave Trump himself in prison. The modern equivalent of Hitler’s invasion of Russia.

    On the Left, Bernie-ism was destroyed with a few phone calls from Barack Obama. All of the Berniecrats within the Democratic Party fell in line, with barely a whimper. In Britain, Corbynism was destroyed in the 2019 election, with no chance of returning any time soon.

    The elite grip on power is stronger than it was five years ago.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Nodwink


    The elite grip on power is stronger than it was five years ago.
     
    Agree. And a big reason for that is Trump threatening various elite targets but never actually eliminating them (mass immigration, swamp corruption, etc.). Those targets are all still there, but now they are armored. Meanwhile the Deplorables are politically disarmed: their ballot boxes stolen, their courts converged, the official culture implacably hostile.

    "When you strike at the king, you must kill him", as Emerson famously wrote. Trump struck at a lot of kingpins. He missed them all. They are now all alive, enraged, and want revenge. Trump's entire legacy will be swept away in the next few months. We'll be lucky if that is all that is lost.

    Trump retweeted Emerson's aphorism after surviving his first impeachment trial, so he clearly knows of it. Strangely—or not so strangely, given Trump's psychology—it never occurred to him that he was the prince jocosely swinging his sword at the neck of every potentate in the palace without ever unseating one of them. The consequences of this will be as dire as they were foreseeable.

    Replies: @unit472

    , @Barack Obama's secret Unz account
    @Nodwink


    The Capitol insurrection was a fatal mistake, which could leave Trump himself in prison. The modern equivalent of Hitler’s invasion of Russia.
     
    Why describe it as such? You're propagating a lie that was conceived to harm you. It's quite clear by now that the only violent actors were agents of the state; the few high-spirited Trump supporters who got swept along as cover do not constitute an insurrection, nor were they ordered in by Trump.

    All this doomsaying is quite misplaced. Even if we grant that Trump is out for the count - and I don't see why we should think that at this point, 25,000 soldiers in the capital being clear evidence that something strange is afoot - Trump will have only been martyred, and the regime totally delegitimized. Trumpism, broadly defined, has never been more popular, and the regime's ability to propagandize never weaker. Don't be gay.
    , @Nodwink
    @Nodwink

    I've heard people on social media describe the Capitol riots as "liberals' 9/11," and it looks to be an accurate assessment.

    https://twitter.com/donwinslow/status/1351326993342627840

    , @RadicalCenter
    @Nodwink

    Trump allegedly inciting supporters to invade the Capitol and vandalize, without using firearms at all and without harming any of the apparently largely defenseless Congressmen inside — that’s the modern equivalent of invading a foreign country and killing many millions of men, women, and children? The statement refutes itself. Hey, we all get carried away online sometimes.

    You are right, of course, that the globalist elite is in firmer control of public opinion and now, public physical movement, interaction, commerce, and education, than ever before in our country’s history. But never give up hope.

    Replies: @Nodwink

    , @Patrick McNally
    @Nodwink

    I don't quite agree. The atmosphere of the Biden inauguration reminds me a lot of the declaration of martial law in Poland in 1981. One didn't have to be a fervent Cold Warrior (I certainly was not) in order to smell the signs of something like 1989 on its way when Jaruzelski declared martial law in 1981. Who knows what this will look like in 2028?

  3. Wisdom of the undeveloped world.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Priss Factor

    Much better.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOwTlkuTBhs

  4. Though the religious outbreed the irreligious in the developed world, religiosity and fertility both continue to decline.

    Global demographic collapse is probably unstoppable. Somehow we will have to learn to deal with it.

    In the long term we might be able to do that. In the medium term it seems inevitable that there will be economic chaos. We have embraced an economic model based on constant economic growth, or constantly increasing markets and constantly increasing profits.

    Are any mega-corporations going to be able to adapt to a world in which markets are steadily shrinking? Are they going to be able to adapt to a world in which profits are steadily declining? Are shareholders going to able to adapt to the idea that their shares will steadily decrease in value? Mega-corporations are likely to respond by becoming more predatory, seeking to destroy or absorb competitors in order to grow their share of a declining overall market. We’ll see more monopolies. Our economic system will become more unbalanced and a great deal more unpleasant.

    Many nations that have relatively small populations to begin with will simply disappear. We will be living in a world in which there are no Hungarians, no Lithuanians, no Scots, no Poles, no Koreans. Those nations’ populations will be too small to allow the languages and the culture to survive.

    There may be more wars – not wars over resources but wars over access to ever-dwindling markets. There may even be wars for control of population resources.

    • Replies: @neutral
    @dfordoom

    Economies and civilizations have collapsed in the past, what is happening now is something completely different. The world will be a planet of the apes hellscape, there can be no new civilizations that can arise from the ashes, such a black planet will much such things totally impossible. Future wars will look like the ones in Africa happening now, small in scale (because blacks are incapable of anything else), but very severe in terms of the savagery. As for the economy, again one can look at existing countries what the entire world will succumb to.

    Replies: @Ultrafart the Brave

    , @Paperback Writer
    @dfordoom


    There may even be wars for control of population resources.

     

    That means women.

    Replies: @Liberty Mike

    , @Intelligent Dasein
    @dfordoom

    I believe I initiated a train of thought to similar effect in the previous thread, to which no one has yet responded.


    Birthrates are declining all over the world and are already below replacement in most places. Immigrants are disproportionately comprised of the young and excess people in the sending countries, but the younger generations in every country keep getting smaller and smaller. That means that the total “immigration-able stock” is declining, and the younger generations are much more needed at home. We are close to a point where traditional sending countries like Mexico are going to have to take measures to control their own emigration or court population inversion and economic collapse.

    Moreover, as I’ve mentioned several times, immigrants to Western countries quickly start breeding like Westerners, and their own total fertility falls below replacement. So there really is no way to increase the population. It’s a no-win situation.

    Now, I know Almost Missouri has made the point that, even if birthrates are collapsing everywhere, there are still enough non-white immigration-able people in the world to move to the West and radically alter Western demographics forever. This is true, but it isn’t really my concern. My concern is trying to inform people that, no matter what we do, a long-term demographic and economic collapse is now inevitable and there isn’t anything we can do about it. Policy should be informed accordingly.
     
    Also, further down the thread, I wrote a short list of topics that ought to be discussed in light of our actual geopolitical, social, and economic situation.

    -In economics, redesigning future economic practices for an age of continuing scarcity, de-financialization and de-branding, learning to view the study and practice of economics as a subset of physics.

    -In science, realizing that the end of Western scientism is nigh and outlining a program for salvaging the material gains of Western practical science through poeticization and re-traditionalizing.

    -In philosophy, embracing the essential correctness of hylomorphism and bringing it to a renewed understanding in a modern idiom.

    -In religion, learning how to identify, practice, and promulgate true Apostolic Christianity after the collapse of Western “Christendom”.
     
    It is simply unconscionable that I am not being mentioned in this connection, since I am the one who has been beating the drum about this for years here.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @songbird
    @dfordoom


    Many nations that have relatively small populations to begin with will simply disappear... no Koreans
     
    Combining North and South, there are about 75 million Koreans, not including those near the border in China or abroad. And they live on a peninsula. I'd say that's plenty for a cultural continuum, even anticipating a dip - if the right steps are taken against open borders.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  5. @dfordoom

    Though the religious outbreed the irreligious in the developed world, religiosity and fertility both continue to decline.
     
    Global demographic collapse is probably unstoppable. Somehow we will have to learn to deal with it.

    In the long term we might be able to do that. In the medium term it seems inevitable that there will be economic chaos. We have embraced an economic model based on constant economic growth, or constantly increasing markets and constantly increasing profits.

    Are any mega-corporations going to be able to adapt to a world in which markets are steadily shrinking? Are they going to be able to adapt to a world in which profits are steadily declining? Are shareholders going to able to adapt to the idea that their shares will steadily decrease in value? Mega-corporations are likely to respond by becoming more predatory, seeking to destroy or absorb competitors in order to grow their share of a declining overall market. We'll see more monopolies. Our economic system will become more unbalanced and a great deal more unpleasant.

    Many nations that have relatively small populations to begin with will simply disappear. We will be living in a world in which there are no Hungarians, no Lithuanians, no Scots, no Poles, no Koreans. Those nations' populations will be too small to allow the languages and the culture to survive.

    There may be more wars - not wars over resources but wars over access to ever-dwindling markets. There may even be wars for control of population resources.

    Replies: @neutral, @Paperback Writer, @Intelligent Dasein, @songbird

    Economies and civilizations have collapsed in the past, what is happening now is something completely different. The world will be a planet of the apes hellscape, there can be no new civilizations that can arise from the ashes, such a black planet will much such things totally impossible. Future wars will look like the ones in Africa happening now, small in scale (because blacks are incapable of anything else), but very severe in terms of the savagery. As for the economy, again one can look at existing countries what the entire world will succumb to.

    • Replies: @Ultrafart the Brave
    @neutral


    Economies and civilizations have collapsed in the past, what is happening now is something completely different.
     
    No, it's not completely different.

    What is different is that, for the first time in generations, we are front-row observers of the cresting and slow-motion collapse of an Empire.

    We're participating in the movie. It's surreal, but it's real-life, man! Sit back and enjoy!

    Stand back and see the forest, not the up-close bark of the tree right in front of you.

    The Western world had it pretty good there for a few decades, but now the poo is hitting the fan and the edifice is crumbling.


    Future wars will look like the ones in Africa happening now, small in scale (because blacks are incapable of anything else), but very severe in terms of the savagery.
     
    You mean like the "insurgency"-fueled American wars for "freedom & democracy" spread all around the globe? Been there done that.
  6. I don’t think marijuana legalization is such a good example of states standing up for their rights against opposition from the feds. In fact, the federal government understands where things are going on that front, is mostly supportive, but has large bureaucracies and lobby interests they have to at least give lip service to. So this was a way to offload responsibility and then say, look, momentum, it’s unstoppable.

    In reality, if the feds really want to oppose states’ rights, they have many potent weapons in their arsenal. Violence, or the threat of it, is just one of these. Another is greenmail, holding back federal highway funds, for example, without which it’s almost impossible to keep roads in good repair. Fedgov will only let go in the event of collapse or some kind of major reform.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    @JL

    holding back federal highway funds

    Suppose the states hold back IRS funds from their citizenry by simply stating that their citizens are no longer required to submit funds to the Fed Gov as a matter of state law? The Fed Gov can only give back what they have previously stolen or from new funny money.

    I realize this becomes a legal pissing contest, but just the temporary hint that people don't have to pay federal taxes would be enough for millions in a populous state to hide behind that state legal advice. Other state's residents would also feel that they have the same right and a cascade of failure ensues in the attempt to collect federal taxes.

    That's like a crack in a dam that grows ever wider till the dam fails.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @TomSchmidt, @Audacious Epigone

    , @Unit472
    @JL

    Remember the movie Cool Hand Luke? What work did the chain gang prisoners do? Wasn’t it road maintenance!

    I was a school crossing guard when I was in elementary school ( yes even that job went unpaid ) and remember talking to the shotgun wielding guard in charge of a local chain gang doing road maintenance in Fairfax Virginia. He told me he sometimes pretend he had dozed off to see if any of the inmates would run ( they weren’t actually chained each other) so he could shoot them!

    , @Almost Missouri
    @JL

    Agree. Barack "pot had helped ... maybe a little blow" Obama and his administration of warmed-over '68ers was never really opposed to marijuana. The standard Federal Highway Funds threat was never even broached. Any Federal "pushback" was just a bit of Kabuki to pretend like they were respecting Federal law while things continued moving in the direction they preferred. Opposing the FedGov is much easier when the top Feds are secretly (or not so secretly) on your side.

    A better analogy would be Second Amendment rights, the one significant conservative victory in the last few decades. Even in that case, five top Feds (namely 5/9 of the Supreme Court) were onside—and not even because of political sympathy but just because they read the Constitution.

    But now there will never be another Constitutionalist Supreme Court appointment, and the Dems are openly planning to swamp the existing Constitutionalists in a brazen court packing scheme. So there will never again be any Federal support for any conservative position. The high water mark of First and Second Amendment rights (the Real Civil Rights) is now. It will only get worse from here. Plan accordingly.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Corvinus

    , @anon
    @JL

    Another is greenmail, holding back federal highway funds,

    That is how the US drinking age was set at a uniform 21 years of age back in the 80's. There had been experimentation in the early 70's with 18, 19 and 20 with varying results. Reagan's Sec of Transportation, one Elizabeth Dole or Mrs. Bob Dole if you prefer, used the Federal highway funds to force the issue via greenmail. Most states fell in line almost immediately, because that's big bucks. Wyoming held out for a while, due to their attitude and their oil taxes, but when the price of oil dropped they had to cave in.

  7. @JL
    I don't think marijuana legalization is such a good example of states standing up for their rights against opposition from the feds. In fact, the federal government understands where things are going on that front, is mostly supportive, but has large bureaucracies and lobby interests they have to at least give lip service to. So this was a way to offload responsibility and then say, look, momentum, it's unstoppable.

    In reality, if the feds really want to oppose states' rights, they have many potent weapons in their arsenal. Violence, or the threat of it, is just one of these. Another is greenmail, holding back federal highway funds, for example, without which it's almost impossible to keep roads in good repair. Fedgov will only let go in the event of collapse or some kind of major reform.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @Unit472, @Almost Missouri, @anon

    holding back federal highway funds

    Suppose the states hold back IRS funds from their citizenry by simply stating that their citizens are no longer required to submit funds to the Fed Gov as a matter of state law? The Fed Gov can only give back what they have previously stolen or from new funny money.

    I realize this becomes a legal pissing contest, but just the temporary hint that people don’t have to pay federal taxes would be enough for millions in a populous state to hide behind that state legal advice. Other state’s residents would also feel that they have the same right and a cascade of failure ensues in the attempt to collect federal taxes.

    That’s like a crack in a dam that grows ever wider till the dam fails.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @RoatanBill

    Bill, I've thought of this idea over many years, but it's not very workable due to just one of the evils of the Feral income tax system. The hammer really came down with the implementation of tax withholding almost 80 years ago. As Peak Stupidity discussed in Income Tax Withholding - flattening the pain, damage, and awareness curves, that's just it, Americans don't get as angry when the money lost is just a part of life ("never been any other way ..."), rather than a once per year big sum that could be withheld in anger at a system that is designed to screw us.

    It's been over a century (107 years) since the abomination that was Amendment XVI*. In Peak Stupidity's list of 5 evils (at least) of the Feral Income Tax, this "flow of the money" is #1.


    1) The FLOW of the Money: See, now was this last one a surprise, as with David Letterman's final funny number 1? This is a serious evil of having a Federal income tax, but one about which I believe most people don't really think.

    Excise taxes CAN be sent in directly to the Feds, and they probably are, but it's very easy for a State government to take control of that money. State and local governments do know what business goes on in their towns and States. With the income tax, if you picture a scenario in which the people or State government want to fight the Feds, how will that work? The money already flows directly from paychecks or checks for money still "owed" of individuals to the Feds. It is doled back out to the States and people in massive amounts in various ways.

    Got a disagreement with the Feds, Arkansas? Tough shit. Do you want that highway money, that welfare money, those business incentives? Better get your mind right, son. "Yeah, well, we'll withhold OUR money. Uhh, we'll get everyone in Arkansas to get his employer to stop the withholding and then assure them that we will fight for them in IRS Federal tax court, and then ... OK, OK, how high, Sir?!!"
     
    .

    * For those interested, that is Part 3 of a series - see Part 1 and Part 2.

    Replies: @RoatanBill

    , @TomSchmidt
    @RoatanBill

    Taxation is going to be largely irrelevant. We spent more than twice what we collected at the Federal level last year. Access to the money from writing debt and monetizing the value of the global reserve currency is what you want to control.

    The Feds have that. They can steal the value of every dollar in existence without making much effort. Taxes pale in comparison.

    Replies: @RoatanBill

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @RoatanBill

    This is crucially important because just the credible threat of a state or states doing this will send the dollar plunging. If the dollar breaks, the federal government's hold on the union becomes very tenuous very fast.

  8. The thing you have to get straight is the “nationality” of the African problem. The problems are caused specifically by Bantus. It was of course Bantus who slaughtered a million Watusi several years back, and it was Bantus who destroyed Rhodesia. Bantus are now destroying South Africa.

    5 or 10 years ago, there was a VERY strange little news report that the King of the Zulus has signed a Peace Treaty with the Afrikaaners. This didn’t make any sense until you knew that the Africans screwing up South Africa for EVERYONE are Bantus.

    Go look up the lyrics to “Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner”:

    Through ’66 and 7 they fought the Congo war
    With their fingers on their triggers, knee deep in gore
    For days and nights they battled the Bantu to their knees
    They killed to earn their living, and to help out the Congolese

    That is, the fighting was NOT about freeing Biafra from White oppression. It was about freeing Biafrans from BANTU oppression.

    But we can’t talk about there being any BAD Black Africans.

  9. @neutral
    @dfordoom

    Economies and civilizations have collapsed in the past, what is happening now is something completely different. The world will be a planet of the apes hellscape, there can be no new civilizations that can arise from the ashes, such a black planet will much such things totally impossible. Future wars will look like the ones in Africa happening now, small in scale (because blacks are incapable of anything else), but very severe in terms of the savagery. As for the economy, again one can look at existing countries what the entire world will succumb to.

    Replies: @Ultrafart the Brave

    Economies and civilizations have collapsed in the past, what is happening now is something completely different.

    No, it’s not completely different.

    What is different is that, for the first time in generations, we are front-row observers of the cresting and slow-motion collapse of an Empire.

    We’re participating in the movie. It’s surreal, but it’s real-life, man! Sit back and enjoy!

    Stand back and see the forest, not the up-close bark of the tree right in front of you.

    The Western world had it pretty good there for a few decades, but now the poo is hitting the fan and the edifice is crumbling.

    Future wars will look like the ones in Africa happening now, small in scale (because blacks are incapable of anything else), but very severe in terms of the savagery.

    You mean like the “insurgency”-fueled American wars for “freedom & democracy” spread all around the globe? Been there done that.

  10. @dfordoom

    Though the religious outbreed the irreligious in the developed world, religiosity and fertility both continue to decline.
     
    Global demographic collapse is probably unstoppable. Somehow we will have to learn to deal with it.

    In the long term we might be able to do that. In the medium term it seems inevitable that there will be economic chaos. We have embraced an economic model based on constant economic growth, or constantly increasing markets and constantly increasing profits.

    Are any mega-corporations going to be able to adapt to a world in which markets are steadily shrinking? Are they going to be able to adapt to a world in which profits are steadily declining? Are shareholders going to able to adapt to the idea that their shares will steadily decrease in value? Mega-corporations are likely to respond by becoming more predatory, seeking to destroy or absorb competitors in order to grow their share of a declining overall market. We'll see more monopolies. Our economic system will become more unbalanced and a great deal more unpleasant.

    Many nations that have relatively small populations to begin with will simply disappear. We will be living in a world in which there are no Hungarians, no Lithuanians, no Scots, no Poles, no Koreans. Those nations' populations will be too small to allow the languages and the culture to survive.

    There may be more wars - not wars over resources but wars over access to ever-dwindling markets. There may even be wars for control of population resources.

    Replies: @neutral, @Paperback Writer, @Intelligent Dasein, @songbird

    There may even be wars for control of population resources.

    That means women.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    @Paperback Writer

    Put another way, it means "where the white women at?"

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  11. @dfordoom

    Though the religious outbreed the irreligious in the developed world, religiosity and fertility both continue to decline.
     
    Global demographic collapse is probably unstoppable. Somehow we will have to learn to deal with it.

    In the long term we might be able to do that. In the medium term it seems inevitable that there will be economic chaos. We have embraced an economic model based on constant economic growth, or constantly increasing markets and constantly increasing profits.

    Are any mega-corporations going to be able to adapt to a world in which markets are steadily shrinking? Are they going to be able to adapt to a world in which profits are steadily declining? Are shareholders going to able to adapt to the idea that their shares will steadily decrease in value? Mega-corporations are likely to respond by becoming more predatory, seeking to destroy or absorb competitors in order to grow their share of a declining overall market. We'll see more monopolies. Our economic system will become more unbalanced and a great deal more unpleasant.

    Many nations that have relatively small populations to begin with will simply disappear. We will be living in a world in which there are no Hungarians, no Lithuanians, no Scots, no Poles, no Koreans. Those nations' populations will be too small to allow the languages and the culture to survive.

    There may be more wars - not wars over resources but wars over access to ever-dwindling markets. There may even be wars for control of population resources.

    Replies: @neutral, @Paperback Writer, @Intelligent Dasein, @songbird

    I believe I initiated a train of thought to similar effect in the previous thread, to which no one has yet responded.

    Birthrates are declining all over the world and are already below replacement in most places. Immigrants are disproportionately comprised of the young and excess people in the sending countries, but the younger generations in every country keep getting smaller and smaller. That means that the total “immigration-able stock” is declining, and the younger generations are much more needed at home. We are close to a point where traditional sending countries like Mexico are going to have to take measures to control their own emigration or court population inversion and economic collapse.

    Moreover, as I’ve mentioned several times, immigrants to Western countries quickly start breeding like Westerners, and their own total fertility falls below replacement. So there really is no way to increase the population. It’s a no-win situation.

    Now, I know Almost Missouri has made the point that, even if birthrates are collapsing everywhere, there are still enough non-white immigration-able people in the world to move to the West and radically alter Western demographics forever. This is true, but it isn’t really my concern. My concern is trying to inform people that, no matter what we do, a long-term demographic and economic collapse is now inevitable and there isn’t anything we can do about it. Policy should be informed accordingly.

    Also, further down the thread, I wrote a short list of topics that ought to be discussed in light of our actual geopolitical, social, and economic situation.

    -In economics, redesigning future economic practices for an age of continuing scarcity, de-financialization and de-branding, learning to view the study and practice of economics as a subset of physics.

    -In science, realizing that the end of Western scientism is nigh and outlining a program for salvaging the material gains of Western practical science through poeticization and re-traditionalizing.

    -In philosophy, embracing the essential correctness of hylomorphism and bringing it to a renewed understanding in a modern idiom.

    -In religion, learning how to identify, practice, and promulgate true Apostolic Christianity after the collapse of Western “Christendom”.

    It is simply unconscionable that I am not being mentioned in this connection, since I am the one who has been beating the drum about this for years here.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Intelligent Dasein

    That line of alarm about "demographic collapse" somewhat baffles me.

    The belief that we somehow "need" perpetual population growth is a chimera. After the demographic ravages of the medieval Black Death, for example (1/3 - 1/2 of Europeans wiped out), there followed a golden age for medieval Deplorables: rising wages, increased rights, cultural flowering. That "demographic collapse" worked out pretty well. And in the current "collapse" no one even has to die agonizingly in a puddle of buboes; instead they're just not begin born.* It's just that back then, there wasn't also a plague-resistant predatory population waiting to take over.

    The planet's population was never going to increase forever. The plateau had to come somewhere. For the productive population, the plateau has already arrived and the decline is beginning. For the parasitical population, however, the plateau hasn't happened yet, and given the infinite brood pool of Sub-Saharan Africa, it may never come.


    Almost Missouri has made the point that, even if birthrates are collapsing everywhere, there are still enough non-white immigration-able people in the world to move to the West and radically alter Western demographics forever. This is true, but it isn’t really my concern.
     
    Surely, once the plutocracy's global logistics start delivering them to your doorstep it will become your concern?

    I think we're mostly on the same page, it's just that what you regard as a minor detail—that the productive are down while the parasitical remain up—I regard as the whole of the immediate problem: demographics only matter comparatively. Everything you and I favor stood triumphant in the past with much smaller productive populations. Today those populations are bigger, but they have been outraced by parasitical dependents who have no intention of releasing their fatal grip on their host.


    Policy should be informed accordingly.
     
    Yes, "should be", but as of today, policy is permanently in the hands of people with the opposite objectives to ours, so I guarantee that policy will be the opposite too.

    BTW, I think I mostly agree with your "downthread" topics, though I would use different language to describe them, as I think would most people who may unwittingly agree with you.

    ------

    *Yes, I'm aware that a tranche of this is that they are being assassinated in utero. Though for purposes of this discussion, in utero assassination may only be marginally worse than extinction via family attrition.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Paperback Writer

  12. @JL
    I don't think marijuana legalization is such a good example of states standing up for their rights against opposition from the feds. In fact, the federal government understands where things are going on that front, is mostly supportive, but has large bureaucracies and lobby interests they have to at least give lip service to. So this was a way to offload responsibility and then say, look, momentum, it's unstoppable.

    In reality, if the feds really want to oppose states' rights, they have many potent weapons in their arsenal. Violence, or the threat of it, is just one of these. Another is greenmail, holding back federal highway funds, for example, without which it's almost impossible to keep roads in good repair. Fedgov will only let go in the event of collapse or some kind of major reform.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @Unit472, @Almost Missouri, @anon

    Remember the movie Cool Hand Luke? What work did the chain gang prisoners do? Wasn’t it road maintenance!

    I was a school crossing guard when I was in elementary school ( yes even that job went unpaid ) and remember talking to the shotgun wielding guard in charge of a local chain gang doing road maintenance in Fairfax Virginia. He told me he sometimes pretend he had dozed off to see if any of the inmates would run ( they weren’t actually chained each other) so he could shoot them!

  13. @Paperback Writer
    @dfordoom


    There may even be wars for control of population resources.

     

    That means women.

    Replies: @Liberty Mike

    Put another way, it means “where the white women at?”

    • Agree: Gordo
    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Liberty Mike

    Not to the Chinese. They go for Asian women, in general.

  14. @RoatanBill
    @JL

    holding back federal highway funds

    Suppose the states hold back IRS funds from their citizenry by simply stating that their citizens are no longer required to submit funds to the Fed Gov as a matter of state law? The Fed Gov can only give back what they have previously stolen or from new funny money.

    I realize this becomes a legal pissing contest, but just the temporary hint that people don't have to pay federal taxes would be enough for millions in a populous state to hide behind that state legal advice. Other state's residents would also feel that they have the same right and a cascade of failure ensues in the attempt to collect federal taxes.

    That's like a crack in a dam that grows ever wider till the dam fails.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @TomSchmidt, @Audacious Epigone

    Bill, I’ve thought of this idea over many years, but it’s not very workable due to just one of the evils of the Feral income tax system. The hammer really came down with the implementation of tax withholding almost 80 years ago. As Peak Stupidity discussed in Income Tax Withholding – flattening the pain, damage, and awareness curves, that’s just it, Americans don’t get as angry when the money lost is just a part of life (“never been any other way …”), rather than a once per year big sum that could be withheld in anger at a system that is designed to screw us.

    It’s been over a century (107 years) since the abomination that was Amendment XVI*. In Peak Stupidity‘s list of 5 evils (at least) of the Feral Income Tax, this “flow of the money” is #1.

    1) The FLOW of the Money: See, now was this last one a surprise, as with David Letterman’s final funny number 1? This is a serious evil of having a Federal income tax, but one about which I believe most people don’t really think.

    Excise taxes CAN be sent in directly to the Feds, and they probably are, but it’s very easy for a State government to take control of that money. State and local governments do know what business goes on in their towns and States. With the income tax, if you picture a scenario in which the people or State government want to fight the Feds, how will that work? The money already flows directly from paychecks or checks for money still “owed” of individuals to the Feds. It is doled back out to the States and people in massive amounts in various ways.

    Got a disagreement with the Feds, Arkansas? Tough shit. Do you want that highway money, that welfare money, those business incentives? Better get your mind right, son. “Yeah, well, we’ll withhold OUR money. Uhh, we’ll get everyone in Arkansas to get his employer to stop the withholding and then assure them that we will fight for them in IRS Federal tax court, and then … OK, OK, how high, Sir?!!”

    .

    * For those interested, that is Part 3 of a series – see Part 1 and Part 2.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    @Achmed E. Newman

    If a state were to implement a law that makes federal withholding illegal, then businesses would be required by state law to stop the practice. The citizenry would suddenly get a huge boost in pay per pay period and that money would get spent into an ailing economy to help revive it. Once the average worker gets to see and feel how much of his labor is stolen to prop up a gov't that shits on him regularly, there would be push back against that practice as people realize that what has been isn't necessarily what will be as though it's a part of some law of nature.

    As I mentioned, this would just be a massive pissing contest and the Feds would surely win via the law they concoct and their judges rubber stamp, but just the mention and attempt would signal that the sheep are getting restless.

    I realize it's unrealistic, but it's one of several last acts of defiance that will surely start to materialize as more and more people finally wake up to the fact that the Fed Gov is a mafia operation without legitimacy, especially after a completely fraudulent election and an absolute refusal to even consider the evidence.

    I keep hoping, against any evidence, that immediately after taking the oath of office, Biden and Harris are detained by the military to stand trial and have the real evidence of their careers displayed for all to see. Pelosi, Schumer, etc would also be detained and their records seized to look for more evidence. But then the military IS the deep state, so that won't happen.

    Tune in next week for the continuation of the shit show that is the US Fed Gov.

  15. The debate on the right now seems to be which of three paths we take from here.

    1. Vote them out in 2022/2024

    2. Civil war

    3. Create alternative institutions and try for peaceful secession

    Remarkably, there is apparently a broad consensus that 1 is the least viable.

    A month ago I would have thought that 2 was the best option. Now, no. I was honestly expecting a wave of right-wing violence after Jan 6. If there was a single incident of it, it would have been all over the news. But there was NOTHING. Not a single person out of 74 million decided that they had nothing to lose. Incredible. BLM causes a billion dollars of damage because of a dead junkie, and our response to a coup is to grudgingly accept it. If white anger is a bell curve, with all that’s happened, we still haven’t even hit the close edge. We would lose a civil war not because we couldn’t win, but because we wouldn’t even bother to fight.

    For 3, AM is right that we will not be allowed to have alternative institutions. We already aren’t even allowed to be on the internet. So as AE says any alternative institutions will need to be small and local. But small and local alternative institutions can’t overcome globohomo.

    The chances of things getting better in our own lifetime seem low. Many hope that a financial collapse would set change in motion, but certainly globohomo would be able to leverage such a situation to make itself stronger and its enemies weaker. Some also hope that the internal contradictions of globohomo capitalism will cause the system to collapse on itself, followed by a proletariat revolution. Well.

    I think all three paths currently are non-viable, but we can take steps to make them viable. We can take those steps while we wait for the storm to break and an opportunity to present itself.

    Things we can focus on, that are easy and achievable:

    Leadership. I think whites are mostly unwilling to take matters into their own hands. They will only act if they have a leader. Unlike the South in the 1860s, the dissident right does not have a storehouse of competent leaders. It’s incredible, but we don’t. Trump was such a poor leader that an imaginary leader named Q had to be invented. Vdare has an article about how the next leaders of the movement could appear at any moment, with one good speech. I hope so. Anyone sticking their neck out right now is brave.

    Right-wing narrative control. We can’t drown out leftists, but we certainly have the power to drown out the neocons and MIGAs. Gab could be a valuable forward operating base for redpilling the boomers with spicy memes. A Tea Party 3.0 could be more effectively protected from rino subversion now than in the pre-Trump era. It’s Okay to Be White is still a good tactic. If you know people who still listen to gatekept talk radio, teach them how to use podcasts and recommend a few people.

    Repeal and replace the Republican party. Friends don’t let friends vote Republican. Trump kneecapped them, now we cut the throat. If we can get 25-30% of Republican voters to stay home in 2022 it will be a great victory. If we want to challenge R incumbents with 3rd party candidates, if not to win, at least to steal votes away from them, we need to start planning candidates and campaigns now.

    • Replies: @216
    @Catdog

    Most conservatives are content to go back to their sportsball and consumerism.

    ---

    An election boycott is not going to work, see Georgia.

    The party has gone full cuck down there, and the incumbents will presumably lose renomination, in route to the GOP losing and a Second Reconstruction imposed by Abrams.

    ---

    A lot of conservatives still want to stay on Big Tech platforms for the larger audience. But this doesn't work. We have no leverage over the companies, even if red states start adding ideology as a protected class (feds will overturn).

    We have to build our own, until eventually they start having to lock people up. Then the fun starts.

    Our friends at the ADL have helped out a lot.

    , @dfordoom
    @Catdog


    Things we can focus on, that are easy and achievable:
     
    Extremely black-pilled take coming up.

    It may be that the only thing to focus on is survival. Personal survival, and the survival of your loved ones.

    When you look at some of the significant social and cultural revolutions of history - the Late Bronze Age Collapse, the fall of the Roman Empire, the Black Death, the Industrial Revolution - some had positive long-term consequences and some had negative long-term consequences but they were unstoppable. The only sane response was to make sure you were one of those who survived, and (If you were very lucky) maybe even one of those who thrived.

    There wasn't much point in trying to come up with strategies for stopping these events from happening. In fifth century Rome there wasn't much point in wearing a Make Rome Great Again hat.

    It's possible that the long-term consequences of the Great Demographic Collapse will be positive but it's entirely unpredictable and in the short to medium term things are likely to be pretty rough. Total economic chaos is possible. Wars are very likely.

    Aiming to survive might be the best strategy.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Catdog

    What gets me is many of those who say #3 is pipe dream that will never work in the same breath say therefore we must try #2. If peaceful political dissolution is hard, a hot civil war is far harder still.

  16. @Achmed E. Newman
    @RoatanBill

    Bill, I've thought of this idea over many years, but it's not very workable due to just one of the evils of the Feral income tax system. The hammer really came down with the implementation of tax withholding almost 80 years ago. As Peak Stupidity discussed in Income Tax Withholding - flattening the pain, damage, and awareness curves, that's just it, Americans don't get as angry when the money lost is just a part of life ("never been any other way ..."), rather than a once per year big sum that could be withheld in anger at a system that is designed to screw us.

    It's been over a century (107 years) since the abomination that was Amendment XVI*. In Peak Stupidity's list of 5 evils (at least) of the Feral Income Tax, this "flow of the money" is #1.


    1) The FLOW of the Money: See, now was this last one a surprise, as with David Letterman's final funny number 1? This is a serious evil of having a Federal income tax, but one about which I believe most people don't really think.

    Excise taxes CAN be sent in directly to the Feds, and they probably are, but it's very easy for a State government to take control of that money. State and local governments do know what business goes on in their towns and States. With the income tax, if you picture a scenario in which the people or State government want to fight the Feds, how will that work? The money already flows directly from paychecks or checks for money still "owed" of individuals to the Feds. It is doled back out to the States and people in massive amounts in various ways.

    Got a disagreement with the Feds, Arkansas? Tough shit. Do you want that highway money, that welfare money, those business incentives? Better get your mind right, son. "Yeah, well, we'll withhold OUR money. Uhh, we'll get everyone in Arkansas to get his employer to stop the withholding and then assure them that we will fight for them in IRS Federal tax court, and then ... OK, OK, how high, Sir?!!"
     
    .

    * For those interested, that is Part 3 of a series - see Part 1 and Part 2.

    Replies: @RoatanBill

    If a state were to implement a law that makes federal withholding illegal, then businesses would be required by state law to stop the practice. The citizenry would suddenly get a huge boost in pay per pay period and that money would get spent into an ailing economy to help revive it. Once the average worker gets to see and feel how much of his labor is stolen to prop up a gov’t that shits on him regularly, there would be push back against that practice as people realize that what has been isn’t necessarily what will be as though it’s a part of some law of nature.

    As I mentioned, this would just be a massive pissing contest and the Feds would surely win via the law they concoct and their judges rubber stamp, but just the mention and attempt would signal that the sheep are getting restless.

    I realize it’s unrealistic, but it’s one of several last acts of defiance that will surely start to materialize as more and more people finally wake up to the fact that the Fed Gov is a mafia operation without legitimacy, especially after a completely fraudulent election and an absolute refusal to even consider the evidence.

    I keep hoping, against any evidence, that immediately after taking the oath of office, Biden and Harris are detained by the military to stand trial and have the real evidence of their careers displayed for all to see. Pelosi, Schumer, etc would also be detained and their records seized to look for more evidence. But then the military IS the deep state, so that won’t happen.

    Tune in next week for the continuation of the shit show that is the US Fed Gov.

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
  17. @dfordoom

    Though the religious outbreed the irreligious in the developed world, religiosity and fertility both continue to decline.
     
    Global demographic collapse is probably unstoppable. Somehow we will have to learn to deal with it.

    In the long term we might be able to do that. In the medium term it seems inevitable that there will be economic chaos. We have embraced an economic model based on constant economic growth, or constantly increasing markets and constantly increasing profits.

    Are any mega-corporations going to be able to adapt to a world in which markets are steadily shrinking? Are they going to be able to adapt to a world in which profits are steadily declining? Are shareholders going to able to adapt to the idea that their shares will steadily decrease in value? Mega-corporations are likely to respond by becoming more predatory, seeking to destroy or absorb competitors in order to grow their share of a declining overall market. We'll see more monopolies. Our economic system will become more unbalanced and a great deal more unpleasant.

    Many nations that have relatively small populations to begin with will simply disappear. We will be living in a world in which there are no Hungarians, no Lithuanians, no Scots, no Poles, no Koreans. Those nations' populations will be too small to allow the languages and the culture to survive.

    There may be more wars - not wars over resources but wars over access to ever-dwindling markets. There may even be wars for control of population resources.

    Replies: @neutral, @Paperback Writer, @Intelligent Dasein, @songbird

    Many nations that have relatively small populations to begin with will simply disappear… no Koreans

    Combining North and South, there are about 75 million Koreans, not including those near the border in China or abroad. And they live on a peninsula. I’d say that’s plenty for a cultural continuum, even anticipating a dip – if the right steps are taken against open borders.

    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @songbird


    Combining North and South, there are about 75 million Koreans, not including those near the border in China or abroad. And they live on a peninsula. I’d say that’s plenty for a cultural continuum, even anticipating a dip – if the right steps are taken against open borders.
     
    But what we're seeing in South Korea is not a "dip" - it's a catastrophic collapse. Their TFR is not much more than a third of the replacement rate. Their population is going to fall very rapidly.

    You're right about taking the right steps against open borders, except that it's not likely to happen

    Another point about demographic collapse that often gets overlooked is infrastructure collapse. Which seems counter-intuitive. You'd think that falling population would ease pressure on infrastructure but maintaining infrastructure takes money. With a rapidly falling population things like public transportation may become economically unviable. Maintaining ports costs money. Maintaining domestic air travel relies of having enough passengers to make it economic. Maintaining border security costs money. Universities need a certain number of students to keep them viable.

    There are certain types of infrastructure that are more difficult to maintain if you have a population of 15 million rather than 50 million.

    There's also the difficulty of maintaining a high-tech sector.

    Declining population makes a country ever more dependent on export markets. But other countries with declining populations will be competing savagely for access to those export markets and if population is falling everywhere those export markets are going to be shrinking. And you lose economies of scale.

    Which means the pressure on countries like South Korea to "solve" their population problems through mass immigration becomes intense. And where are the immigrants going to come from if populations are plummeting in all East Asian countries? They're going to come from non-East Asian countries.

    So the probability is that in half a century there will still be a political entity called South Korea but there won't be anything Korean about it.

    We're going to see panic responses by governments as population decline really starts to bite.

    We could even conceivably see wars over control of the few remaining sources of immigrants. And picking up on @Paperback Writer's point - we could see wars for control of sources of women of childbearing age.

    Replies: @Catdog, @dvorak, @Paperback Writer

  18. @JL
    I don't think marijuana legalization is such a good example of states standing up for their rights against opposition from the feds. In fact, the federal government understands where things are going on that front, is mostly supportive, but has large bureaucracies and lobby interests they have to at least give lip service to. So this was a way to offload responsibility and then say, look, momentum, it's unstoppable.

    In reality, if the feds really want to oppose states' rights, they have many potent weapons in their arsenal. Violence, or the threat of it, is just one of these. Another is greenmail, holding back federal highway funds, for example, without which it's almost impossible to keep roads in good repair. Fedgov will only let go in the event of collapse or some kind of major reform.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @Unit472, @Almost Missouri, @anon

    Agree. Barack “pot had helped … maybe a little blow” Obama and his administration of warmed-over ’68ers was never really opposed to marijuana. The standard Federal Highway Funds threat was never even broached. Any Federal “pushback” was just a bit of Kabuki to pretend like they were respecting Federal law while things continued moving in the direction they preferred. Opposing the FedGov is much easier when the top Feds are secretly (or not so secretly) on your side.

    A better analogy would be Second Amendment rights, the one significant conservative victory in the last few decades. Even in that case, five top Feds (namely 5/9 of the Supreme Court) were onside—and not even because of political sympathy but just because they read the Constitution.

    But now there will never be another Constitutionalist Supreme Court appointment, and the Dems are openly planning to swamp the existing Constitutionalists in a brazen court packing scheme. So there will never again be any Federal support for any conservative position. The high water mark of First and Second Amendment rights (the Real Civil Rights) is now. It will only get worse from here. Plan accordingly.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @Almost Missouri

    Don't forget about gun rights and marijuana. To buy a gun you swear that you haven't used marijuana. Still. Today.

    There must be millions of gun-buying marijuana users in states like CO and WA. They might have legally bought MJ in-state but still violated Federal law. If they subsequently bought a gun with background check, then they committed perjury, a felony. Which will of course strip their gun rights.

    My guess is that this confluence will be used to strip guns from people who bought what was legal under state law. Watch for it, especially if Kamala gets into power. She will laugh about it.

    , @Corvinus
    @Almost Missouri

    To the frame you apparently carelessly accepted from the Alt Right, it is not the Blue Wavers who incessantly poke the hornets’ nest on the other side of the political fence. It is the Red Menace who cannot rest until all whites are race realists, all Blue Wavers are transformed by hook or by crook into "good Christians", all fair housing is effectively neutered by freedom of association compacts, all speech has no consequences, and (my personal fav) all refugee boats are sunk.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fea02PfRfzQ

    Red America sent Trump to Washington not because we wanted to move into Georgetown Condos, but because they were hoodwinked into believing he was “one of them”. Trump, the ever opportunistic grifter who doesn’t own a dog and views life as being transactional in his favor, failed. So a bunch of Red America went to D.C. indeed to make their displeasure known, only to have a significant number of them violate the very tenets they claim to uphold.

    See how rhetoric works, Almost Missouri?

  19. dfordoom on fertility and modernity:

    In the developed world fertility rates have plummeted pretty evenly across all races and ethnic groups.

    Are all races and ethnicities equally “in the developed world”?

    Why not?

    It’s not a race problem, it’s a problem with the developed world.

    Since the developed world is itself a product of race and ethnicity, indeed since the term “developed world” itself is really just a euphemism for “whites+Asians”, it’s still a problem of race. Sorry again. Strike two.

    • Replies: @Yahya
    @Almost Missouri


    Since the developed world is itself a product of race and ethnicity, indeed since the term “developed world” itself is really just a euphemism for “whites+Asians”, it’s still a problem of race.
     
    'Scuse me

    http://www.emirates247.com/polopoly_fs/1.689736.1569302648!/image/image.jpg


    http://www.abouther.com/sites/default/files/2020/02/05/saudi_new_media_city.jpg


    http://i.pinimg.com/originals/50/92/99/50929968248a01bcd30406f6543a95e7.jpg

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Almost Missouri

  20. A few Japanese cities fearing depopulation offered women ‘free cryogenic storage of their eggs. Don’t know how successful the program was but it really makes sense as modern society is out of sync with our biological clocks.

    The baby boom happened after WW2 because there wasn’t reliable contraception ( birth control pills) until the early 1960’s which was, coincidentally, when the baby boom ended. Ten years later the postwar economic boom ended when OPEC gained control of oil prices. These two developments at first allowed and then forced women into the labor force. In order to maintain our standard of living two incomes became necessary for most people of working or middleclass status to have a family. Only the lower class ( and the rich ) could breed without economic consequence. There was also a dramatic decline in the numbers of jobs formerly held by single women. Telephone operators, secretaries even school teachers as public school enrollment shrank due to declining birth rates. Immigration made up for some of that but not in the ‘good school districts’. Loss of high paying blue collar jobs forced both men but especially women to pursue college degrees or get stuck in dead end service economy jobs.

    Women then found that in order to have a family they had to postpone childbirth and limit the number of children to one or two. This is how we got to where we are so is their a way out? Well if women can have children later in life when they have had a career and or are earning enough money to afford more children the answer is yes. That is where cryogenic egg storage comes in. Surrogate motherhood is another possibility. A middle aged old couple might make a deal and pay for a year or two of a young woman’s college education if she would be a surrogate mother for a couple or even just a single woman who missed the chance to become pregnant herself.

    There are a number of advantages to allowing older people to become parents. First and foremost is economics. Older people make more money and can provide a more secure and comfortable home for such children. Two, those children would be invaluable assets to their parents as they age and can no longer do the things they once could. Third. the parents would have a larger estate to leave their children and those children would inherit it just as they are forming their own families.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @unit472

    Ideally, you want to frontload the incentives, rather than concentrate on giving them to older folks.

    Older men have greater mutational load.

    But suppose the sperm is frozen: combining sperm and egg in a test tube isn't the way that it was meant to be done - sperm was meant to navigate obstacles to get to the egg, and to have lots of competition to get over those obstacles. Sex is partly a selection process, which minimizes the number of mutations.

    , @anon
    @unit472

    The baby boom happened after WW2 because there wasn’t reliable contraception ( birth control pills) until the early 1960’s which was, coincidentally, when the baby boom ended.

    Yet there was a notable baby bust in the 1930's and first half of the 1940's, can you explain that? It's almost as though when people believed they could not afford to feed many children, they did not have many children; yet when Americans were optimistic and believed they could feed many children, they wanted more and birthed more. Strange, but could be true.

    Also while the US baby boom began in 1946, there was nothing like it in other parts of the world for 5 or so years, can you explain that?

    TFR had been declining in the US since the 19th century, can you explain that? In my own geneology there are families in the mid 19th century with 5 children who survived, late 19th century with 3 children, one family right around 1915 with a single child, another family with 4 children. The actual history I can see and read in my own genetic line is nothing like the USA Today level story you are telling.

    The degree of magical thinking surrounding "The Pill" is simply remarkable.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @unit472

  21. @Nodwink
    The anti-Establishment rebellions have been crushed. The swamp has won.

    Trumpism - which was the least rebellious of these - will be wiped out. The Capitol insurrection was a fatal mistake, which could leave Trump himself in prison. The modern equivalent of Hitler's invasion of Russia.

    On the Left, Bernie-ism was destroyed with a few phone calls from Barack Obama. All of the Berniecrats within the Democratic Party fell in line, with barely a whimper. In Britain, Corbynism was destroyed in the 2019 election, with no chance of returning any time soon.

    The elite grip on power is stronger than it was five years ago.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Barack Obama's secret Unz account, @Nodwink, @RadicalCenter, @Patrick McNally

    The elite grip on power is stronger than it was five years ago.

    Agree. And a big reason for that is Trump threatening various elite targets but never actually eliminating them (mass immigration, swamp corruption, etc.). Those targets are all still there, but now they are armored. Meanwhile the Deplorables are politically disarmed: their ballot boxes stolen, their courts converged, the official culture implacably hostile.

    “When you strike at the king, you must kill him”, as Emerson famously wrote. Trump struck at a lot of kingpins. He missed them all. They are now all alive, enraged, and want revenge. Trump’s entire legacy will be swept away in the next few months. We’ll be lucky if that is all that is lost.

    Trump retweeted Emerson’s aphorism after surviving his first impeachment trial, so he clearly knows of it. Strangely—or not so strangely, given Trump’s psychology—it never occurred to him that he was the prince jocosely swinging his sword at the neck of every potentate in the palace without ever unseating one of them. The consequences of this will be as dire as they were foreseeable.

    • Agree: Nodwink
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @unit472
    @Almost Missouri

    Problem for Trump was how was he to run the USG. He wasn't like Reagan with a team of loyal people from his time as Governor of California ready to staff his White House. State, Defense and the DoJ were not packed full of Swamp monsters. Carter was a one term president and DC just wasn't as corrupt a town in 1980 has it had become by 2016.

    Trump could not bring his own Ed Meese or John Mitchell to run the DOJ. The Swamp had too many skeletons to hide and would never confirm a non swamp monster to run Justice, the FBI, CIA etc. They barely allowed Sessions to hold the post but only once he had been neutralized. Trump needed that second term to even have a chance to drain the swamp but, as we saw, the swamp was not about to let him have one.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  22. There is so much dishonesty and misinformation about fertility etc. that I don’t even know where to start, but here are just a few thoughts.

    1. It is the iron law of development that FIRST fertility rates are moderated, THEN AND ONLY THEN can a population start to slowly develop per-capita wealth. The low fertility rates in the ‘developed’ world are not a bug they are a feature.

    2. Only looking at the fertility rate is misleading. As John Stuart Mill pointed out, it is impossible for people to have more children than they can physically feed, nature will stop that. Rather, it is essential that people not have more children than they can REASONABLY support. In places like India and Pakistan etc. fertility rates are indeed falling, but only because widespread chronic malnutrition (NOT famine, typically) is limiting growth. That is not a good thing.

    3. India is a fully developed country, with modern technology and crop yields to match anything in the world. It’s just that the Indians have decided to use this wealth to support a massive number of people in poverty, rather than a more modest number in prosperity.

    4. Technology does not directly increase the standard of living, it raises the total productive power, which can be used to feed a large number at subsistence or a smaller number in plenty. That’s why the physical standard of living in late medieval Europa was higher than modern economies like India and Pakistan, even though the technology of the latter would astonish anyone from the 15th century. Technology only increases the limits, but if populations press up against the limits, you get subsistence level misery, there is no way of avoiding that.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @unit472
    @TG

    That's not accurate and empirical evidence points this out. Germany had a high birth rate after WW1 such that it had the manpower to wage WW2. France, and to a lesser extent, the UK did not despite both countries having higher standards of living.

    Gail Tverberg points out that access to energy is the quid pro quo for rapid economic growth not technology. Technology is often just a work around to not having enough low cost energy. When the world was awash in $3 per barrel Arab oil western economies boomed. When OPEC raised the price we had the stagflation of the 1970's. As North Sea and Alaskan oil gushed out in the 1980's global oil prices fell and economic growth resumed.

    What didn't change was birth rates in the West ( and NE Asia). That's for the reasons I mentioned earlier that the modern economy forced our biological clocks out of synch with our economic one.

  23. @Almost Missouri
    @Nodwink


    The elite grip on power is stronger than it was five years ago.
     
    Agree. And a big reason for that is Trump threatening various elite targets but never actually eliminating them (mass immigration, swamp corruption, etc.). Those targets are all still there, but now they are armored. Meanwhile the Deplorables are politically disarmed: their ballot boxes stolen, their courts converged, the official culture implacably hostile.

    "When you strike at the king, you must kill him", as Emerson famously wrote. Trump struck at a lot of kingpins. He missed them all. They are now all alive, enraged, and want revenge. Trump's entire legacy will be swept away in the next few months. We'll be lucky if that is all that is lost.

    Trump retweeted Emerson's aphorism after surviving his first impeachment trial, so he clearly knows of it. Strangely—or not so strangely, given Trump's psychology—it never occurred to him that he was the prince jocosely swinging his sword at the neck of every potentate in the palace without ever unseating one of them. The consequences of this will be as dire as they were foreseeable.

    Replies: @unit472

    Problem for Trump was how was he to run the USG. He wasn’t like Reagan with a team of loyal people from his time as Governor of California ready to staff his White House. State, Defense and the DoJ were not packed full of Swamp monsters. Carter was a one term president and DC just wasn’t as corrupt a town in 1980 has it had become by 2016.

    Trump could not bring his own Ed Meese or John Mitchell to run the DOJ. The Swamp had too many skeletons to hide and would never confirm a non swamp monster to run Justice, the FBI, CIA etc. They barely allowed Sessions to hold the post but only once he had been neutralized. Trump needed that second term to even have a chance to drain the swamp but, as we saw, the swamp was not about to let him have one.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @unit472

    Trump ran a successful real estate enterprise and a successful media enterprise. Surely there were a handful of reliable, competent, non-criminal people he could have borrowed from these? He only needed fifty votes in the Senate to confirm them. When Trump came into office, the Senate was majority Republican. They may not all have liked Trump, but they all knew better than to vote against him if they wanted to retain their seats. The other thing about those we call "swamp monsters" is that they do not necessarily perceive themselves that way, so they don't conceive it as hazardous to themselves to confirm any given nominee. When we say "drain the swamp", most Senators don't think they are the ones we mean. In other words, I don't think confirmation was such a great hurdle. And even if it had been, the Obama administration had already normalized the practice of using un-Senate-approved "czars" to run large swathes of the Federal government. Or Trump could just have used acting cabinet members until the Senate gave in. On appointments, as on so many other things, Trump naively thought he would ingratiate himself inside the beltway by giving them chunks of his administration. Instead he got worse worst of both worlds: they still despised him, but he had given away the power to do anything about it.

    But this is really beside the point. Trump didn't need any particular cabinet appointment to reverse any of Obama's executive orders, to ban foreign lobbyist fundraising, to prosecute Hillary Clinton, to deport illegals, to end birthright citizenship, to "end DACA on day one", to bring troops home, to ditch Common Core, or to build the border wall, as he promised. There are a slew of other objectives that required legislative cooperation though not cabinet appointments. Those too are undone. You can say that's Congress's fault, but the President has a lot of power to sway Congress if he chooses to use it. Trump didn't. All those targets that were threatened but unremoved are now permanently part of the landscape.

    Replies: @unit472

  24. @unit472
    A few Japanese cities fearing depopulation offered women 'free cryogenic storage of their eggs. Don't know how successful the program was but it really makes sense as modern society is out of sync with our biological clocks.

    The baby boom happened after WW2 because there wasn't reliable contraception ( birth control pills) until the early 1960's which was, coincidentally, when the baby boom ended. Ten years later the postwar economic boom ended when OPEC gained control of oil prices. These two developments at first allowed and then forced women into the labor force. In order to maintain our standard of living two incomes became necessary for most people of working or middleclass status to have a family. Only the lower class ( and the rich ) could breed without economic consequence. There was also a dramatic decline in the numbers of jobs formerly held by single women. Telephone operators, secretaries even school teachers as public school enrollment shrank due to declining birth rates. Immigration made up for some of that but not in the 'good school districts'. Loss of high paying blue collar jobs forced both men but especially women to pursue college degrees or get stuck in dead end service economy jobs.

    Women then found that in order to have a family they had to postpone childbirth and limit the number of children to one or two. This is how we got to where we are so is their a way out? Well if women can have children later in life when they have had a career and or are earning enough money to afford more children the answer is yes. That is where cryogenic egg storage comes in. Surrogate motherhood is another possibility. A middle aged old couple might make a deal and pay for a year or two of a young woman's college education if she would be a surrogate mother for a couple or even just a single woman who missed the chance to become pregnant herself.

    There are a number of advantages to allowing older people to become parents. First and foremost is economics. Older people make more money and can provide a more secure and comfortable home for such children. Two, those children would be invaluable assets to their parents as they age and can no longer do the things they once could. Third. the parents would have a larger estate to leave their children and those children would inherit it just as they are forming their own families.

    Replies: @songbird, @anon

    Ideally, you want to frontload the incentives, rather than concentrate on giving them to older folks.

    Older men have greater mutational load.

    But suppose the sperm is frozen: combining sperm and egg in a test tube isn’t the way that it was meant to be done – sperm was meant to navigate obstacles to get to the egg, and to have lots of competition to get over those obstacles. Sex is partly a selection process, which minimizes the number of mutations.

    • Agree: DanHessinMD
  25. @TG
    There is so much dishonesty and misinformation about fertility etc. that I don't even know where to start, but here are just a few thoughts.

    1. It is the iron law of development that FIRST fertility rates are moderated, THEN AND ONLY THEN can a population start to slowly develop per-capita wealth. The low fertility rates in the 'developed' world are not a bug they are a feature.

    2. Only looking at the fertility rate is misleading. As John Stuart Mill pointed out, it is impossible for people to have more children than they can physically feed, nature will stop that. Rather, it is essential that people not have more children than they can REASONABLY support. In places like India and Pakistan etc. fertility rates are indeed falling, but only because widespread chronic malnutrition (NOT famine, typically) is limiting growth. That is not a good thing.

    3. India is a fully developed country, with modern technology and crop yields to match anything in the world. It's just that the Indians have decided to use this wealth to support a massive number of people in poverty, rather than a more modest number in prosperity.

    4. Technology does not directly increase the standard of living, it raises the total productive power, which can be used to feed a large number at subsistence or a smaller number in plenty. That's why the physical standard of living in late medieval Europa was higher than modern economies like India and Pakistan, even though the technology of the latter would astonish anyone from the 15th century. Technology only increases the limits, but if populations press up against the limits, you get subsistence level misery, there is no way of avoiding that.

    Replies: @unit472

    That’s not accurate and empirical evidence points this out. Germany had a high birth rate after WW1 such that it had the manpower to wage WW2. France, and to a lesser extent, the UK did not despite both countries having higher standards of living.

    Gail Tverberg points out that access to energy is the quid pro quo for rapid economic growth not technology. Technology is often just a work around to not having enough low cost energy. When the world was awash in $3 per barrel Arab oil western economies boomed. When OPEC raised the price we had the stagflation of the 1970’s. As North Sea and Alaskan oil gushed out in the 1980’s global oil prices fell and economic growth resumed.

    What didn’t change was birth rates in the West ( and NE Asia). That’s for the reasons I mentioned earlier that the modern economy forced our biological clocks out of synch with our economic one.

  26. @Intelligent Dasein
    @dfordoom

    I believe I initiated a train of thought to similar effect in the previous thread, to which no one has yet responded.


    Birthrates are declining all over the world and are already below replacement in most places. Immigrants are disproportionately comprised of the young and excess people in the sending countries, but the younger generations in every country keep getting smaller and smaller. That means that the total “immigration-able stock” is declining, and the younger generations are much more needed at home. We are close to a point where traditional sending countries like Mexico are going to have to take measures to control their own emigration or court population inversion and economic collapse.

    Moreover, as I’ve mentioned several times, immigrants to Western countries quickly start breeding like Westerners, and their own total fertility falls below replacement. So there really is no way to increase the population. It’s a no-win situation.

    Now, I know Almost Missouri has made the point that, even if birthrates are collapsing everywhere, there are still enough non-white immigration-able people in the world to move to the West and radically alter Western demographics forever. This is true, but it isn’t really my concern. My concern is trying to inform people that, no matter what we do, a long-term demographic and economic collapse is now inevitable and there isn’t anything we can do about it. Policy should be informed accordingly.
     
    Also, further down the thread, I wrote a short list of topics that ought to be discussed in light of our actual geopolitical, social, and economic situation.

    -In economics, redesigning future economic practices for an age of continuing scarcity, de-financialization and de-branding, learning to view the study and practice of economics as a subset of physics.

    -In science, realizing that the end of Western scientism is nigh and outlining a program for salvaging the material gains of Western practical science through poeticization and re-traditionalizing.

    -In philosophy, embracing the essential correctness of hylomorphism and bringing it to a renewed understanding in a modern idiom.

    -In religion, learning how to identify, practice, and promulgate true Apostolic Christianity after the collapse of Western “Christendom”.
     
    It is simply unconscionable that I am not being mentioned in this connection, since I am the one who has been beating the drum about this for years here.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    That line of alarm about “demographic collapse” somewhat baffles me.

    The belief that we somehow “need” perpetual population growth is a chimera. After the demographic ravages of the medieval Black Death, for example (1/3 – 1/2 of Europeans wiped out), there followed a golden age for medieval Deplorables: rising wages, increased rights, cultural flowering. That “demographic collapse” worked out pretty well. And in the current “collapse” no one even has to die agonizingly in a puddle of buboes; instead they’re just not begin born.* It’s just that back then, there wasn’t also a plague-resistant predatory population waiting to take over.

    The planet’s population was never going to increase forever. The plateau had to come somewhere. For the productive population, the plateau has already arrived and the decline is beginning. For the parasitical population, however, the plateau hasn’t happened yet, and given the infinite brood pool of Sub-Saharan Africa, it may never come.

    Almost Missouri has made the point that, even if birthrates are collapsing everywhere, there are still enough non-white immigration-able people in the world to move to the West and radically alter Western demographics forever. This is true, but it isn’t really my concern.

    Surely, once the plutocracy’s global logistics start delivering them to your doorstep it will become your concern?

    I think we’re mostly on the same page, it’s just that what you regard as a minor detail—that the productive are down while the parasitical remain up—I regard as the whole of the immediate problem: demographics only matter comparatively. Everything you and I favor stood triumphant in the past with much smaller productive populations. Today those populations are bigger, but they have been outraced by parasitical dependents who have no intention of releasing their fatal grip on their host.

    Policy should be informed accordingly.

    Yes, “should be”, but as of today, policy is permanently in the hands of people with the opposite objectives to ours, so I guarantee that policy will be the opposite too.

    BTW, I think I mostly agree with your “downthread” topics, though I would use different language to describe them, as I think would most people who may unwittingly agree with you.

    ——

    *Yes, I’m aware that a tranche of this is that they are being assassinated in utero. Though for purposes of this discussion, in utero assassination may only be marginally worse than extinction via family attrition.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @Almost Missouri


    Surely, once the plutocracy’s global logistics start delivering them to your doorstep it will become your concern?
     
    It is very concerning. I just meant that it was not my concern in this particular discussion. I do think, however, that the clock is running out on the rationale, the ability, and even the mere possibility of bringing ever increasing numbers of migrants into the West. Even if our current elites stay in power, it will not always be in their interests to continue the same policy forever. They will use the hordes for as long as they have to, but they will eventually abandon them just like they've already abandoned us.

    After the demographic ravages of the medieval Black Death, for example
     
    I think there are two important differences here. First, the Black Death was a pretty indiscriminate killer affecting old and young alike, thus shrinking society but preserving its natural age distribution; but a protracted population pyramid inversion, where every generation is smaller than the last, leaves you with permanently skewed dependency ratio that locks society into a downward spiral of economic stagnation. Second, the Black Death was a plague, an exogenous factor that was menacing a society already in a basically healthy condition, whereas we actually have a culture of death. It is to this I wish now to turn.

    I might be best to just start with a comprehensive description of the problem. I know Rosie and dfordoom have repeatedly asked for one, so here it is.

    Many causes have been proffered to explain demographic decline, from the decline of the hierarchy and the patriarchy, the education of women, modern convenience, and so forth. These are all symptoms, not causes. The real cause is the lack of a foreign existential threat.

    For, in "traditional" societies---and here the word "traditional" comprises everything from Beduin tribes to city-states and even Westphalian nation-states up to the year 1900 so---the whole impetus of cultural life is provided by the fact that these entities are constantly trying to destroy one another. "Foreign policy" thus becomes the raison d'être and the primum mobile of cultural existence, and it governs how everything else is organized, including those symptoms which are sometimes erroneously thought to be causes. Here we have a "patriarchy" because the men who do the fighting are the only ones standing between the tribe and annihilation, and here we have a "hierarchy" because the men who lead and command are the most necessary and valuable of the man-type. Here women are married off early and spend their lives doing housework, making babies, and raising children, not because they are oppressed but because, in the grand project of keeping the state fit for its essential purpose of confronting the foreign threat, this also is necessary work and who else can do it except the woman? Here the keeping of women and the training of children are tightly controlled and serious matters, not a field of experimentation for effete playwrights and bureaucratic ninnies.

    But in addition to this, every facet of the culture, from first to last, is either consciously or unconsciously (and mostly unconsciously) stylized with reference to the main theme. A thousand different details about the architecture of the house, the display of public art, standards of manners and dress, the vesting of public authority, the customs of craftwork and markets---it's all comprehensibly "pro-natal" because it's all made to harmonize with central criterion of keeping the state in fighting form.

    When the external threat is removed through the overcoming and absorption of all enemies, or simply through successful urbanization progressively making man's environment more and more artificial, thereupon enters what Christopher Lasch so expertly described as the "Age of Narcissism." It is here that, for the first time, the old social order is felt to be restrictive and protests are raised against it, and it is here that the one foreign threat is replaced by the war of all against all. In the old order, one's identity extended out to one's family and clan, not only laterally in space but also forward and backward in time. Property was felt to be something received from ancestors and held in trust for descendants, not something to be ruthlessly exploited to maximize present profits. It would have been insanity in the past to act against the interests of one's family, but in the Age of Narcissism one's own parents, children and spouses become the enemy. They are the principle threats to the further expansion of one's own profligacy and self-indulgence, which is all that remains open to modern man's ambition.

    And finally, this is precisely why all the thousand details of culture, which in the past facilitated natalism, now militate so heavily against it. The architecture of our houses is not conducive to raising children, our work schedules and practices are prohibitive, childless sociopaths and homosexuals have every advantage over the family man in corporate culture, and the freedom of adults to engage in every perversion is prioritized in the public sphere over against the wellbeing of children. Our "culture of death" makes childrearing more difficult in every particular because it's all organized around the exaltation of the individual ego.

    No economic incentives or any other changes to our material condition will reverse this. Religion will not help because its behavior-constraining apparatus has been removed from the public square and the number of people who truly believe enough to be countercultural for God's sake has been shown to be, as it is in every age, but a little flock. Even war, famine, disease, and cataclysm will do nothing to shock people back into condition when once they have experienced the liberation of the ego; with the very world falling down around them, they will continue only to pine for the fleshpots of Egypt rather than reevaluate the meaning of their existence.

    This is why demographic collapse is inevitable, why it will go on for a long time, and why it will not offer the same kind of opportunities that the Black Death did. Our demographic decline is our cultural decline and vice verse. It is the dying off of a dissolute and spiritually broken people with nothing left to fight for.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Wency

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Almost Missouri

    Right. It's not civilization that depends on high birthrates. It's capitalism. Big difference, no?

  27. Population of all of Europe in 1500 during the flowering of the greatest civilization in human history: 61 million.
    Even allowing for a lower percentage of an aging population being in their prime, you don’t need a huge population to advance civilization as long as that population doesn’t have a room temperature average IQ. Japan and Korea and Europe would do just fine with declining populations as long as they are the right populations.
    Tragically our demographic policies appear to be run by people who have invested their entire nest egg in toilet paper manufacturer stocks.

    • Replies: @Lockean Proviso
    @Alfa158

    The nation-state as a viable entity is falling to globalism, particularly in the minds of the elites. They are working towards an archipelago of oligarch and courtier enclaves amidst a sea of squalor. They foresee the islets of Oligarchia as a separate realm of global cities and resorts around the world, with a high average IQ population, low in relative numbers but high in development.

  28. @Almost Missouri

    dfordoom on fertility and modernity:

    In the developed world fertility rates have plummeted pretty evenly across all races and ethnic groups.
     

     
    Are all races and ethnicities equally "in the developed world"?

    Why not?


    It’s not a race problem, it’s a problem with the developed world.
     

     
    Since the developed world is itself a product of race and ethnicity, indeed since the term "developed world" itself is really just a euphemism for "whites+Asians", it's still a problem of race. Sorry again. Strike two.

    Replies: @Yahya

    Since the developed world is itself a product of race and ethnicity, indeed since the term “developed world” itself is really just a euphemism for “whites+Asians”, it’s still a problem of race.

    ‘Scuse me

    [MORE]



    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Yahya

    Arabs didn't invent any of the building styles in evidence there, and they were probably designed by White architects and built with foreign labor.

    Replies: @Yahya

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Yahya

    Are Arabs not part of "whites+Asians"? If not, what about Persians, whose cities are less glittering but whose location is more Eurasiac? Turks? Kurds? Armenians? Baluchs? What about Caucasians? Are Caucasians white? Or are Cauc-asians Asian? Neither? Both?

    "Asia" is how the Greeks referred to everything east of the Aegean.

    Wikipedia editors still agree 3000 years later.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Asia_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg/1024px-Asia_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg.png

  29. anon[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @JL
    I don't think marijuana legalization is such a good example of states standing up for their rights against opposition from the feds. In fact, the federal government understands where things are going on that front, is mostly supportive, but has large bureaucracies and lobby interests they have to at least give lip service to. So this was a way to offload responsibility and then say, look, momentum, it's unstoppable.

    In reality, if the feds really want to oppose states' rights, they have many potent weapons in their arsenal. Violence, or the threat of it, is just one of these. Another is greenmail, holding back federal highway funds, for example, without which it's almost impossible to keep roads in good repair. Fedgov will only let go in the event of collapse or some kind of major reform.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @Unit472, @Almost Missouri, @anon

    Another is greenmail, holding back federal highway funds,

    That is how the US drinking age was set at a uniform 21 years of age back in the 80’s. There had been experimentation in the early 70’s with 18, 19 and 20 with varying results. Reagan’s Sec of Transportation, one Elizabeth Dole or Mrs. Bob Dole if you prefer, used the Federal highway funds to force the issue via greenmail. Most states fell in line almost immediately, because that’s big bucks. Wyoming held out for a while, due to their attitude and their oil taxes, but when the price of oil dropped they had to cave in.

  30. Hey Audie, they released new video on you people’s Dangerous (and 100% organic) coup attempt…

    It was the “By Any Chance,” that did it for me HAHAHAHA. https://t.co/BIGYzzlFza

    — Larry Johnson (@2LarryJohnson7) January 18, 2021

  31. Today those populations are bigger, but they have been outraced by parasitical dependents who have no intention of releasing their fatal grip on their host

    .

    What you are seeing now in the U.S. are entire states being taken over by parasitical dependents and the productive fleeing. In 2019 California’s population dropped 150 thousand as 500 thousand moved in and 650 thousand left. In 2020 the drop increased from 150 thousand to over 200 thousand. Some of these people leaving are liberal rats deserting a sinking ship but many are productive people not wanting to pay high taxes or deal with increased crime from lax liberal crime policies. Other liberal states like New York or Illinois have the same situation. The situation has gotten much worse in the last year since it was the most liberal states that had the longest forced business closures to try to stop COVID-19 and this shrank tax revenues and caused a number of those businesses to go under forever.

    Since the blue state model has failed, the next step will be an attempt by the blue states to go to the federal government and have the federal government force the red states to bail them out. Either tax money will be extracted from the red states or the federal government will print up the money to give to blue states with the red state inhabitants suffering from the resulting high prices due to inflation.

    Up until now the ability to move from a blue state to a red state has acted as a pressure valve and kept a lid on things. People will soon start to realize you can run but you can’t hide. California has even talked about continuing to tax people after they have moved out of the state and a Democrat controlled federal government might back them up. Resistance will stiffen when people find they are backed into a corner and it will take the form of red states resisting the dictates of Washington D.C. We are still in the early days and don’t know yet what forms this resistance will take.

  32. anon[366] • Disclaimer says:

    We’ve been over this before and I continue to agree with AE that there is no chance for meaningful federal resistance when a state like Texas secedes. Anything they do will only accelerate the fracturing. When this goes down — and there really is no other option — it will be because local business leaders have done the calculations and given it their blessing. There will be more than enough regional commercial clout and cultural affinity among LEOs involved to stave off any federal recalcitrance.

    These people are guilty and scared. Their control over you is tenuous and illusory. They tried to screen the NG for Trump voters and then — when that failed — brought them to DC disarmed. What does that tell you?

    Call their bluff and let them try and give the order — otherwise, you are fools and cowards and deserve what’s coming!

    https://tnm.me/

  33. @Almost Missouri
    @JL

    Agree. Barack "pot had helped ... maybe a little blow" Obama and his administration of warmed-over '68ers was never really opposed to marijuana. The standard Federal Highway Funds threat was never even broached. Any Federal "pushback" was just a bit of Kabuki to pretend like they were respecting Federal law while things continued moving in the direction they preferred. Opposing the FedGov is much easier when the top Feds are secretly (or not so secretly) on your side.

    A better analogy would be Second Amendment rights, the one significant conservative victory in the last few decades. Even in that case, five top Feds (namely 5/9 of the Supreme Court) were onside—and not even because of political sympathy but just because they read the Constitution.

    But now there will never be another Constitutionalist Supreme Court appointment, and the Dems are openly planning to swamp the existing Constitutionalists in a brazen court packing scheme. So there will never again be any Federal support for any conservative position. The high water mark of First and Second Amendment rights (the Real Civil Rights) is now. It will only get worse from here. Plan accordingly.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Corvinus

    Don’t forget about gun rights and marijuana. To buy a gun you swear that you haven’t used marijuana. Still. Today.

    There must be millions of gun-buying marijuana users in states like CO and WA. They might have legally bought MJ in-state but still violated Federal law. If they subsequently bought a gun with background check, then they committed perjury, a felony. Which will of course strip their gun rights.

    My guess is that this confluence will be used to strip guns from people who bought what was legal under state law. Watch for it, especially if Kamala gets into power. She will laugh about it.

  34. @Catdog
    The debate on the right now seems to be which of three paths we take from here.

    1. Vote them out in 2022/2024

    2. Civil war

    3. Create alternative institutions and try for peaceful secession

    Remarkably, there is apparently a broad consensus that 1 is the least viable.

    A month ago I would have thought that 2 was the best option. Now, no. I was honestly expecting a wave of right-wing violence after Jan 6. If there was a single incident of it, it would have been all over the news. But there was NOTHING. Not a single person out of 74 million decided that they had nothing to lose. Incredible. BLM causes a billion dollars of damage because of a dead junkie, and our response to a coup is to grudgingly accept it. If white anger is a bell curve, with all that's happened, we still haven't even hit the close edge. We would lose a civil war not because we couldn't win, but because we wouldn't even bother to fight.

    For 3, AM is right that we will not be allowed to have alternative institutions. We already aren't even allowed to be on the internet. So as AE says any alternative institutions will need to be small and local. But small and local alternative institutions can't overcome globohomo.

    The chances of things getting better in our own lifetime seem low. Many hope that a financial collapse would set change in motion, but certainly globohomo would be able to leverage such a situation to make itself stronger and its enemies weaker. Some also hope that the internal contradictions of globohomo capitalism will cause the system to collapse on itself, followed by a proletariat revolution. Well.

    I think all three paths currently are non-viable, but we can take steps to make them viable. We can take those steps while we wait for the storm to break and an opportunity to present itself.

    Things we can focus on, that are easy and achievable:

    Leadership. I think whites are mostly unwilling to take matters into their own hands. They will only act if they have a leader. Unlike the South in the 1860s, the dissident right does not have a storehouse of competent leaders. It's incredible, but we don't. Trump was such a poor leader that an imaginary leader named Q had to be invented. Vdare has an article about how the next leaders of the movement could appear at any moment, with one good speech. I hope so. Anyone sticking their neck out right now is brave.

    Right-wing narrative control. We can't drown out leftists, but we certainly have the power to drown out the neocons and MIGAs. Gab could be a valuable forward operating base for redpilling the boomers with spicy memes. A Tea Party 3.0 could be more effectively protected from rino subversion now than in the pre-Trump era. It's Okay to Be White is still a good tactic. If you know people who still listen to gatekept talk radio, teach them how to use podcasts and recommend a few people.

    Repeal and replace the Republican party. Friends don't let friends vote Republican. Trump kneecapped them, now we cut the throat. If we can get 25-30% of Republican voters to stay home in 2022 it will be a great victory. If we want to challenge R incumbents with 3rd party candidates, if not to win, at least to steal votes away from them, we need to start planning candidates and campaigns now.

    Replies: @216, @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    Most conservatives are content to go back to their sportsball and consumerism.

    An election boycott is not going to work, see Georgia.

    The party has gone full cuck down there, and the incumbents will presumably lose renomination, in route to the GOP losing and a Second Reconstruction imposed by Abrams.

    A lot of conservatives still want to stay on Big Tech platforms for the larger audience. But this doesn’t work. We have no leverage over the companies, even if red states start adding ideology as a protected class (feds will overturn).

    We have to build our own, until eventually they start having to lock people up. Then the fun starts.

    Our friends at the ADL have helped out a lot.

  35. anon[236] • Disclaimer says:
    @unit472
    A few Japanese cities fearing depopulation offered women 'free cryogenic storage of their eggs. Don't know how successful the program was but it really makes sense as modern society is out of sync with our biological clocks.

    The baby boom happened after WW2 because there wasn't reliable contraception ( birth control pills) until the early 1960's which was, coincidentally, when the baby boom ended. Ten years later the postwar economic boom ended when OPEC gained control of oil prices. These two developments at first allowed and then forced women into the labor force. In order to maintain our standard of living two incomes became necessary for most people of working or middleclass status to have a family. Only the lower class ( and the rich ) could breed without economic consequence. There was also a dramatic decline in the numbers of jobs formerly held by single women. Telephone operators, secretaries even school teachers as public school enrollment shrank due to declining birth rates. Immigration made up for some of that but not in the 'good school districts'. Loss of high paying blue collar jobs forced both men but especially women to pursue college degrees or get stuck in dead end service economy jobs.

    Women then found that in order to have a family they had to postpone childbirth and limit the number of children to one or two. This is how we got to where we are so is their a way out? Well if women can have children later in life when they have had a career and or are earning enough money to afford more children the answer is yes. That is where cryogenic egg storage comes in. Surrogate motherhood is another possibility. A middle aged old couple might make a deal and pay for a year or two of a young woman's college education if she would be a surrogate mother for a couple or even just a single woman who missed the chance to become pregnant herself.

    There are a number of advantages to allowing older people to become parents. First and foremost is economics. Older people make more money and can provide a more secure and comfortable home for such children. Two, those children would be invaluable assets to their parents as they age and can no longer do the things they once could. Third. the parents would have a larger estate to leave their children and those children would inherit it just as they are forming their own families.

    Replies: @songbird, @anon

    The baby boom happened after WW2 because there wasn’t reliable contraception ( birth control pills) until the early 1960’s which was, coincidentally, when the baby boom ended.

    Yet there was a notable baby bust in the 1930’s and first half of the 1940’s, can you explain that? It’s almost as though when people believed they could not afford to feed many children, they did not have many children; yet when Americans were optimistic and believed they could feed many children, they wanted more and birthed more. Strange, but could be true.

    Also while the US baby boom began in 1946, there was nothing like it in other parts of the world for 5 or so years, can you explain that?

    TFR had been declining in the US since the 19th century, can you explain that? In my own geneology there are families in the mid 19th century with 5 children who survived, late 19th century with 3 children, one family right around 1915 with a single child, another family with 4 children. The actual history I can see and read in my own genetic line is nothing like the USA Today level story you are telling.

    The degree of magical thinking surrounding “The Pill” is simply remarkable.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @anon

    I've always thought the Kennedy Assassination ended the Boom. 64 was its last year, and all the babies born through
    August would have been conceived before Kennedy was killed.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    , @unit472
    @anon

    There were probably a lot more babies being born than you think in the late nineteenth century and pre WW2 US. Counties ran 'children's homes' for children whose parents could not take care of them and religious groups had 'orphanages' but the chlldren weren't necessarily orphans.

    One big reason those arrangments declined in the post war era was the rise in working class wages. Wealth was not as concentrated as it was in first half of the twentieth century. Income and inheritance taxes were high and a CEO might make 10 to 100 times what the average worker made not 1000 times.

    Replies: @anon

  36. @Almost Missouri
    @Intelligent Dasein

    That line of alarm about "demographic collapse" somewhat baffles me.

    The belief that we somehow "need" perpetual population growth is a chimera. After the demographic ravages of the medieval Black Death, for example (1/3 - 1/2 of Europeans wiped out), there followed a golden age for medieval Deplorables: rising wages, increased rights, cultural flowering. That "demographic collapse" worked out pretty well. And in the current "collapse" no one even has to die agonizingly in a puddle of buboes; instead they're just not begin born.* It's just that back then, there wasn't also a plague-resistant predatory population waiting to take over.

    The planet's population was never going to increase forever. The plateau had to come somewhere. For the productive population, the plateau has already arrived and the decline is beginning. For the parasitical population, however, the plateau hasn't happened yet, and given the infinite brood pool of Sub-Saharan Africa, it may never come.


    Almost Missouri has made the point that, even if birthrates are collapsing everywhere, there are still enough non-white immigration-able people in the world to move to the West and radically alter Western demographics forever. This is true, but it isn’t really my concern.
     
    Surely, once the plutocracy's global logistics start delivering them to your doorstep it will become your concern?

    I think we're mostly on the same page, it's just that what you regard as a minor detail—that the productive are down while the parasitical remain up—I regard as the whole of the immediate problem: demographics only matter comparatively. Everything you and I favor stood triumphant in the past with much smaller productive populations. Today those populations are bigger, but they have been outraced by parasitical dependents who have no intention of releasing their fatal grip on their host.


    Policy should be informed accordingly.
     
    Yes, "should be", but as of today, policy is permanently in the hands of people with the opposite objectives to ours, so I guarantee that policy will be the opposite too.

    BTW, I think I mostly agree with your "downthread" topics, though I would use different language to describe them, as I think would most people who may unwittingly agree with you.

    ------

    *Yes, I'm aware that a tranche of this is that they are being assassinated in utero. Though for purposes of this discussion, in utero assassination may only be marginally worse than extinction via family attrition.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Paperback Writer

    Surely, once the plutocracy’s global logistics start delivering them to your doorstep it will become your concern?

    It is very concerning. I just meant that it was not my concern in this particular discussion. I do think, however, that the clock is running out on the rationale, the ability, and even the mere possibility of bringing ever increasing numbers of migrants into the West. Even if our current elites stay in power, it will not always be in their interests to continue the same policy forever. They will use the hordes for as long as they have to, but they will eventually abandon them just like they’ve already abandoned us.

    After the demographic ravages of the medieval Black Death, for example

    I think there are two important differences here. First, the Black Death was a pretty indiscriminate killer affecting old and young alike, thus shrinking society but preserving its natural age distribution; but a protracted population pyramid inversion, where every generation is smaller than the last, leaves you with permanently skewed dependency ratio that locks society into a downward spiral of economic stagnation. Second, the Black Death was a plague, an exogenous factor that was menacing a society already in a basically healthy condition, whereas we actually have a culture of death. It is to this I wish now to turn.

    I might be best to just start with a comprehensive description of the problem. I know Rosie and dfordoom have repeatedly asked for one, so here it is.

    Many causes have been proffered to explain demographic decline, from the decline of the hierarchy and the patriarchy, the education of women, modern convenience, and so forth. These are all symptoms, not causes. The real cause is the lack of a foreign existential threat.

    For, in “traditional” societies—and here the word “traditional” comprises everything from Beduin tribes to city-states and even Westphalian nation-states up to the year 1900 so—the whole impetus of cultural life is provided by the fact that these entities are constantly trying to destroy one another. “Foreign policy” thus becomes the raison d’être and the primum mobile of cultural existence, and it governs how everything else is organized, including those symptoms which are sometimes erroneously thought to be causes. Here we have a “patriarchy” because the men who do the fighting are the only ones standing between the tribe and annihilation, and here we have a “hierarchy” because the men who lead and command are the most necessary and valuable of the man-type. Here women are married off early and spend their lives doing housework, making babies, and raising children, not because they are oppressed but because, in the grand project of keeping the state fit for its essential purpose of confronting the foreign threat, this also is necessary work and who else can do it except the woman? Here the keeping of women and the training of children are tightly controlled and serious matters, not a field of experimentation for effete playwrights and bureaucratic ninnies.

    But in addition to this, every facet of the culture, from first to last, is either consciously or unconsciously (and mostly unconsciously) stylized with reference to the main theme. A thousand different details about the architecture of the house, the display of public art, standards of manners and dress, the vesting of public authority, the customs of craftwork and markets—it’s all comprehensibly “pro-natal” because it’s all made to harmonize with central criterion of keeping the state in fighting form.

    When the external threat is removed through the overcoming and absorption of all enemies, or simply through successful urbanization progressively making man’s environment more and more artificial, thereupon enters what Christopher Lasch so expertly described as the “Age of Narcissism.” It is here that, for the first time, the old social order is felt to be restrictive and protests are raised against it, and it is here that the one foreign threat is replaced by the war of all against all. In the old order, one’s identity extended out to one’s family and clan, not only laterally in space but also forward and backward in time. Property was felt to be something received from ancestors and held in trust for descendants, not something to be ruthlessly exploited to maximize present profits. It would have been insanity in the past to act against the interests of one’s family, but in the Age of Narcissism one’s own parents, children and spouses become the enemy. They are the principle threats to the further expansion of one’s own profligacy and self-indulgence, which is all that remains open to modern man’s ambition.

    And finally, this is precisely why all the thousand details of culture, which in the past facilitated natalism, now militate so heavily against it. The architecture of our houses is not conducive to raising children, our work schedules and practices are prohibitive, childless sociopaths and homosexuals have every advantage over the family man in corporate culture, and the freedom of adults to engage in every perversion is prioritized in the public sphere over against the wellbeing of children. Our “culture of death” makes childrearing more difficult in every particular because it’s all organized around the exaltation of the individual ego.

    No economic incentives or any other changes to our material condition will reverse this. Religion will not help because its behavior-constraining apparatus has been removed from the public square and the number of people who truly believe enough to be countercultural for God’s sake has been shown to be, as it is in every age, but a little flock. Even war, famine, disease, and cataclysm will do nothing to shock people back into condition when once they have experienced the liberation of the ego; with the very world falling down around them, they will continue only to pine for the fleshpots of Egypt rather than reevaluate the meaning of their existence.

    This is why demographic collapse is inevitable, why it will go on for a long time, and why it will not offer the same kind of opportunities that the Black Death did. Our demographic decline is our cultural decline and vice verse. It is the dying off of a dissolute and spiritually broken people with nothing left to fight for.

    • Thanks: Jay Fink
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Intelligent Dasein

    First, I want to say that this is one of the most interesting comments I've read here. I think I largely agree with it.

    Second, I want to ask if this is your original analysis or if you adapted something, say from Aristotle, Aquinas or Machiavelli that has eluded me?

    Third, I want to raise some questions, and learn what you make of them:

    Rome, the Ottomans, various Chinese empires, the Alexandrian empire, among others, became decadent and collapsed, despite facing foreign threats, though arguably not existential threats. Would you say these succumbed to the same thing you are describing?

    It would seem that a "traditional society" (which may be the only kind of long-term society) can have two fates: extinction due to conquest or extinction due to decadence. Well, maybe there is a third possibility: never succumbing to either the former Scylla nor the latter Charybdis, forever shooting the Straits of Messina. Agree?

    For practical statecraft, this may be primarily a matter of reserving the state to its native culture, or in other words: for cultural longevity, do not become an empire!

    If so, a corollary of which would be: too late for the US now. If so, was there an identifiable point at which it became too late? If so, where was that point?
    1989? (Soviet Union vanquished)
    1964? (coerced integration, implicitly subjugating all culture to the imperial state)
    1948? (Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan formally commit US to imperial internationalism)
    1941? (US enters world war from which it never turns back)
    1898? (Spanish-American War is often labelled as start of US Imperialism in textbooks)
    1868? (Fourteenth Amendment opted to citizenize former bondsmen, thereby implicitly citizenizing anyone in the future, making the US inherently a global project)
    1861? (Northern States forbid Southern secession, permanently legitimizing imperial power over State power)
    1846? (Mexican-American War also traditionally cited by textbooks as US Imperial beginning)
    Or was its ultimate demise always inherent in the American project, as it was arguably conceived in imperial terms from the outset?

    Finally, might the US—at least up until recently—be something of a counter-example to the thesis? It no longer faced foreign existential threats on the macro-scale after 1815, yet the decadence didn't become crippling until the late 20th century, so it managed to buck historical inevitability for a century and a half or so.

    I can imagine a couple of answers to my own question:

    1) 150 years isn't very long in the big picture.

    2) While macro-threats were absent, micro-threats all along the frontier amply supplied the missing primum mobile of cultural existence (sort of an adaptation of the Turner Thesis). The closing of the frontier was quickly followed by the missionary-ish Spanish-American War, then by gratuitous participation in the World Wars, and the inevitable Cold War, following victory in which came ennui, decadence and collapse. (This might all be plausible, but it is more moving parts than I like to have in a historical hypothesis.)

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    , @Wency
    @Intelligent Dasein

    It's an interesting comment, and I agree with it in part. I do like to point out (and maybe I did it last thread, maybe it was further back) -- what is the reason given in the Bible for having a large family?

    Proverbs 127:3-5
    I normally abhor "The Message" translation, but it gets right to the point on this one:

    "Oh, how blessed are you parents, with your quivers full of children! Your enemies don't stand a chance against you; you'll sweep them right off your doorstep."

    I do think this motivation makes a lot more sense than the whole business about having more children to work the farm that everyone likes to cite. Putting children to work is a way to defray the costs of childcare, it's not reliably profitable in itself. But having an entire clan that will reliably protect the farm/herd, and just as importantly the women, that can't easily be bought off like hired guards, that will even raid weaker neighbors for resources (including women) -- now that's something. And they look out for one another, generation after generation -- "brother against cousin, cousin against outsider" as the Bedouins say.

    All that said, I don't believe that this is always the most important reason, let alone the sole reason, that past societies had children. I see it more as a single meme within a larger memetic competition that also interfaces with biology. Societies with insufficiently pro-natal or martial cultures have a strong tendency to face destruction by neighbors, through some combination of massacre (especially of men), enslavement, displacement, and assimilation. But different mixes of memes worked in different places, which had long, relatively static eons to develop them, hence my remarks about contrasting matrilocal and patriarchal structures.

    Now the old pro-natal memeplexes are broken almost everywhere by modernity (which is largely what you're describing as "Age of Narcissism"). And even where they're not entirely broken (i.e. Africa), immigration can't really restore it, because African immigrants largely assimilate to the Western memeplex, they are not conquerors that destroy it, make themselves the new overclass, take several fecund wives each, and impose their own culture on the offspring.

    In the past, there was always some aggressive tribe on the fringes prepared to do just this if the center could not hold. Decadent Byzantium let its guard down for a few years a millennium ago, and they speak Turkish to this day in the place once called Asia Minor, which in turn had been Hellenized over a millennium prior to that under somewhat similar circumstances.

    But now it seems there are no tribes on the fringes. If this mechanism is to re-assert itself again (and civilized men everywhere hope and pray it won't), such an aggressive tribe would have to appear de novo. Which, if I understand him, is sort of what "Bronze Age Mindset" is about.

  37. @songbird
    @dfordoom


    Many nations that have relatively small populations to begin with will simply disappear... no Koreans
     
    Combining North and South, there are about 75 million Koreans, not including those near the border in China or abroad. And they live on a peninsula. I'd say that's plenty for a cultural continuum, even anticipating a dip - if the right steps are taken against open borders.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Combining North and South, there are about 75 million Koreans, not including those near the border in China or abroad. And they live on a peninsula. I’d say that’s plenty for a cultural continuum, even anticipating a dip – if the right steps are taken against open borders.

    But what we’re seeing in South Korea is not a “dip” – it’s a catastrophic collapse. Their TFR is not much more than a third of the replacement rate. Their population is going to fall very rapidly.

    You’re right about taking the right steps against open borders, except that it’s not likely to happen

    Another point about demographic collapse that often gets overlooked is infrastructure collapse. Which seems counter-intuitive. You’d think that falling population would ease pressure on infrastructure but maintaining infrastructure takes money. With a rapidly falling population things like public transportation may become economically unviable. Maintaining ports costs money. Maintaining domestic air travel relies of having enough passengers to make it economic. Maintaining border security costs money. Universities need a certain number of students to keep them viable.

    There are certain types of infrastructure that are more difficult to maintain if you have a population of 15 million rather than 50 million.

    There’s also the difficulty of maintaining a high-tech sector.

    Declining population makes a country ever more dependent on export markets. But other countries with declining populations will be competing savagely for access to those export markets and if population is falling everywhere those export markets are going to be shrinking. And you lose economies of scale.

    Which means the pressure on countries like South Korea to “solve” their population problems through mass immigration becomes intense. And where are the immigrants going to come from if populations are plummeting in all East Asian countries? They’re going to come from non-East Asian countries.

    So the probability is that in half a century there will still be a political entity called South Korea but there won’t be anything Korean about it.

    We’re going to see panic responses by governments as population decline really starts to bite.

    We could even conceivably see wars over control of the few remaining sources of immigrants. And picking up on ’s point – we could see wars for control of sources of women of childbearing age.

    • Replies: @Catdog
    @dfordoom

    Surely natalist policies are cheaper than fighting WARS over access to immigrants.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @dvorak
    @dfordoom


    But what we’re seeing in South Korea is not a “dip” – it’s a catastrophic collapse. Their TFR is not much more than a third of the replacement rate. Their population is going to fall very rapidly.
     
    First off, for one's own life, GDP/capita (standard of living) not GDP is what matters. The idea that the financial system can't handle population decline is not proven. Even rigid Japan has adjusted, by slashing the number of traditional salaryman jobs in favor of US-style at-will and part-time jobs. The unemployment rate is low.

    Second, female fashion can change. Divorce among UMC women has dropped significantly from its highs. Fecundity could change rapidly, as well.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

    , @Paperback Writer
    @dfordoom


    But what we’re seeing in South Korea is not a “dip” – it’s a catastrophic collapse.

     

    Why do you think this is?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

  38. @Liberty Mike
    @Paperback Writer

    Put another way, it means "where the white women at?"

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Not to the Chinese. They go for Asian women, in general.

  39. @Priss Factor
    Wisdom of the undeveloped world.

    https://youtu.be/2oYoHSmNDJw

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Much better.

  40. The result is that fertility is highest right now in cultures that place themselves in opposition to modernity

    Yeah, but they’re all anti-modern islands in modern countries. They benefit from low infant mortality and near-universal, maximized longevity, which you only find in WEIRD countries. There is no country based on high fertility that has this. If modernity goes, they go with it.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  41. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    Combining North and South, there are about 75 million Koreans, not including those near the border in China or abroad. And they live on a peninsula. I’d say that’s plenty for a cultural continuum, even anticipating a dip – if the right steps are taken against open borders.
     
    But what we're seeing in South Korea is not a "dip" - it's a catastrophic collapse. Their TFR is not much more than a third of the replacement rate. Their population is going to fall very rapidly.

    You're right about taking the right steps against open borders, except that it's not likely to happen

    Another point about demographic collapse that often gets overlooked is infrastructure collapse. Which seems counter-intuitive. You'd think that falling population would ease pressure on infrastructure but maintaining infrastructure takes money. With a rapidly falling population things like public transportation may become economically unviable. Maintaining ports costs money. Maintaining domestic air travel relies of having enough passengers to make it economic. Maintaining border security costs money. Universities need a certain number of students to keep them viable.

    There are certain types of infrastructure that are more difficult to maintain if you have a population of 15 million rather than 50 million.

    There's also the difficulty of maintaining a high-tech sector.

    Declining population makes a country ever more dependent on export markets. But other countries with declining populations will be competing savagely for access to those export markets and if population is falling everywhere those export markets are going to be shrinking. And you lose economies of scale.

    Which means the pressure on countries like South Korea to "solve" their population problems through mass immigration becomes intense. And where are the immigrants going to come from if populations are plummeting in all East Asian countries? They're going to come from non-East Asian countries.

    So the probability is that in half a century there will still be a political entity called South Korea but there won't be anything Korean about it.

    We're going to see panic responses by governments as population decline really starts to bite.

    We could even conceivably see wars over control of the few remaining sources of immigrants. And picking up on @Paperback Writer's point - we could see wars for control of sources of women of childbearing age.

    Replies: @Catdog, @dvorak, @Paperback Writer

    Surely natalist policies are cheaper than fighting WARS over access to immigrants.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Catdog


    Surely natalist policies are cheaper than fighting WARS over access to immigrants.
     
    The problem is that natalist policies don't work. Ask the Hungarians. They tried it. Their TFR is still at long-term extinction level.

    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle and as @Paperback Writer has pointed out, if modernity goes down the tubes then those societies and those communities that currently have high fertility will go down the tubes as well.

    In a modern society natalist policies are pure wishful thinking.

    Replies: @anon, @Chrisnonymous, @AnotherDad

  42. Marijuana legalization came about in the face of federal opposition.

    States’ Rights works from the left.

    Individual Rights works from the left and occasionally from the right (homeschooling). But right-wing victories are ephemeral, typically. Homeschooling could well become the next major front in the culture war, which is ceaselessly waged by the Establishment against the yeoman citizenry.

  43. @Almost Missouri
    @JL

    Agree. Barack "pot had helped ... maybe a little blow" Obama and his administration of warmed-over '68ers was never really opposed to marijuana. The standard Federal Highway Funds threat was never even broached. Any Federal "pushback" was just a bit of Kabuki to pretend like they were respecting Federal law while things continued moving in the direction they preferred. Opposing the FedGov is much easier when the top Feds are secretly (or not so secretly) on your side.

    A better analogy would be Second Amendment rights, the one significant conservative victory in the last few decades. Even in that case, five top Feds (namely 5/9 of the Supreme Court) were onside—and not even because of political sympathy but just because they read the Constitution.

    But now there will never be another Constitutionalist Supreme Court appointment, and the Dems are openly planning to swamp the existing Constitutionalists in a brazen court packing scheme. So there will never again be any Federal support for any conservative position. The high water mark of First and Second Amendment rights (the Real Civil Rights) is now. It will only get worse from here. Plan accordingly.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Corvinus

    To the frame you apparently carelessly accepted from the Alt Right, it is not the Blue Wavers who incessantly poke the hornets’ nest on the other side of the political fence. It is the Red Menace who cannot rest until all whites are race realists, all Blue Wavers are transformed by hook or by crook into “good Christians”, all fair housing is effectively neutered by freedom of association compacts, all speech has no consequences, and (my personal fav) all refugee boats are sunk.

    Red America sent Trump to Washington not because we wanted to move into Georgetown Condos, but because they were hoodwinked into believing he was “one of them”. Trump, the ever opportunistic grifter who doesn’t own a dog and views life as being transactional in his favor, failed. So a bunch of Red America went to D.C. indeed to make their displeasure known, only to have a significant number of them violate the very tenets they claim to uphold.

    See how rhetoric works, Almost Missouri?

  44. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    Combining North and South, there are about 75 million Koreans, not including those near the border in China or abroad. And they live on a peninsula. I’d say that’s plenty for a cultural continuum, even anticipating a dip – if the right steps are taken against open borders.
     
    But what we're seeing in South Korea is not a "dip" - it's a catastrophic collapse. Their TFR is not much more than a third of the replacement rate. Their population is going to fall very rapidly.

    You're right about taking the right steps against open borders, except that it's not likely to happen

    Another point about demographic collapse that often gets overlooked is infrastructure collapse. Which seems counter-intuitive. You'd think that falling population would ease pressure on infrastructure but maintaining infrastructure takes money. With a rapidly falling population things like public transportation may become economically unviable. Maintaining ports costs money. Maintaining domestic air travel relies of having enough passengers to make it economic. Maintaining border security costs money. Universities need a certain number of students to keep them viable.

    There are certain types of infrastructure that are more difficult to maintain if you have a population of 15 million rather than 50 million.

    There's also the difficulty of maintaining a high-tech sector.

    Declining population makes a country ever more dependent on export markets. But other countries with declining populations will be competing savagely for access to those export markets and if population is falling everywhere those export markets are going to be shrinking. And you lose economies of scale.

    Which means the pressure on countries like South Korea to "solve" their population problems through mass immigration becomes intense. And where are the immigrants going to come from if populations are plummeting in all East Asian countries? They're going to come from non-East Asian countries.

    So the probability is that in half a century there will still be a political entity called South Korea but there won't be anything Korean about it.

    We're going to see panic responses by governments as population decline really starts to bite.

    We could even conceivably see wars over control of the few remaining sources of immigrants. And picking up on @Paperback Writer's point - we could see wars for control of sources of women of childbearing age.

    Replies: @Catdog, @dvorak, @Paperback Writer

    But what we’re seeing in South Korea is not a “dip” – it’s a catastrophic collapse. Their TFR is not much more than a third of the replacement rate. Their population is going to fall very rapidly.

    First off, for one’s own life, GDP/capita (standard of living) not GDP is what matters. The idea that the financial system can’t handle population decline is not proven. Even rigid Japan has adjusted, by slashing the number of traditional salaryman jobs in favor of US-style at-will and part-time jobs. The unemployment rate is low.

    Second, female fashion can change. Divorce among UMC women has dropped significantly from its highs. Fecundity could change rapidly, as well.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    @dvorak

    You’re right, of course, that the fertility rate could change pretty rapidly. But if the peoples who are dying out are to change their behavior and priorities and start having a sane number of children again, they had better do it soon.

    The number and proportion of women of safe childbearing age in Ukraine, the Baltics, South Korea, et al., is declining and is set to decline more rapidly in the near future.

    How much longer can the dying peoples wait to return to national pride, cultural cohesion, more-traditional family strucuture and sex roles, and hard work for the sake of the next generations of their families and their extended family — the nation?

    The longer they wait, the more children each of the few young women will need to have to turn things around. It will get to the point where the few non-brainwashed, non-demoralized women of childbearing age can have four children each and not stop the overall population decline. I’m not singling out the countries you’ve mentioned, either; this criticism and alarm bell should be sounding among white Americans — really, any decently intelligent, civilized, industrious, English-Speaking Americans — too.

    The population decrease we have seen in these countries in recent years will accelerate drastically. It is literally a death spiral.

    Assuming that the South Koreans do not have their own nuclear weapons and that the US will become less able (or perhaps willing) to project military power far abroad, China can walk in and fill “South Korea” with its own Han people within the lifetime of some commenters here.

    Despite its own dangerously low fertility rate, Russia may be able to roll in to the Baltics and Ukraine and claim them within roughly the same timeframe. And if Russia doesn’t, someone else will - perhaps some less racially and culturally similar to the dwindling aged band of natives, and even more brutal, like the Turks or even the Chinese again.

  45. @Almost Missouri
    @Intelligent Dasein

    That line of alarm about "demographic collapse" somewhat baffles me.

    The belief that we somehow "need" perpetual population growth is a chimera. After the demographic ravages of the medieval Black Death, for example (1/3 - 1/2 of Europeans wiped out), there followed a golden age for medieval Deplorables: rising wages, increased rights, cultural flowering. That "demographic collapse" worked out pretty well. And in the current "collapse" no one even has to die agonizingly in a puddle of buboes; instead they're just not begin born.* It's just that back then, there wasn't also a plague-resistant predatory population waiting to take over.

    The planet's population was never going to increase forever. The plateau had to come somewhere. For the productive population, the plateau has already arrived and the decline is beginning. For the parasitical population, however, the plateau hasn't happened yet, and given the infinite brood pool of Sub-Saharan Africa, it may never come.


    Almost Missouri has made the point that, even if birthrates are collapsing everywhere, there are still enough non-white immigration-able people in the world to move to the West and radically alter Western demographics forever. This is true, but it isn’t really my concern.
     
    Surely, once the plutocracy's global logistics start delivering them to your doorstep it will become your concern?

    I think we're mostly on the same page, it's just that what you regard as a minor detail—that the productive are down while the parasitical remain up—I regard as the whole of the immediate problem: demographics only matter comparatively. Everything you and I favor stood triumphant in the past with much smaller productive populations. Today those populations are bigger, but they have been outraced by parasitical dependents who have no intention of releasing their fatal grip on their host.


    Policy should be informed accordingly.
     
    Yes, "should be", but as of today, policy is permanently in the hands of people with the opposite objectives to ours, so I guarantee that policy will be the opposite too.

    BTW, I think I mostly agree with your "downthread" topics, though I would use different language to describe them, as I think would most people who may unwittingly agree with you.

    ------

    *Yes, I'm aware that a tranche of this is that they are being assassinated in utero. Though for purposes of this discussion, in utero assassination may only be marginally worse than extinction via family attrition.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Paperback Writer

    Right. It’s not civilization that depends on high birthrates. It’s capitalism. Big difference, no?

    • Agree: dfordoom
  46. Marijuana legalization was something that the elites wanted, having spent a good deal of their college years stoned. Al Gore & Laura Bush are but two examples.

    Anything else – trannies on your daughter’s b-ball team, for only one example – you’ll get crushed.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @Paperback Writer

    Did they want marijuana legalized for their own recreational use? Or do they want the lower classes to be stoned?

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Paperback Writer

    I'm skeptical. One of the reasons they can't ever pass tough federal gun regulation is not because of the NRA or because of constitutional protections, it's because they know states won't enforce the laws they pass and there won't be anything they can do about it.

  47. @dfordoom
    @songbird


    Combining North and South, there are about 75 million Koreans, not including those near the border in China or abroad. And they live on a peninsula. I’d say that’s plenty for a cultural continuum, even anticipating a dip – if the right steps are taken against open borders.
     
    But what we're seeing in South Korea is not a "dip" - it's a catastrophic collapse. Their TFR is not much more than a third of the replacement rate. Their population is going to fall very rapidly.

    You're right about taking the right steps against open borders, except that it's not likely to happen

    Another point about demographic collapse that often gets overlooked is infrastructure collapse. Which seems counter-intuitive. You'd think that falling population would ease pressure on infrastructure but maintaining infrastructure takes money. With a rapidly falling population things like public transportation may become economically unviable. Maintaining ports costs money. Maintaining domestic air travel relies of having enough passengers to make it economic. Maintaining border security costs money. Universities need a certain number of students to keep them viable.

    There are certain types of infrastructure that are more difficult to maintain if you have a population of 15 million rather than 50 million.

    There's also the difficulty of maintaining a high-tech sector.

    Declining population makes a country ever more dependent on export markets. But other countries with declining populations will be competing savagely for access to those export markets and if population is falling everywhere those export markets are going to be shrinking. And you lose economies of scale.

    Which means the pressure on countries like South Korea to "solve" their population problems through mass immigration becomes intense. And where are the immigrants going to come from if populations are plummeting in all East Asian countries? They're going to come from non-East Asian countries.

    So the probability is that in half a century there will still be a political entity called South Korea but there won't be anything Korean about it.

    We're going to see panic responses by governments as population decline really starts to bite.

    We could even conceivably see wars over control of the few remaining sources of immigrants. And picking up on @Paperback Writer's point - we could see wars for control of sources of women of childbearing age.

    Replies: @Catdog, @dvorak, @Paperback Writer

    But what we’re seeing in South Korea is not a “dip” – it’s a catastrophic collapse.

    Why do you think this is?

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @Paperback Writer

    Because when South Korea modernized (i.e. copied the West), the West was already in its terminal narcissistic phase. They imbibed our decline. Japan did likewise, and China is about 30 years behind but will tread the same path.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  48. @Paperback Writer
    @dfordoom


    But what we’re seeing in South Korea is not a “dip” – it’s a catastrophic collapse.

     

    Why do you think this is?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Because when South Korea modernized (i.e. copied the West), the West was already in its terminal narcissistic phase. They imbibed our decline. Japan did likewise, and China is about 30 years behind but will tread the same path.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Intelligent Dasein

    This is the kind of cheap thinking so prevalent hereabouts that I reject utterly.

    South Korea, Japan, and China are societies with unique histories. If you have nothing to add, then button it up.

    When I need to know something about Japan, I go to Eamonn Fingleton. Anticipating that you'll ask me for a link, I'll tell you to look him up yourself. Fingleton, who lives in Japan, has written that Japan is in no way in decline, and that its demographic policies are carefully thought out. If they decided to turn up the baby-making, they could.

    If anyone else who knows S. Korea can contribute, I'd happily listen.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Intelligent Dasein

  49. @Yahya
    @Almost Missouri


    Since the developed world is itself a product of race and ethnicity, indeed since the term “developed world” itself is really just a euphemism for “whites+Asians”, it’s still a problem of race.
     
    'Scuse me

    http://www.emirates247.com/polopoly_fs/1.689736.1569302648!/image/image.jpg


    http://www.abouther.com/sites/default/files/2020/02/05/saudi_new_media_city.jpg


    http://i.pinimg.com/originals/50/92/99/50929968248a01bcd30406f6543a95e7.jpg

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Almost Missouri

    Arabs didn’t invent any of the building styles in evidence there, and they were probably designed by White architects and built with foreign labor.

    • Replies: @Yahya
    @Mr. Rational


    Arabs didn’t invent any of the building styles in evidence there
     
    Probably true. But that's not the argument I was responding to.

    and they were probably designed by White architects and built with foreign labor.

     

    If you want to turn this into a racial pissing contest, i'm down to play a round or two.

    First things first. The pendulum of history shifts constantly and consistently. One era a group is flying high, the next era its crashing towards the bottom. You ought to remember that before getting on your high horse.

    One such an era was the early Medieval Ages (500-1000 AD), when Arabs were on top, and Europeans were at the bottom. In what Europeans call the Dark Ages, the Islamic World was experiencing its Golden Age of scientific discovery and progress. Not only that, but the Islamic world in general was far more civilized and prosperous than Western Europe.

    From Scott Alexander's "Were There Dark Ages?":

    I’m probably an overly literal person, but whenever I think about dark ages, I think of the modern (and anachronistic for the period in question) association between light, population density, and economic activity:

    http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/reaction/zrx_image19.png

    The Dark Ages in Europe were a time when things would have been more towards the North Korean end of that picture. In fact, you probably could have taken a similar picture at the time, with an east/west instead of north/south axis. From The Muslims of Andalusia:

    [In medieval times], Europe was darkened at sunset, Al-Andalus shone with public lamps; Europe was dirty, Al-Andalus built a thousand baths; Europe lay in mud, Al-Andalus’ streets were paved.
     

    In Al-Andalus, you had great pieces of architecture like the Mosque of Cordoba, elements of which Europeans would later copy in some of their own buildings:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Mezquita_de_C%C3%B3rdoba_desde_el_aire_%28C%C3%B3rdoba%2C_Espa%C3%B1a%29.jpg/2880px-Mezquita_de_C%C3%B3rdoba_desde_el_aire_%28C%C3%B3rdoba%2C_Espa%C3%B1a%29.jpg


    If you take a step back to 2300 B.C, and compare the stone formations in Egypt, to the stone formations in Northern Europe, you'll also find some interesting disparities. For example, the best Northern Euros could come up with at the time was a bunch of random-ass pile of rocks at Stonehenge, which you think is some great achievement, but is just a total joke compared to the Great Pyramids.


    http://img.traveltriangle.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/cover-image-of-Things-To-Do-In-Giza_3rd-april.jpg


    http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200730020156-stonehenge-0420-full-169.jpg


    Alright, I think that's enough for now. Your turn.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @nebulafox, @Mr. Rational

  50. @Mr. Rational
    @Yahya

    Arabs didn't invent any of the building styles in evidence there, and they were probably designed by White architects and built with foreign labor.

    Replies: @Yahya

    Arabs didn’t invent any of the building styles in evidence there

    Probably true. But that’s not the argument I was responding to.

    and they were probably designed by White architects and built with foreign labor.

    If you want to turn this into a racial pissing contest, i’m down to play a round or two.

    [MORE]

    First things first. The pendulum of history shifts constantly and consistently. One era a group is flying high, the next era its crashing towards the bottom. You ought to remember that before getting on your high horse.

    One such an era was the early Medieval Ages (500-1000 AD), when Arabs were on top, and Europeans were at the bottom. In what Europeans call the Dark Ages, the Islamic World was experiencing its Golden Age of scientific discovery and progress. Not only that, but the Islamic world in general was far more civilized and prosperous than Western Europe.

    From Scott Alexander’s “Were There Dark Ages?”:

    I’m probably an overly literal person, but whenever I think about dark ages, I think of the modern (and anachronistic for the period in question) association between light, population density, and economic activity:

    The Dark Ages in Europe were a time when things would have been more towards the North Korean end of that picture. In fact, you probably could have taken a similar picture at the time, with an east/west instead of north/south axis. From The Muslims of Andalusia:

    [In medieval times], Europe was darkened at sunset, Al-Andalus shone with public lamps; Europe was dirty, Al-Andalus built a thousand baths; Europe lay in mud, Al-Andalus’ streets were paved.

    In Al-Andalus, you had great pieces of architecture like the Mosque of Cordoba, elements of which Europeans would later copy in some of their own buildings:

    If you take a step back to 2300 B.C, and compare the stone formations in Egypt, to the stone formations in Northern Europe, you’ll also find some interesting disparities. For example, the best Northern Euros could come up with at the time was a bunch of random-ass pile of rocks at Stonehenge, which you think is some great achievement, but is just a total joke compared to the Great Pyramids.


    Alright, I think that’s enough for now. Your turn.

    • LOL: iffen
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    @Yahya

    Cannot gainsay the thrust of your argument, and thank you as well for the beautiful photos.

    Just wondering, though, what was the RACE of the Egyptian elites and even the general public way back then? Apparently quite different from the Africanized mass of Egyptians in recent centuries:

    https://davidjamesboston.com/new-dna-proof-ancient-egyptians-white/

    https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/were-the-ancient-egyptians-black-or-white-scientists-now-know (flatly stating, “The influx of sub-Saharan genes occurred only in the last 1,300 years.”)

    Beautiful and useful things can be created by people of any race or ethnicity, and have been. White or Christian people shouldn’t ignorantly and childishly downplay the great scientific, cultural, philosophical achievements of non-Europeans or Muslims, Hindus, etc. But in this oft-cited case of the pyramids, let’s not pretend that they were designed by Africans or people genetically resembling current Egyptians.

    Replies: @Yahya, @nebulafox, @Yahya

    , @nebulafox
    @Yahya

    >First things first. The pendulum of history shifts constantly and consistently. One era a group is flying high, the next era its crashing towards the bottom. You ought to remember that before getting on your high horse.

    IMO, I've never bought the wisdom of seeking the cause of present circumstances in what was reality 200 years ago, let alone 2,000. China was probably the most advanced civilization on the planet for centuries, but fell from grace in an astonishingly short amount of time and only have re-assumed their traditional role in the last couple of decades.

    >In Al-Andalus, you had great pieces of architecture like the Mosque of Cordoba, elements of which Europeans would later copy in some of their own buildings:

    It went both ways. You think the Rashiduns, many of whom once fought for the Roman army, thought of the Dome of the Rock's late Roman style architecture all by themselves? ;)

    (On the Byzantine side, the emperor Theophilus was a noted Arabophile who attempted to make an alliance with Umayyad Spain after the disaster at Amorium. Had he lived longer, that could have decisively changed history.)

    >One such an era was the early Medieval Ages (500-1000 AD), when Arabs were on top, and Europeans were at the bottom. In what Europeans call the Dark Ages, the Islamic World was experiencing its Golden Age of scientific discovery and progress. Not only that, but the Islamic world in general was far more civilized and prosperous than Western Europe.

    It didn't stop at 1000. After the Abbasid caliphate disintegrated, the Islamic World remained a healthy, wealthy place, with cutting-edge philosophical and scientific developments coming out of Central Asia until the Mongols showed up. It just wasn't controlled by a single centralized government anymore. The Seljuks tried to revive the mechanisms of the caliphate, but they were never able to fully succeed and quickly fell into their old steppe habits.

    That said, most of the intellectual heavy lifting of the Abbasid Golden Age was done by Persians working from Zoroastrian intellectual traditions that absorbed Islam rather than the other way around. But then, most of the intellectual heavy lifting of Roman civilization centuries earlier was done by Greeks, working out of intellectual traditions that existed when Rome was ruled by escaped criminals.

    The Arabs, like the Latins, excelled at practical endeavors: war, engineering, and administration. Philosophy, medicine, and science, they were happy to be the students and let their highly educated Persian/Greek servants and slaves do the teaching. In this scheme, that would make the Turkic peoples to the north akin to the Germanic peoples who took over the late antique empire: which actually isn't a bad analogy, looking at the dynamics of the slave soldiers.

    , @Mr. Rational
    @Yahya


    One such an era was the early Medieval Ages (500-1000 AD), when Arabs were on top, and Europeans were at the bottom.
     
    There was no such thing as Islam until the 7th century.

    In what Europeans call the Dark Ages, the Islamic World was experiencing its Golden Age of scientific discovery and progress.
     
    Europe was suffering from a breakdown in communications and trade due to Arabic piracy and enslavement after the collapse of the western Roman empire.  Further, it was just plain too cold in much of Europe to support advanced civilization.  It wasn't in Greece and Egypt, and the reigning civilization across the entire area was Greco-Roman until the empire fell.  Does the name "Ptolemy" ring a bell?

    Most of the "Islamic" advances were stolen from conquered peoples (e.g. "arabic" numerals are actually Indian).  Progress continued for a while, then stagnated as innovation was stifled by orthodoxy.  I understand that more books are translated into Swedish every year than Arabic.  This holds across the third world; India publishes less than 1/3 as many books per year as the far less populous United States.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  51. @RoatanBill
    @JL

    holding back federal highway funds

    Suppose the states hold back IRS funds from their citizenry by simply stating that their citizens are no longer required to submit funds to the Fed Gov as a matter of state law? The Fed Gov can only give back what they have previously stolen or from new funny money.

    I realize this becomes a legal pissing contest, but just the temporary hint that people don't have to pay federal taxes would be enough for millions in a populous state to hide behind that state legal advice. Other state's residents would also feel that they have the same right and a cascade of failure ensues in the attempt to collect federal taxes.

    That's like a crack in a dam that grows ever wider till the dam fails.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @TomSchmidt, @Audacious Epigone

    Taxation is going to be largely irrelevant. We spent more than twice what we collected at the Federal level last year. Access to the money from writing debt and monetizing the value of the global reserve currency is what you want to control.

    The Feds have that. They can steal the value of every dollar in existence without making much effort. Taxes pale in comparison.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    @TomSchmidt

    Taxation hasn't been funding gov't to any large extent for quite some time. Deficit spending, the bond market, etc have eclipsed taxes as the primary funding mechanism, so in a sense you are correct that taxes don't matter.

    However, taxes do matter as a symbol of how the system is supposed to work and the Fed Gov absolutely has to maintain the fraud of taxation because it has a Constitutional underpinning. If a state were to eliminate the Federal Income Tax under its laws, the Fed Gov would be forced to react for the optics.

  52. @anon
    @unit472

    The baby boom happened after WW2 because there wasn’t reliable contraception ( birth control pills) until the early 1960’s which was, coincidentally, when the baby boom ended.

    Yet there was a notable baby bust in the 1930's and first half of the 1940's, can you explain that? It's almost as though when people believed they could not afford to feed many children, they did not have many children; yet when Americans were optimistic and believed they could feed many children, they wanted more and birthed more. Strange, but could be true.

    Also while the US baby boom began in 1946, there was nothing like it in other parts of the world for 5 or so years, can you explain that?

    TFR had been declining in the US since the 19th century, can you explain that? In my own geneology there are families in the mid 19th century with 5 children who survived, late 19th century with 3 children, one family right around 1915 with a single child, another family with 4 children. The actual history I can see and read in my own genetic line is nothing like the USA Today level story you are telling.

    The degree of magical thinking surrounding "The Pill" is simply remarkable.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @unit472

    I’ve always thought the Kennedy Assassination ended the Boom. 64 was its last year, and all the babies born through
    August would have been conceived before Kennedy was killed.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @TomSchmidt


    I’ve always thought the Kennedy Assassination ended the Boom. 64 was its last year, and all the babies born through August would have been conceived before Kennedy was killed.
     
    Charles Murray starts his book Coming Apart by describing the day before the Kennedy Assassination. He seems to think that the day Kennedy died was the dividing point between two eras. My first political memory was my second grade teacher telling the class Kennedy had just been shot.

    1964 was when you started having the mainstreaming of the counterculture. Books like On the Road had characters who didn't want to be tied down with a wife and children. The writer Dan Wakefield in his book on New York City in the nineteen fifties described how young people from all over the country moved to New York and formed the nucleus of the Beat Generation. Having a wife, children and a conventional job were not part of this lifestyle.

    The counterculture started to seep out into the general culture in 1964. The Beatles seem innocuous now but adults were shocked by them at the time. It was even worse than Elvis swiveling his hips. Other aspects of the counterculture that led to a movement away from having children were feminism, beginning with the 1963 publication of The Feminine Mystique, and the fear of overpopulation, starting with Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb. Near the end of his life Ehrlich realized that the only people who had listened to him and stopped having kids were white college girls and it had led to a dysgenic effect as they all turned into career women and dog moms.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @dfordoom

  53. @TomSchmidt
    @RoatanBill

    Taxation is going to be largely irrelevant. We spent more than twice what we collected at the Federal level last year. Access to the money from writing debt and monetizing the value of the global reserve currency is what you want to control.

    The Feds have that. They can steal the value of every dollar in existence without making much effort. Taxes pale in comparison.

    Replies: @RoatanBill

    Taxation hasn’t been funding gov’t to any large extent for quite some time. Deficit spending, the bond market, etc have eclipsed taxes as the primary funding mechanism, so in a sense you are correct that taxes don’t matter.

    However, taxes do matter as a symbol of how the system is supposed to work and the Fed Gov absolutely has to maintain the fraud of taxation because it has a Constitutional underpinning. If a state were to eliminate the Federal Income Tax under its laws, the Fed Gov would be forced to react for the optics.

  54. @Catdog
    The debate on the right now seems to be which of three paths we take from here.

    1. Vote them out in 2022/2024

    2. Civil war

    3. Create alternative institutions and try for peaceful secession

    Remarkably, there is apparently a broad consensus that 1 is the least viable.

    A month ago I would have thought that 2 was the best option. Now, no. I was honestly expecting a wave of right-wing violence after Jan 6. If there was a single incident of it, it would have been all over the news. But there was NOTHING. Not a single person out of 74 million decided that they had nothing to lose. Incredible. BLM causes a billion dollars of damage because of a dead junkie, and our response to a coup is to grudgingly accept it. If white anger is a bell curve, with all that's happened, we still haven't even hit the close edge. We would lose a civil war not because we couldn't win, but because we wouldn't even bother to fight.

    For 3, AM is right that we will not be allowed to have alternative institutions. We already aren't even allowed to be on the internet. So as AE says any alternative institutions will need to be small and local. But small and local alternative institutions can't overcome globohomo.

    The chances of things getting better in our own lifetime seem low. Many hope that a financial collapse would set change in motion, but certainly globohomo would be able to leverage such a situation to make itself stronger and its enemies weaker. Some also hope that the internal contradictions of globohomo capitalism will cause the system to collapse on itself, followed by a proletariat revolution. Well.

    I think all three paths currently are non-viable, but we can take steps to make them viable. We can take those steps while we wait for the storm to break and an opportunity to present itself.

    Things we can focus on, that are easy and achievable:

    Leadership. I think whites are mostly unwilling to take matters into their own hands. They will only act if they have a leader. Unlike the South in the 1860s, the dissident right does not have a storehouse of competent leaders. It's incredible, but we don't. Trump was such a poor leader that an imaginary leader named Q had to be invented. Vdare has an article about how the next leaders of the movement could appear at any moment, with one good speech. I hope so. Anyone sticking their neck out right now is brave.

    Right-wing narrative control. We can't drown out leftists, but we certainly have the power to drown out the neocons and MIGAs. Gab could be a valuable forward operating base for redpilling the boomers with spicy memes. A Tea Party 3.0 could be more effectively protected from rino subversion now than in the pre-Trump era. It's Okay to Be White is still a good tactic. If you know people who still listen to gatekept talk radio, teach them how to use podcasts and recommend a few people.

    Repeal and replace the Republican party. Friends don't let friends vote Republican. Trump kneecapped them, now we cut the throat. If we can get 25-30% of Republican voters to stay home in 2022 it will be a great victory. If we want to challenge R incumbents with 3rd party candidates, if not to win, at least to steal votes away from them, we need to start planning candidates and campaigns now.

    Replies: @216, @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    Things we can focus on, that are easy and achievable:

    Extremely black-pilled take coming up.

    It may be that the only thing to focus on is survival. Personal survival, and the survival of your loved ones.

    When you look at some of the significant social and cultural revolutions of history – the Late Bronze Age Collapse, the fall of the Roman Empire, the Black Death, the Industrial Revolution – some had positive long-term consequences and some had negative long-term consequences but they were unstoppable. The only sane response was to make sure you were one of those who survived, and (If you were very lucky) maybe even one of those who thrived.

    There wasn’t much point in trying to come up with strategies for stopping these events from happening. In fifth century Rome there wasn’t much point in wearing a Make Rome Great Again hat.

    It’s possible that the long-term consequences of the Great Demographic Collapse will be positive but it’s entirely unpredictable and in the short to medium term things are likely to be pretty rough. Total economic chaos is possible. Wars are very likely.

    Aiming to survive might be the best strategy.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    @dfordoom

    In fifth century Rome there wasn’t much point in wearing a Make Rome Great Again hat.

    On the other hand, in the third century it didn't seem like there was, either, but the empire made it out to Diocletian.

  55. @anon
    @unit472

    The baby boom happened after WW2 because there wasn’t reliable contraception ( birth control pills) until the early 1960’s which was, coincidentally, when the baby boom ended.

    Yet there was a notable baby bust in the 1930's and first half of the 1940's, can you explain that? It's almost as though when people believed they could not afford to feed many children, they did not have many children; yet when Americans were optimistic and believed they could feed many children, they wanted more and birthed more. Strange, but could be true.

    Also while the US baby boom began in 1946, there was nothing like it in other parts of the world for 5 or so years, can you explain that?

    TFR had been declining in the US since the 19th century, can you explain that? In my own geneology there are families in the mid 19th century with 5 children who survived, late 19th century with 3 children, one family right around 1915 with a single child, another family with 4 children. The actual history I can see and read in my own genetic line is nothing like the USA Today level story you are telling.

    The degree of magical thinking surrounding "The Pill" is simply remarkable.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @unit472

    There were probably a lot more babies being born than you think in the late nineteenth century and pre WW2 US. Counties ran ‘children’s homes’ for children whose parents could not take care of them and religious groups had ‘orphanages’ but the chlldren weren’t necessarily orphans.

    One big reason those arrangments declined in the post war era was the rise in working class wages. Wealth was not as concentrated as it was in first half of the twentieth century. Income and inheritance taxes were high and a CEO might make 10 to 100 times what the average worker made not 1000 times.

    • Replies: @anon
    @unit472

    There were probably a lot more babies being born than you think in the late nineteenth and pre WW2

    The census bureau disagrees with you. Take your magical thinking up with them.

  56. @Catdog
    @dfordoom

    Surely natalist policies are cheaper than fighting WARS over access to immigrants.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Surely natalist policies are cheaper than fighting WARS over access to immigrants.

    The problem is that natalist policies don’t work. Ask the Hungarians. They tried it. Their TFR is still at long-term extinction level.

    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle and as has pointed out, if modernity goes down the tubes then those societies and those communities that currently have high fertility will go down the tubes as well.

    In a modern society natalist policies are pure wishful thinking.

    • Replies: @anon
    @dfordoom

    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle

    Is that what Israel has done?

    In a modern society natalist policies are pure wishful thinking.

    Is Israel a modern society?

    https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/israel-demographics/

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @dfordoom

    I don't about Hungary, but in Japan their "failed natalist policies" were all pretty weak stuff, like increasing maternity leave. Recently someone was talking about giving couples 100,000 yen for each child they have--that's about $1000 per kid. That's chump change. I agree that natalist policies may be doomed to failure--fertility decline in Japan at least is an unfortunate combination of factors, like mismatch between lifestyle expectations and economic realities or declining interest in traditions including family life, that are very powerful psychologically and hard to counter with simple incentives--but it's also true that extreme measures have not been tried in many places. For example, countering the specific things that people do and spend money on in place of children. Imagine if long-distance travel tickets were only available to those with two children or more. Or heavy luxury taxes were placed on whole categories of goods with corresponding tax rebates available for people per child. Or imagine if living at the same address as your parents were banned after age 20. Etc.

    I agree with your comments about the difficulties related to, eg, infrastructure, but it's also true that growth had to stop and reverse and some point, which means that dealing with those problems has to happen. Perhaps it is better that it happen now. Lower living standards for a population of 8 billion in decline is better than mass starvation for a population of, say, 12 billion in decline. Ultimately, smart people ought to be thinking about how we do a permanent population drawdown without having to give up conveniences like the Internet not to mention more basic things like vegetables in winter.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @AnotherDad
    @dfordoom


    The problem is that natalist policies don’t work. Ask the Hungarians. They tried it. Their TFR is still at long-term extinction level.

    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle and as @Paperback Writer has pointed out, if modernity goes down the tubes then those societies and those communities that currently have high fertility will go down the tubes as well.

    In a modern society natalist policies are pure wishful thinking.
     

    dfordoom, this is a sweeping claim backed by little real world experience.

    The correct statement would be something like "The weak tea natalist policies tried so far don't work very well."

    How about a real natalist policy. For example:
    -- Singles tax rate = 66%
    -- Married tax rate = 33% (then reverts to single rate if say five childless years)
    -- Married with children under 18 tax rate = 0%.
    -- Children post 18 tax rate = 25%.
    (Tune appropriately including number of kids, ages, etc.)

    In fact, mathematically some natalist policy set must work unless humans are afflicted by some sort of weird anti-natal virus that afflicts every single human and selection is useless.

    There's basically zero evidence this is the case. Young women still like the idea of getting married;
    still like the idea of babies. Lots of them pick careers that are obvious "nurturing"--often nurturing children.

    What is the case is:
    -- there are a lot of distractions in the modern world
    -- globohomo cultures pushes female careerism and denigrates healthy fertile motherhood
    -- globohomo policies--like mass immigration--make family formation less affordable

    The barrier is not effective policy. I've got effective policies. The problem is the reigning globo-homo narrative and anti-national elites. Get over the political/cultural hump where you have nationalist leadership with a mandate to preserve the nation, and the policy set isn't all that complicated.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  57. @unit472
    @anon

    There were probably a lot more babies being born than you think in the late nineteenth century and pre WW2 US. Counties ran 'children's homes' for children whose parents could not take care of them and religious groups had 'orphanages' but the chlldren weren't necessarily orphans.

    One big reason those arrangments declined in the post war era was the rise in working class wages. Wealth was not as concentrated as it was in first half of the twentieth century. Income and inheritance taxes were high and a CEO might make 10 to 100 times what the average worker made not 1000 times.

    Replies: @anon

    There were probably a lot more babies being born than you think in the late nineteenth and pre WW2

    The census bureau disagrees with you. Take your magical thinking up with them.

  58. @Nodwink
    The anti-Establishment rebellions have been crushed. The swamp has won.

    Trumpism - which was the least rebellious of these - will be wiped out. The Capitol insurrection was a fatal mistake, which could leave Trump himself in prison. The modern equivalent of Hitler's invasion of Russia.

    On the Left, Bernie-ism was destroyed with a few phone calls from Barack Obama. All of the Berniecrats within the Democratic Party fell in line, with barely a whimper. In Britain, Corbynism was destroyed in the 2019 election, with no chance of returning any time soon.

    The elite grip on power is stronger than it was five years ago.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Barack Obama's secret Unz account, @Nodwink, @RadicalCenter, @Patrick McNally

    The Capitol insurrection was a fatal mistake, which could leave Trump himself in prison. The modern equivalent of Hitler’s invasion of Russia.

    Why describe it as such? You’re propagating a lie that was conceived to harm you. It’s quite clear by now that the only violent actors were agents of the state; the few high-spirited Trump supporters who got swept along as cover do not constitute an insurrection, nor were they ordered in by Trump.

    All this doomsaying is quite misplaced. Even if we grant that Trump is out for the count – and I don’t see why we should think that at this point, 25,000 soldiers in the capital being clear evidence that something strange is afoot – Trump will have only been martyred, and the regime totally delegitimized. Trumpism, broadly defined, has never been more popular, and the regime’s ability to propagandize never weaker. Don’t be gay.

  59. Marijuana legalization

    Jesus fucking Christ

  60. @dfordoom
    @Catdog


    Surely natalist policies are cheaper than fighting WARS over access to immigrants.
     
    The problem is that natalist policies don't work. Ask the Hungarians. They tried it. Their TFR is still at long-term extinction level.

    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle and as @Paperback Writer has pointed out, if modernity goes down the tubes then those societies and those communities that currently have high fertility will go down the tubes as well.

    In a modern society natalist policies are pure wishful thinking.

    Replies: @anon, @Chrisnonymous, @AnotherDad

    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle

    Is that what Israel has done?

    In a modern society natalist policies are pure wishful thinking.

    Is Israel a modern society?

    https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/israel-demographics/

    • Thanks: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @anon



    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle
     
    Is that what Israel has done?
     


    In a modern society natalist policies are pure wishful thinking.
     
    Is Israel a modern society?
     
    I'll make two points. Firstly, there are geographical, geopolitical, social and cultural conditions that are unique to Israel and cannot be replicated anywhere else. We can't adopt the "Israel solution" because it won't work anywhere else. Israel is not a modern society in quite the same way that Australia or Norway are modern societies. It's an outlier in lots of ways.

    Secondly, demographic collapse is something that has started at different times and proceeded at different paces in different societies. The factors that cause demographic collapse (industrialisation, urbanisation, capitalism, consumerism, mass education, mass media, rising prosperity and increasing lifestyle choices) developed very slowly in the West over the course of a couple of centuries. As a result demographic collapse happened very slowly in the West, beginning in the mid-19th century and still continuing today.

    The factors that cause demographic collapse have hit other societies (such as South Korea) very very quickly and as a result demographic collapse has been incredibly swift.

    It's quite likely that Israel is just lagging behind the West in this respect. The fact that Israel's birth rate is quite healthy at the moment does not imply that things won't change for them. It could change and it could change in a single generation. Especially among secular Israelis. I suspect that fertility will plummet among secular Israelis.

    Replies: @anon, @nebulafox

  61. @TomSchmidt
    @anon

    I've always thought the Kennedy Assassination ended the Boom. 64 was its last year, and all the babies born through
    August would have been conceived before Kennedy was killed.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    I’ve always thought the Kennedy Assassination ended the Boom. 64 was its last year, and all the babies born through August would have been conceived before Kennedy was killed.

    Charles Murray starts his book Coming Apart by describing the day before the Kennedy Assassination. He seems to think that the day Kennedy died was the dividing point between two eras. My first political memory was my second grade teacher telling the class Kennedy had just been shot.

    1964 was when you started having the mainstreaming of the counterculture. Books like On the Road had characters who didn’t want to be tied down with a wife and children. The writer Dan Wakefield in his book on New York City in the nineteen fifties described how young people from all over the country moved to New York and formed the nucleus of the Beat Generation. Having a wife, children and a conventional job were not part of this lifestyle.

    The counterculture started to seep out into the general culture in 1964. The Beatles seem innocuous now but adults were shocked by them at the time. It was even worse than Elvis swiveling his hips. Other aspects of the counterculture that led to a movement away from having children were feminism, beginning with the 1963 publication of The Feminine Mystique, and the fear of overpopulation, starting with Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb. Near the end of his life Ehrlich realized that the only people who had listened to him and stopped having kids were white college girls and it had led to a dysgenic effect as they all turned into career women and dog moms.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Mark G.

    Agreed that the fertility issue is tied to sociological trends. I think it is the rise of youth culture ultimately. Obviously, young people have always enjoyed being young, but increasingly culture suggests that facets of youth are what life is ultimately about. This is related to other things like urbanization and the end of widespread farming, increasing percentages of people going to college, the decline in serious drama and the rise of comedy that relies on generational membership. Many more things, but all driving people toward youthful ways of thinking. For example, children don't worry about how to put bread on the table, but they do worry about how they look. The replacement of adult considerations about the world as the social norm is a msjor contributor to fertility decline in my opinion.

    , @dfordoom
    @Mark G.


    The counterculture started to seep out into the general culture in 1964.
     
    That's basically true. By 1964 the Hollywood Production Code had become more or less inoperative.

    I've always thought of 1967 as a watershed year. The release of Bonnie and Clyde, the release of Jefferson Airplane's Surrealistic Pillow album, the Beatles' Sergeant Pepper album. that was the year of the Summer of Love.

    1967 was the year that the drug culture really went mainstream. So you could say that in 1964 the counterculture started to seep out into the general culture and by 1967 the seeping out had become a flood.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

  62. @Nodwink
    The anti-Establishment rebellions have been crushed. The swamp has won.

    Trumpism - which was the least rebellious of these - will be wiped out. The Capitol insurrection was a fatal mistake, which could leave Trump himself in prison. The modern equivalent of Hitler's invasion of Russia.

    On the Left, Bernie-ism was destroyed with a few phone calls from Barack Obama. All of the Berniecrats within the Democratic Party fell in line, with barely a whimper. In Britain, Corbynism was destroyed in the 2019 election, with no chance of returning any time soon.

    The elite grip on power is stronger than it was five years ago.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Barack Obama's secret Unz account, @Nodwink, @RadicalCenter, @Patrick McNally

    I’ve heard people on social media describe the Capitol riots as “liberals’ 9/11,” and it looks to be an accurate assessment.

  63. @dfordoom
    @Catdog


    Surely natalist policies are cheaper than fighting WARS over access to immigrants.
     
    The problem is that natalist policies don't work. Ask the Hungarians. They tried it. Their TFR is still at long-term extinction level.

    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle and as @Paperback Writer has pointed out, if modernity goes down the tubes then those societies and those communities that currently have high fertility will go down the tubes as well.

    In a modern society natalist policies are pure wishful thinking.

    Replies: @anon, @Chrisnonymous, @AnotherDad

    I don’t about Hungary, but in Japan their “failed natalist policies” were all pretty weak stuff, like increasing maternity leave. Recently someone was talking about giving couples 100,000 yen for each child they have–that’s about $1000 per kid. That’s chump change. I agree that natalist policies may be doomed to failure–fertility decline in Japan at least is an unfortunate combination of factors, like mismatch between lifestyle expectations and economic realities or declining interest in traditions including family life, that are very powerful psychologically and hard to counter with simple incentives–but it’s also true that extreme measures have not been tried in many places. For example, countering the specific things that people do and spend money on in place of children. Imagine if long-distance travel tickets were only available to those with two children or more. Or heavy luxury taxes were placed on whole categories of goods with corresponding tax rebates available for people per child. Or imagine if living at the same address as your parents were banned after age 20. Etc.

    I agree with your comments about the difficulties related to, eg, infrastructure, but it’s also true that growth had to stop and reverse and some point, which means that dealing with those problems has to happen. Perhaps it is better that it happen now. Lower living standards for a population of 8 billion in decline is better than mass starvation for a population of, say, 12 billion in decline. Ultimately, smart people ought to be thinking about how we do a permanent population drawdown without having to give up conveniences like the Internet not to mention more basic things like vegetables in winter.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Chrisnonymous


    but it’s also true that extreme measures have not been tried in many places. For example, countering the specific things that people do and spend money on in place of children.
     
    It's hard to say if really draconian pro-natalist policies involving the stick as well as the carrot would work. I think we're a long long way from a situation in which such policies would be politically viable and I suspect that most people will choose higher immigration levels in preference to such policies for as long as immigration remains viable.

    Of course the biggest problem of all is that the overwhelming majority of the population is unaware that demographic collapse is even a problem.

    I agree with your comments about the difficulties related to, eg, infrastructure, but it’s also true that growth had to stop and reverse and some point, which means that dealing with those problems has to happen. Perhaps it is better that it happen now....Ultimately, smart people ought to be thinking about how we do a permanent population drawdown without having to give up conveniences like the Internet
     
    Yeah, I agree with that. If it's an unstoppable problem then we need to find ways of living with it.

    I don't see how we can do that without abandoning the current model of capitalism. And the business sector will fight tooth and nail to avoid facing up to a reality that it isn't going to like.

    So the situation will have to get much much worse before anything sensible is done. When TFRs everywhere start dropping to around 0.7 then something might be done.

    It's the same with all the major problems modern society faces - things are nowhere near bad enough to make people accept the necessity for tackling those problems.
  64. @Mark G.
    @TomSchmidt


    I’ve always thought the Kennedy Assassination ended the Boom. 64 was its last year, and all the babies born through August would have been conceived before Kennedy was killed.
     
    Charles Murray starts his book Coming Apart by describing the day before the Kennedy Assassination. He seems to think that the day Kennedy died was the dividing point between two eras. My first political memory was my second grade teacher telling the class Kennedy had just been shot.

    1964 was when you started having the mainstreaming of the counterculture. Books like On the Road had characters who didn't want to be tied down with a wife and children. The writer Dan Wakefield in his book on New York City in the nineteen fifties described how young people from all over the country moved to New York and formed the nucleus of the Beat Generation. Having a wife, children and a conventional job were not part of this lifestyle.

    The counterculture started to seep out into the general culture in 1964. The Beatles seem innocuous now but adults were shocked by them at the time. It was even worse than Elvis swiveling his hips. Other aspects of the counterculture that led to a movement away from having children were feminism, beginning with the 1963 publication of The Feminine Mystique, and the fear of overpopulation, starting with Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb. Near the end of his life Ehrlich realized that the only people who had listened to him and stopped having kids were white college girls and it had led to a dysgenic effect as they all turned into career women and dog moms.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @dfordoom

    Agreed that the fertility issue is tied to sociological trends. I think it is the rise of youth culture ultimately. Obviously, young people have always enjoyed being young, but increasingly culture suggests that facets of youth are what life is ultimately about. This is related to other things like urbanization and the end of widespread farming, increasing percentages of people going to college, the decline in serious drama and the rise of comedy that relies on generational membership. Many more things, but all driving people toward youthful ways of thinking. For example, children don’t worry about how to put bread on the table, but they do worry about how they look. The replacement of adult considerations about the world as the social norm is a msjor contributor to fertility decline in my opinion.

  65. @unit472
    @Almost Missouri

    Problem for Trump was how was he to run the USG. He wasn't like Reagan with a team of loyal people from his time as Governor of California ready to staff his White House. State, Defense and the DoJ were not packed full of Swamp monsters. Carter was a one term president and DC just wasn't as corrupt a town in 1980 has it had become by 2016.

    Trump could not bring his own Ed Meese or John Mitchell to run the DOJ. The Swamp had too many skeletons to hide and would never confirm a non swamp monster to run Justice, the FBI, CIA etc. They barely allowed Sessions to hold the post but only once he had been neutralized. Trump needed that second term to even have a chance to drain the swamp but, as we saw, the swamp was not about to let him have one.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Trump ran a successful real estate enterprise and a successful media enterprise. Surely there were a handful of reliable, competent, non-criminal people he could have borrowed from these? He only needed fifty votes in the Senate to confirm them. When Trump came into office, the Senate was majority Republican. They may not all have liked Trump, but they all knew better than to vote against him if they wanted to retain their seats. The other thing about those we call “swamp monsters” is that they do not necessarily perceive themselves that way, so they don’t conceive it as hazardous to themselves to confirm any given nominee. When we say “drain the swamp”, most Senators don’t think they are the ones we mean. In other words, I don’t think confirmation was such a great hurdle. And even if it had been, the Obama administration had already normalized the practice of using un-Senate-approved “czars” to run large swathes of the Federal government. Or Trump could just have used acting cabinet members until the Senate gave in. On appointments, as on so many other things, Trump naively thought he would ingratiate himself inside the beltway by giving them chunks of his administration. Instead he got worse worst of both worlds: they still despised him, but he had given away the power to do anything about it.

    But this is really beside the point. Trump didn’t need any particular cabinet appointment to reverse any of Obama’s executive orders, to ban foreign lobbyist fundraising, to prosecute Hillary Clinton, to deport illegals, to end birthright citizenship, to “end DACA on day one”, to bring troops home, to ditch Common Core, or to build the border wall, as he promised. There are a slew of other objectives that required legislative cooperation though not cabinet appointments. Those too are undone. You can say that’s Congress’s fault, but the President has a lot of power to sway Congress if he chooses to use it. Trump didn’t. All those targets that were threatened but unremoved are now permanently part of the landscape.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @unit472
    @Almost Missouri

    Yes Trump had the Senate in 2017 if you call Ben Sasse, Richard Burr and Sue Collins 'Republican'. So nominees like Gina Haspel could sail through a Senate Confirmation but John Racliffe or Brett Kavanaugh? Bill Barr went through mainly because , as events proved, he was not going to prosecute anyone involved in the coup against Trump.

    How deep is the corruption at the DoJ and FBI. Well they both had the Weiner laptop since 2016 and the Hunter Biden laptop since January 2020. Any indictments? Of course not. Andrew McCabe, cited for 4 counts of 'lack of candor' by his own Department IG not prosecuted. That staffer at the SSCI who leaked Page's FISA warrant to his twenty something concubine journalist, a slap on the wrist lest he drag Senator Mark Warner to the witness stand. Compare that to what was dished out to Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos.

    Immigration is a difficult subject. Trump did what he could. Building his wall was no easy thing and gaining the cooperation of Mexico's president on stopping the caravans and keeping migrants there to await the outcome of their asylum claims a major accomplishment. The idea that Trump could just start the mass deportation of people with DACA status to countries they've never been to is naive at best. The optics would have been terrible and ignores the fact that they are now adults. Trump raised the price immigrants must pay to become citizens to $5000 plus their attorneys fees.
    That is a pretty effective deterrent to a DACA person.

    As we can't undo the past Trump had to work with what is not what he might like to have been. I'll end with what might be in regards to Latinos. Its about Starr County, Texas. A place I had never heard of but for an article about their problem with Covid. It is the most heavily hispanic county in the US (95%) and the third poorest ( per capital income $7069). Its 60,000 people have voted Democrat in every election since 1892. Here is an amazing bit of info from Wikipedia.

    In 1988 the county gave Michael Dukakis his highest percentage in the nation.[16] Starr County is one of only 17 counties in Texas that gave the majority of their votes to Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who received 7,199 votes (74 percent) while George W. Bush received 2,552 votes (26 percent). In 2008, Illinois Senator Barack H. Obama won Starr County with 8,233 votes (84 percent). Arizona Republican Senator John McCain received 1,488 votes (15 percent). In 2020, Donald Trump came within five points of winning the county, receiving 8,224 votes.

    Maybe instead of being unremittingly hostile to Mexican immigrants the GOP might want to find out what secret sauce Trump found to win their votes.If we want to keep Texas and Florida we're going to have to.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  66. @Yahya
    @Almost Missouri


    Since the developed world is itself a product of race and ethnicity, indeed since the term “developed world” itself is really just a euphemism for “whites+Asians”, it’s still a problem of race.
     
    'Scuse me

    http://www.emirates247.com/polopoly_fs/1.689736.1569302648!/image/image.jpg


    http://www.abouther.com/sites/default/files/2020/02/05/saudi_new_media_city.jpg


    http://i.pinimg.com/originals/50/92/99/50929968248a01bcd30406f6543a95e7.jpg

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @Almost Missouri

    Are Arabs not part of “whites+Asians”? If not, what about Persians, whose cities are less glittering but whose location is more Eurasiac? Turks? Kurds? Armenians? Baluchs? What about Caucasians? Are Caucasians white? Or are Cauc-asians Asian? Neither? Both?

    “Asia” is how the Greeks referred to everything east of the Aegean.

    Wikipedia editors still agree 3000 years later.

  67. @Mark G.
    @TomSchmidt


    I’ve always thought the Kennedy Assassination ended the Boom. 64 was its last year, and all the babies born through August would have been conceived before Kennedy was killed.
     
    Charles Murray starts his book Coming Apart by describing the day before the Kennedy Assassination. He seems to think that the day Kennedy died was the dividing point between two eras. My first political memory was my second grade teacher telling the class Kennedy had just been shot.

    1964 was when you started having the mainstreaming of the counterculture. Books like On the Road had characters who didn't want to be tied down with a wife and children. The writer Dan Wakefield in his book on New York City in the nineteen fifties described how young people from all over the country moved to New York and formed the nucleus of the Beat Generation. Having a wife, children and a conventional job were not part of this lifestyle.

    The counterculture started to seep out into the general culture in 1964. The Beatles seem innocuous now but adults were shocked by them at the time. It was even worse than Elvis swiveling his hips. Other aspects of the counterculture that led to a movement away from having children were feminism, beginning with the 1963 publication of The Feminine Mystique, and the fear of overpopulation, starting with Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb. Near the end of his life Ehrlich realized that the only people who had listened to him and stopped having kids were white college girls and it had led to a dysgenic effect as they all turned into career women and dog moms.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @dfordoom

    The counterculture started to seep out into the general culture in 1964.

    That’s basically true. By 1964 the Hollywood Production Code had become more or less inoperative.

    I’ve always thought of 1967 as a watershed year. The release of Bonnie and Clyde, the release of Jefferson Airplane’s Surrealistic Pillow album, the Beatles’ Sergeant Pepper album. that was the year of the Summer of Love.

    1967 was the year that the drug culture really went mainstream. So you could say that in 1964 the counterculture started to seep out into the general culture and by 1967 the seeping out had become a flood.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @dfordoom

    I was born during the summer of love. I once asked my dad about the time period I was born in. His said when people think of the 60s they think of hippies and the counterculture but they were deeply unpopular at the time with the mainstream of society, more so than people think today.

    There was as you say an adult culture and it was the dominant culture. This differs from today where I don't see such a seperation between generations. Young people can say "OK Boomer" but in reality they are closer in mentality to boomers than boomers were to their elders.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

  68. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Almost Missouri


    Surely, once the plutocracy’s global logistics start delivering them to your doorstep it will become your concern?
     
    It is very concerning. I just meant that it was not my concern in this particular discussion. I do think, however, that the clock is running out on the rationale, the ability, and even the mere possibility of bringing ever increasing numbers of migrants into the West. Even if our current elites stay in power, it will not always be in their interests to continue the same policy forever. They will use the hordes for as long as they have to, but they will eventually abandon them just like they've already abandoned us.

    After the demographic ravages of the medieval Black Death, for example
     
    I think there are two important differences here. First, the Black Death was a pretty indiscriminate killer affecting old and young alike, thus shrinking society but preserving its natural age distribution; but a protracted population pyramid inversion, where every generation is smaller than the last, leaves you with permanently skewed dependency ratio that locks society into a downward spiral of economic stagnation. Second, the Black Death was a plague, an exogenous factor that was menacing a society already in a basically healthy condition, whereas we actually have a culture of death. It is to this I wish now to turn.

    I might be best to just start with a comprehensive description of the problem. I know Rosie and dfordoom have repeatedly asked for one, so here it is.

    Many causes have been proffered to explain demographic decline, from the decline of the hierarchy and the patriarchy, the education of women, modern convenience, and so forth. These are all symptoms, not causes. The real cause is the lack of a foreign existential threat.

    For, in "traditional" societies---and here the word "traditional" comprises everything from Beduin tribes to city-states and even Westphalian nation-states up to the year 1900 so---the whole impetus of cultural life is provided by the fact that these entities are constantly trying to destroy one another. "Foreign policy" thus becomes the raison d'être and the primum mobile of cultural existence, and it governs how everything else is organized, including those symptoms which are sometimes erroneously thought to be causes. Here we have a "patriarchy" because the men who do the fighting are the only ones standing between the tribe and annihilation, and here we have a "hierarchy" because the men who lead and command are the most necessary and valuable of the man-type. Here women are married off early and spend their lives doing housework, making babies, and raising children, not because they are oppressed but because, in the grand project of keeping the state fit for its essential purpose of confronting the foreign threat, this also is necessary work and who else can do it except the woman? Here the keeping of women and the training of children are tightly controlled and serious matters, not a field of experimentation for effete playwrights and bureaucratic ninnies.

    But in addition to this, every facet of the culture, from first to last, is either consciously or unconsciously (and mostly unconsciously) stylized with reference to the main theme. A thousand different details about the architecture of the house, the display of public art, standards of manners and dress, the vesting of public authority, the customs of craftwork and markets---it's all comprehensibly "pro-natal" because it's all made to harmonize with central criterion of keeping the state in fighting form.

    When the external threat is removed through the overcoming and absorption of all enemies, or simply through successful urbanization progressively making man's environment more and more artificial, thereupon enters what Christopher Lasch so expertly described as the "Age of Narcissism." It is here that, for the first time, the old social order is felt to be restrictive and protests are raised against it, and it is here that the one foreign threat is replaced by the war of all against all. In the old order, one's identity extended out to one's family and clan, not only laterally in space but also forward and backward in time. Property was felt to be something received from ancestors and held in trust for descendants, not something to be ruthlessly exploited to maximize present profits. It would have been insanity in the past to act against the interests of one's family, but in the Age of Narcissism one's own parents, children and spouses become the enemy. They are the principle threats to the further expansion of one's own profligacy and self-indulgence, which is all that remains open to modern man's ambition.

    And finally, this is precisely why all the thousand details of culture, which in the past facilitated natalism, now militate so heavily against it. The architecture of our houses is not conducive to raising children, our work schedules and practices are prohibitive, childless sociopaths and homosexuals have every advantage over the family man in corporate culture, and the freedom of adults to engage in every perversion is prioritized in the public sphere over against the wellbeing of children. Our "culture of death" makes childrearing more difficult in every particular because it's all organized around the exaltation of the individual ego.

    No economic incentives or any other changes to our material condition will reverse this. Religion will not help because its behavior-constraining apparatus has been removed from the public square and the number of people who truly believe enough to be countercultural for God's sake has been shown to be, as it is in every age, but a little flock. Even war, famine, disease, and cataclysm will do nothing to shock people back into condition when once they have experienced the liberation of the ego; with the very world falling down around them, they will continue only to pine for the fleshpots of Egypt rather than reevaluate the meaning of their existence.

    This is why demographic collapse is inevitable, why it will go on for a long time, and why it will not offer the same kind of opportunities that the Black Death did. Our demographic decline is our cultural decline and vice verse. It is the dying off of a dissolute and spiritually broken people with nothing left to fight for.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Wency

    First, I want to say that this is one of the most interesting comments I’ve read here. I think I largely agree with it.

    Second, I want to ask if this is your original analysis or if you adapted something, say from Aristotle, Aquinas or Machiavelli that has eluded me?

    Third, I want to raise some questions, and learn what you make of them:

    Rome, the Ottomans, various Chinese empires, the Alexandrian empire, among others, became decadent and collapsed, despite facing foreign threats, though arguably not existential threats. Would you say these succumbed to the same thing you are describing?

    It would seem that a “traditional society” (which may be the only kind of long-term society) can have two fates: extinction due to conquest or extinction due to decadence. Well, maybe there is a third possibility: never succumbing to either the former Scylla nor the latter Charybdis, forever shooting the Straits of Messina. Agree?

    For practical statecraft, this may be primarily a matter of reserving the state to its native culture, or in other words: for cultural longevity, do not become an empire!

    If so, a corollary of which would be: too late for the US now. If so, was there an identifiable point at which it became too late? If so, where was that point?
    1989? (Soviet Union vanquished)
    1964? (coerced integration, implicitly subjugating all culture to the imperial state)
    1948? (Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan formally commit US to imperial internationalism)
    1941? (US enters world war from which it never turns back)
    1898? (Spanish-American War is often labelled as start of US Imperialism in textbooks)
    1868? (Fourteenth Amendment opted to citizenize former bondsmen, thereby implicitly citizenizing anyone in the future, making the US inherently a global project)
    1861? (Northern States forbid Southern secession, permanently legitimizing imperial power over State power)
    1846? (Mexican-American War also traditionally cited by textbooks as US Imperial beginning)
    Or was its ultimate demise always inherent in the American project, as it was arguably conceived in imperial terms from the outset?

    Finally, might the US—at least up until recently—be something of a counter-example to the thesis? It no longer faced foreign existential threats on the macro-scale after 1815, yet the decadence didn’t become crippling until the late 20th century, so it managed to buck historical inevitability for a century and a half or so.

    I can imagine a couple of answers to my own question:

    1) 150 years isn’t very long in the big picture.

    2) While macro-threats were absent, micro-threats all along the frontier amply supplied the missing primum mobile of cultural existence (sort of an adaptation of the Turner Thesis). The closing of the frontier was quickly followed by the missionary-ish Spanish-American War, then by gratuitous participation in the World Wars, and the inevitable Cold War, following victory in which came ennui, decadence and collapse. (This might all be plausible, but it is more moving parts than I like to have in a historical hypothesis.)

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @Almost Missouri


    Second, I want to ask if this is your original analysis or if you adapted something, say from Aristotle, Aquinas or Machiavelli that has eluded me?
     
    Let me give you the academic answer first (lest the pedants here say I don't know what I'm talking about), and then I'll tell you my personal opinion.

    Academic answer: In The Prince, Machiavelli made use of a very simple pendular model to describe the cyclic rise and decline of peoples. He averred that states, having reached the pinnacle of their perfection, have nowhere else to go but down; but once having reached the nadir of dissolution, they inevitably rise again. He offered no theory to explain this proposition, nor was he looking for one. Since his object was nothing other than practical politics, he was content with a phenomenological description as long as it captured this basic oscillatory structure.

    Aristotle and Aquinas were more nuanced. Saint Thomas, who anticipated a sort of Hegelian elevation of evil to the role of a dialectical necessity, took care to shut off this heretical line of thought by saying that it is by no means logically necessary that peoples in their triumph should thereafter become morally dissolute. They could maintain their virtues by self-discipline if they chose to, thus it does not do to say that wars and horrors are good things because they keep people in line. Aristotle, displaying his usual good sense, agreed of course. For him, prosperity and peace were aids to virtue rather than hinderances to it, because vice was the child of poverty and violence and want. Both men are correct, but both of them would have been realistic enough to know that men seldom if ever live up to their potential in this regard. Saint Thomas, being not only the world's greatest philosopher but also a profound mystic, was well aware of the mysteries of theodicy and the historical processes by which God brings good out of evil. The Aristotelian-Thomist school avoids the errors of both Machiavellian phenomenology and Hegelian dialectic by saying that "evil is not necessary, but it happens, and once it happens some use can be made of it."

    Personal opinion: When I write something in the sociological vein, a lot of my analytical approach actually comes from Oswald Spengler. Psychologists say that the male mind acquires its definitive moral and philosophical outlook around the age of 24. I was lucky enough to have read The Decline of the West when I was about 23, and that book has certainly colored my thinking ever since. Of course, Spengler was something of an irreligious curmudgeon whereas I am a believing Trad-Catholic, so I have to disagree with him at certain points. And I won't be so falsely modest as to not give myself any credit for this analysis. Spengler made such an impact on me because he set forth in magisterial form a whole host of ideas that I had already independently developed. The meaning and the politics of everyday objects is something that has fascinated me all my life, so when I make statements such as "wall-to-wall carpeting is anti-natal," I have deep roots in that opinion and I know whereof I speak.

    Rome, the Ottomans, various Chinese empires, the Alexandrian empire, among others, became decadent and collapsed, despite facing foreign threats, though arguably not existential threats.
     
    Yes, existential is the operative word here. History affords no shortage of examples of slave-peoples and slave-states who, even when menace with attack from without, do nothing to defend themselves and more or less throw open the doors to their conquerors. And even though the conquerors make sport with the heads of the men and the genitals of the women, the slaves don't care. They would prefer this to actually organizing for resistance; resistance is too much for them. You cannot face an existential threat when your existence is already a nullity.

    What forms a people is an idea. I am deliberately saying "idea" here and not identity Identities are contrived and artificial; any identity a man can make for himself, he can also break for himself when it's convenient. Unless the purpose of one's life is felt to be real, self-evident, objective, and external, it cannot serve as a motive. Education and effort cannot create cultural motifs if the self-evident basis for them isn't already there to be found. They come to us unbidden, from someplace beyond the causality that we can know and understand, just like life itself.

    But by the same token, these cultural motifs are endowed with their own energy and form, and they have a limit. A culture perishes once it has exhausted its inward stock of creative possibilities. As long as men had an idea of themselves they could fight for it, they could raise themselves to the very limit of self-sacrifice and genius in the pursuit of it. But once the idea is spent, its formulae reduced to threadbare word-jugglery and its substance dissolved in self-criticism and cynicism, then not even the most Herculean individual effort can unite a man with a worthwhile task. Art dies, philosophy abdicates, masculinity becomes superfluous. Culture-man becomes slave-man, a mere object for anyone who still has life left in him.

    Well, maybe there is a third possibility: never succumbing to either the former Scylla nor the latter Charybdis, forever shooting the Straits of Messina. Agree?
     
    With man this is impossible, but with God all things shall be possible. In other words, yes, it can be done, but it requires the assistance of grace.

    If so, a corollary of which would be: too late for the US now. If so, was there an identifiable point at which it became too late? If so, where was that point?...Or was its ultimate demise always inherent in the American project, as it was arguably conceived in imperial terms from the outset?
     
    This was Spengler's take, which I happen to agree with. According to him, the United States was never a real country in the first place. It was always a gigantic "criminal enterprise," a "gangster state" that existed to allow free play for the whims of plutocrats, oligarchs, and robber barons. American "culture," such as it is, is centered entirely around the act of making money and the cult of the tycoon. It leaves no place for quiet, for reflection, for metaphysics, or for the simple joys of hearth and home. As early as 1895, Paul Bourget in Outre-Mer was already commenting upon how loath Americans were to have children.

    For the West in general, the cancer first erupted in 1789. The ideals of French Revolution and the conquests of Napoleon put an end to the culture-time and brought about our "Alexandrian" era, i.e. two ripe centuries that witnessed the glorification of urbanity and skeptical science, and served as a prelude to the brutal age of empire to come. The die was decisively cast in the upheaval of 1914-17. The final chapter left to be written is the age of the Caesars, of which Donald Trump was a very inadequate foretaste. After that, the history of the West will be most definitively closed
  69. @Chrisnonymous
    @dfordoom

    I don't about Hungary, but in Japan their "failed natalist policies" were all pretty weak stuff, like increasing maternity leave. Recently someone was talking about giving couples 100,000 yen for each child they have--that's about $1000 per kid. That's chump change. I agree that natalist policies may be doomed to failure--fertility decline in Japan at least is an unfortunate combination of factors, like mismatch between lifestyle expectations and economic realities or declining interest in traditions including family life, that are very powerful psychologically and hard to counter with simple incentives--but it's also true that extreme measures have not been tried in many places. For example, countering the specific things that people do and spend money on in place of children. Imagine if long-distance travel tickets were only available to those with two children or more. Or heavy luxury taxes were placed on whole categories of goods with corresponding tax rebates available for people per child. Or imagine if living at the same address as your parents were banned after age 20. Etc.

    I agree with your comments about the difficulties related to, eg, infrastructure, but it's also true that growth had to stop and reverse and some point, which means that dealing with those problems has to happen. Perhaps it is better that it happen now. Lower living standards for a population of 8 billion in decline is better than mass starvation for a population of, say, 12 billion in decline. Ultimately, smart people ought to be thinking about how we do a permanent population drawdown without having to give up conveniences like the Internet not to mention more basic things like vegetables in winter.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    but it’s also true that extreme measures have not been tried in many places. For example, countering the specific things that people do and spend money on in place of children.

    It’s hard to say if really draconian pro-natalist policies involving the stick as well as the carrot would work. I think we’re a long long way from a situation in which such policies would be politically viable and I suspect that most people will choose higher immigration levels in preference to such policies for as long as immigration remains viable.

    Of course the biggest problem of all is that the overwhelming majority of the population is unaware that demographic collapse is even a problem.

    I agree with your comments about the difficulties related to, eg, infrastructure, but it’s also true that growth had to stop and reverse and some point, which means that dealing with those problems has to happen. Perhaps it is better that it happen now….Ultimately, smart people ought to be thinking about how we do a permanent population drawdown without having to give up conveniences like the Internet

    Yeah, I agree with that. If it’s an unstoppable problem then we need to find ways of living with it.

    I don’t see how we can do that without abandoning the current model of capitalism. And the business sector will fight tooth and nail to avoid facing up to a reality that it isn’t going to like.

    So the situation will have to get much much worse before anything sensible is done. When TFRs everywhere start dropping to around 0.7 then something might be done.

    It’s the same with all the major problems modern society faces – things are nowhere near bad enough to make people accept the necessity for tackling those problems.

  70. @Alfa158
    Population of all of Europe in 1500 during the flowering of the greatest civilization in human history: 61 million.
    Even allowing for a lower percentage of an aging population being in their prime, you don’t need a huge population to advance civilization as long as that population doesn’t have a room temperature average IQ. Japan and Korea and Europe would do just fine with declining populations as long as they are the right populations.
    Tragically our demographic policies appear to be run by people who have invested their entire nest egg in toilet paper manufacturer stocks.

    Replies: @Lockean Proviso

    The nation-state as a viable entity is falling to globalism, particularly in the minds of the elites. They are working towards an archipelago of oligarch and courtier enclaves amidst a sea of squalor. They foresee the islets of Oligarchia as a separate realm of global cities and resorts around the world, with a high average IQ population, low in relative numbers but high in development.

  71. @Almost Missouri
    @unit472

    Trump ran a successful real estate enterprise and a successful media enterprise. Surely there were a handful of reliable, competent, non-criminal people he could have borrowed from these? He only needed fifty votes in the Senate to confirm them. When Trump came into office, the Senate was majority Republican. They may not all have liked Trump, but they all knew better than to vote against him if they wanted to retain their seats. The other thing about those we call "swamp monsters" is that they do not necessarily perceive themselves that way, so they don't conceive it as hazardous to themselves to confirm any given nominee. When we say "drain the swamp", most Senators don't think they are the ones we mean. In other words, I don't think confirmation was such a great hurdle. And even if it had been, the Obama administration had already normalized the practice of using un-Senate-approved "czars" to run large swathes of the Federal government. Or Trump could just have used acting cabinet members until the Senate gave in. On appointments, as on so many other things, Trump naively thought he would ingratiate himself inside the beltway by giving them chunks of his administration. Instead he got worse worst of both worlds: they still despised him, but he had given away the power to do anything about it.

    But this is really beside the point. Trump didn't need any particular cabinet appointment to reverse any of Obama's executive orders, to ban foreign lobbyist fundraising, to prosecute Hillary Clinton, to deport illegals, to end birthright citizenship, to "end DACA on day one", to bring troops home, to ditch Common Core, or to build the border wall, as he promised. There are a slew of other objectives that required legislative cooperation though not cabinet appointments. Those too are undone. You can say that's Congress's fault, but the President has a lot of power to sway Congress if he chooses to use it. Trump didn't. All those targets that were threatened but unremoved are now permanently part of the landscape.

    Replies: @unit472

    Yes Trump had the Senate in 2017 if you call Ben Sasse, Richard Burr and Sue Collins ‘Republican’. So nominees like Gina Haspel could sail through a Senate Confirmation but John Racliffe or Brett Kavanaugh? Bill Barr went through mainly because , as events proved, he was not going to prosecute anyone involved in the coup against Trump.

    How deep is the corruption at the DoJ and FBI. Well they both had the Weiner laptop since 2016 and the Hunter Biden laptop since January 2020. Any indictments? Of course not. Andrew McCabe, cited for 4 counts of ‘lack of candor’ by his own Department IG not prosecuted. That staffer at the SSCI who leaked Page’s FISA warrant to his twenty something concubine journalist, a slap on the wrist lest he drag Senator Mark Warner to the witness stand. Compare that to what was dished out to Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos.

    Immigration is a difficult subject. Trump did what he could. Building his wall was no easy thing and gaining the cooperation of Mexico’s president on stopping the caravans and keeping migrants there to await the outcome of their asylum claims a major accomplishment. The idea that Trump could just start the mass deportation of people with DACA status to countries they’ve never been to is naive at best. The optics would have been terrible and ignores the fact that they are now adults. Trump raised the price immigrants must pay to become citizens to $5000 plus their attorneys fees.
    That is a pretty effective deterrent to a DACA person.

    As we can’t undo the past Trump had to work with what is not what he might like to have been. I’ll end with what might be in regards to Latinos. Its about Starr County, Texas. A place I had never heard of but for an article about their problem with Covid. It is the most heavily hispanic county in the US (95%) and the third poorest ( per capital income $7069). Its 60,000 people have voted Democrat in every election since 1892. Here is an amazing bit of info from Wikipedia.

    In 1988 the county gave Michael Dukakis his highest percentage in the nation.[16] Starr County is one of only 17 counties in Texas that gave the majority of their votes to Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who received 7,199 votes (74 percent) while George W. Bush received 2,552 votes (26 percent). In 2008, Illinois Senator Barack H. Obama won Starr County with 8,233 votes (84 percent). Arizona Republican Senator John McCain received 1,488 votes (15 percent). In 2020, Donald Trump came within five points of winning the county, receiving 8,224 votes.

    Maybe instead of being unremittingly hostile to Mexican immigrants the GOP might want to find out what secret sauce Trump found to win their votes.If we want to keep Texas and Florida we’re going to have to.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @unit472

    >Maybe instead of being unremittingly hostile to Mexican immigrants the GOP might want to find out what secret sauce Trump found to win their votes.

    1) Don't shill for the interests of CEOs at the expense of the interests of ordinary Americans.

    2) Be unapologetically masculine and refuse to kowtow to preening self-appointed moral guardians.

    3) Emphasize getting stuff done over ideological preoccupations.

    It's really that simple. You don't need more to beat the Woke MBA party.

    Replies: @anon, @Paperback Writer

  72. @Paperback Writer
    Marijuana legalization was something that the elites wanted, having spent a good deal of their college years stoned. Al Gore & Laura Bush are but two examples.

    Anything else - trannies on your daughter's b-ball team, for only one example - you'll get crushed.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @Audacious Epigone

    Did they want marijuana legalized for their own recreational use? Or do they want the lower classes to be stoned?

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Jay Fink

    Does it matter?

    Maybe both. The point is that AE, much as I admire him, gets it wrong here. Localism is just his version of Rod Dreher's Benedict Option. Both are wrong. You can live a nice, quiet life only so long, until USG decides to do something that will destroy your way of life.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

  73. @dfordoom
    @Mark G.


    The counterculture started to seep out into the general culture in 1964.
     
    That's basically true. By 1964 the Hollywood Production Code had become more or less inoperative.

    I've always thought of 1967 as a watershed year. The release of Bonnie and Clyde, the release of Jefferson Airplane's Surrealistic Pillow album, the Beatles' Sergeant Pepper album. that was the year of the Summer of Love.

    1967 was the year that the drug culture really went mainstream. So you could say that in 1964 the counterculture started to seep out into the general culture and by 1967 the seeping out had become a flood.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    I was born during the summer of love. I once asked my dad about the time period I was born in. His said when people think of the 60s they think of hippies and the counterculture but they were deeply unpopular at the time with the mainstream of society, more so than people think today.

    There was as you say an adult culture and it was the dominant culture. This differs from today where I don’t see such a seperation between generations. Young people can say “OK Boomer” but in reality they are closer in mentality to boomers than boomers were to their elders.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Jay Fink


    but they were deeply unpopular at the time with the mainstream of society, more so than people think today.
     
    Your Dad is 100% correct. George Harrison visited Hashbury in 1968 and came away disgusted. He thought the scene was gross and dirty and said so several times.

    But it doesn't disprove the fact that the hippies infiltrated all aspects of American culture & remade it. By 1970 the Vietnam vets all looked like the hippies they supposedly despised in 1968. George grew his hair down to his arse and kept it that way for years.

  74. @Nodwink
    The anti-Establishment rebellions have been crushed. The swamp has won.

    Trumpism - which was the least rebellious of these - will be wiped out. The Capitol insurrection was a fatal mistake, which could leave Trump himself in prison. The modern equivalent of Hitler's invasion of Russia.

    On the Left, Bernie-ism was destroyed with a few phone calls from Barack Obama. All of the Berniecrats within the Democratic Party fell in line, with barely a whimper. In Britain, Corbynism was destroyed in the 2019 election, with no chance of returning any time soon.

    The elite grip on power is stronger than it was five years ago.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Barack Obama's secret Unz account, @Nodwink, @RadicalCenter, @Patrick McNally

    Trump allegedly inciting supporters to invade the Capitol and vandalize, without using firearms at all and without harming any of the apparently largely defenseless Congressmen inside — that’s the modern equivalent of invading a foreign country and killing many millions of men, women, and children? The statement refutes itself. Hey, we all get carried away online sometimes.

    You are right, of course, that the globalist elite is in firmer control of public opinion and now, public physical movement, interaction, commerce, and education, than ever before in our country’s history. But never give up hope.

    • Replies: @Nodwink
    @RadicalCenter


    Hey, we all get carried away online sometimes.
     
    In terms of scale, they are vastly different; but it is a disaster of monumental proportions, which Trumpists haven't grasped yet. I have posted a video on this thread, and I suggest every Trump supporter watch it. This truly is 9/11 for liberals, and Trump is now Osama bin Laden.
  75. @dvorak
    @dfordoom


    But what we’re seeing in South Korea is not a “dip” – it’s a catastrophic collapse. Their TFR is not much more than a third of the replacement rate. Their population is going to fall very rapidly.
     
    First off, for one's own life, GDP/capita (standard of living) not GDP is what matters. The idea that the financial system can't handle population decline is not proven. Even rigid Japan has adjusted, by slashing the number of traditional salaryman jobs in favor of US-style at-will and part-time jobs. The unemployment rate is low.

    Second, female fashion can change. Divorce among UMC women has dropped significantly from its highs. Fecundity could change rapidly, as well.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

    You’re right, of course, that the fertility rate could change pretty rapidly. But if the peoples who are dying out are to change their behavior and priorities and start having a sane number of children again, they had better do it soon.

    The number and proportion of women of safe childbearing age in Ukraine, the Baltics, South Korea, et al., is declining and is set to decline more rapidly in the near future.

    How much longer can the dying peoples wait to return to national pride, cultural cohesion, more-traditional family strucuture and sex roles, and hard work for the sake of the next generations of their families and their extended family — the nation?

    The longer they wait, the more children each of the few young women will need to have to turn things around. It will get to the point where the few non-brainwashed, non-demoralized women of childbearing age can have four children each and not stop the overall population decline. I’m not singling out the countries you’ve mentioned, either; this criticism and alarm bell should be sounding among white Americans — really, any decently intelligent, civilized, industrious, English-Speaking Americans — too.

    The population decrease we have seen in these countries in recent years will accelerate drastically. It is literally a death spiral.

    Assuming that the South Koreans do not have their own nuclear weapons and that the US will become less able (or perhaps willing) to project military power far abroad, China can walk in and fill “South Korea” with its own Han people within the lifetime of some commenters here.

    Despite its own dangerously low fertility rate, Russia may be able to roll in to the Baltics and Ukraine and claim them within roughly the same timeframe. And if Russia doesn’t, someone else will – perhaps some less racially and culturally similar to the dwindling aged band of natives, and even more brutal, like the Turks or even the Chinese again.

  76. @Yahya
    @Mr. Rational


    Arabs didn’t invent any of the building styles in evidence there
     
    Probably true. But that's not the argument I was responding to.

    and they were probably designed by White architects and built with foreign labor.

     

    If you want to turn this into a racial pissing contest, i'm down to play a round or two.

    First things first. The pendulum of history shifts constantly and consistently. One era a group is flying high, the next era its crashing towards the bottom. You ought to remember that before getting on your high horse.

    One such an era was the early Medieval Ages (500-1000 AD), when Arabs were on top, and Europeans were at the bottom. In what Europeans call the Dark Ages, the Islamic World was experiencing its Golden Age of scientific discovery and progress. Not only that, but the Islamic world in general was far more civilized and prosperous than Western Europe.

    From Scott Alexander's "Were There Dark Ages?":

    I’m probably an overly literal person, but whenever I think about dark ages, I think of the modern (and anachronistic for the period in question) association between light, population density, and economic activity:

    http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/reaction/zrx_image19.png

    The Dark Ages in Europe were a time when things would have been more towards the North Korean end of that picture. In fact, you probably could have taken a similar picture at the time, with an east/west instead of north/south axis. From The Muslims of Andalusia:

    [In medieval times], Europe was darkened at sunset, Al-Andalus shone with public lamps; Europe was dirty, Al-Andalus built a thousand baths; Europe lay in mud, Al-Andalus’ streets were paved.
     

    In Al-Andalus, you had great pieces of architecture like the Mosque of Cordoba, elements of which Europeans would later copy in some of their own buildings:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Mezquita_de_C%C3%B3rdoba_desde_el_aire_%28C%C3%B3rdoba%2C_Espa%C3%B1a%29.jpg/2880px-Mezquita_de_C%C3%B3rdoba_desde_el_aire_%28C%C3%B3rdoba%2C_Espa%C3%B1a%29.jpg


    If you take a step back to 2300 B.C, and compare the stone formations in Egypt, to the stone formations in Northern Europe, you'll also find some interesting disparities. For example, the best Northern Euros could come up with at the time was a bunch of random-ass pile of rocks at Stonehenge, which you think is some great achievement, but is just a total joke compared to the Great Pyramids.


    http://img.traveltriangle.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/cover-image-of-Things-To-Do-In-Giza_3rd-april.jpg


    http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200730020156-stonehenge-0420-full-169.jpg


    Alright, I think that's enough for now. Your turn.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @nebulafox, @Mr. Rational

    Cannot gainsay the thrust of your argument, and thank you as well for the beautiful photos.

    Just wondering, though, what was the RACE of the Egyptian elites and even the general public way back then? Apparently quite different from the Africanized mass of Egyptians in recent centuries:

    https://davidjamesboston.com/new-dna-proof-ancient-egyptians-white/

    https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/were-the-ancient-egyptians-black-or-white-scientists-now-know (flatly stating, “The influx of sub-Saharan genes occurred only in the last 1,300 years.”)

    Beautiful and useful things can be created by people of any race or ethnicity, and have been. White or Christian people shouldn’t ignorantly and childishly downplay the great scientific, cultural, philosophical achievements of non-Europeans or Muslims, Hindus, etc. But in this oft-cited case of the pyramids, let’s not pretend that they were designed by Africans or people genetically resembling current Egyptians.

    • Replies: @Yahya
    @RadicalCenter


    Cannot gainsay the thrust of your argument, and thank you as well for the beautiful photos.

    Beautiful and useful things can be created by people of any race or ethnicity, and have been. White or Christian people shouldn’t ignorantly and childishly downplay the great scientific, cultural, philosophical achievements of non-Europeans or Muslims, Hindus, etc.
     
    Thank you. Likewise, non-Europeans (like me) should not be downplaying Western European achievement over the past few centuries, which created many of the modern creature comforts we all benefit from today. But there are times when non-whites encounter a certain species of whites (supremacists), who like to dump on colored people for no reason other than to gratify their egos and sooth their insecurities. In which case, self-defense is necessary. :)

    Just wondering, though, what was the RACE of the Egyptian elites and even the general public way back then? Apparently quite different from the Africanized mass of Egyptians in recent centuries:

     

    This is a topic which is fraught with controversy and much misconception. I'll start first by describing Ancient Egyptian genetics, then i'll get to modern day Egypt in another post.

    Since i'm no expert on genetics, i'm going to rely on Razib Khan's analysis of Ancient Egyptian genetics which he posted here and here.

    The main points:

    1) The framework whereby you compare Ancient Egyptians to whites (Europeans) or blacks (sub-Saharans) is an ill-founded projection of a modern day American context onto the Ancient World.

    There are two basic extreme positions, Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists. Though I have not done a deep dive of the literature of either group, I’ve read a few books from either camp over my lifetime. In fact I believe the last time I read the “primary literature” of Afrocentrist and Eurocentrism was when I was an early teen, and it was rather strange because both groups seem to be recapitulating racial disagreements and viewpoints relevant to the American context, and projecting them back to the ancient world.

     

    2) The Fayum portraits, which were painted during Roman Egypt, refute the idea that Ancient Egyptians were either Sub-Saharans or (Northern) Europeans.

    The reality is that the best refutation of an Afrocentrist view of of ancient Egypt, which reduces to the idea that ancient Egyptians would be recognizably black African today, are the Fayum portraits.

    But the visible evidence of the Fayum portraits is a strong refutation of the Nordic model. Of course, there is the reality that we now know that the Nordic phenotype, and the genetic components which congealed into that typical of Northern Europe today, was only coming into existence when the Old Kingdom of Egypt was already a mature civilization.
     
    3) Ancient Egyptians were most closely related to Natufians, or were Natufians themselves (a group of people who inhabited the Levant)

    What you can see here is that to a great extent ancient Egyptians were descended from a population closely related to Natufians, or Natufians themselves. This easily explains the mtDNA affinity to Neolithic farmers: Natufians and Anatolian Neolithic populations were sister populations.

    If you plot the genetic variation of ancient Egyptians they’re closest to Neolithic eastern Mediterranean populations. No great surprise.

     

    4) The present-day group which is most closely related to Ancient Egyptians are the Copts:

    Down to the present day one population can plausibly claim a connection to ancient Egypt, and that population are the Copts.
     

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is where I will add my two-cents.

    As an Egyptian, the Ancient Egyptians I see on the paintings on the tombs are *deeply* familiar and instantly recognizable to me, as they are with many other Egyptians. Why? Because we see these features every day in real life. From the light-brown complexion, to the dark hair and dark eyes, to the round facial features, they are present in modern-day Egyptians to varying degrees (some are lighter, some are darker, some are on point etc.)

    Moreover, these features are mostly present in modern day Copts, but also some Muslim Egyptians who received little admixture from foreigners, slaves or invaders over the years (admixture is not uniform across the population. Some areas of Egypt didn't have much contact with outsiders during Egypt's long history. I'll get to more of this in the other post.)

    They neither look like Europeans nor Subsharans. They look distinctly Egyptian. Similar to the Ancient Egyptian images on the tombs:

    http://imageproxy.themaven.net//https%3A%2F%2Fwww.history.com%2F.image%2FMTYxNjQ2NjY4MjQ3MjEzNjkz%2Fking_tut_tomb_conservation_getty_promo.jpg

    Modern-day Copts:

    http://images.app.goo.gl/oAJaTtiq7puyYKB79

    http://i2.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/20171229_2_27828042_29347877.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&zoom=1&ssl=1

    http://www.copticsolidarity.org/wp-content/uploads/bfi_thumb/texan-copts-35prbtztygqlfvc77s6m99igw8o9usfcwjdya1z5bs6dwxa18.png

    Boutros Boutros-Ghali:

    http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/boutros-644624.jpg


    Sawiris family:

    http://en.amwalalghad.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Sawiris-Family-2.jpg

    Replies: @iffen

    , @nebulafox
    @RadicalCenter

    >Just wondering, though, what was the RACE of the Egyptian elites and even the general public way back then?

    I'll defer to Yahya here, but probably similar as it is now. Not identical, but similar enough. The Greco-Roman urban elites largely kept to themselves during classical antiquity: out in the Egyptian countryside, things remained largely what they had always been.

    Egyptians, like the Syrians and Palestinians, did change after the Arab conquests. But that didn't mean there was a complete DNA over-write. The Arabs didn't have the numbers to do that and were cloistered in garrison cities during the initial century of conquest anyhow. Instead, the locals took up Arabic names, converted to Islam, and their grandchildren grew up thinking of themselves as Arabs. This was possible because Islam-especially in the early days-came from the same thought world as late antique Roman Christianity.

    In the east, where memories of Iranshahr dominated and the geography was quite different, the dynamics were different: the Persians converted to Islam and took up Islamic culture and Arabized names, but they did not become Arabs, or vice versa. It's similar to how Hellenized culture survived after the Roman conquest: the Greeks became Roman citizens, but they didn't stop speaking Greek. Eventually, what was left of the Roman Empire was Greek speaking, sort of like the Iranian Buyyids taking Baghdad.

    , @Yahya
    @RadicalCenter

    Alright, now onto modern-day Egyptians.


    Apparently quite different from the Africanized mass of Egyptians in recent centuries:
     
    This is the biggest misconception people have of modern day Egyptians. Modern day Egypt is not teeming with black Africans just because of some admixture since ancient times. The admixture did not significantly affect the phenotypes of Muslim Egyptians, because it simply was not enough (~10 to ~20 percent according to Razib Khan) to make much of a dent. Similar to how the 15-20% European admixture into African-Americans did not make much of a difference in their appearances relative to West Africans. People like Jay Z and Lebron James and Michelle Obama still very much look like black Africans, even though they probably have a significant amount of European ancestry in them.

    Secondly, and this is a much neglected point: sub-saharan ancestry was not the only blood to slip into the Muslim Egyptian blood stream. I can't believe how many times this part of the genetic study gets neglected by people on this site. From Razib Khan's post:

    Not the modern Egyptians. Why? It’s pretty clearly because modern Egyptians are shifted toward Sub-Saharan Africans. But there is also another component: modern Egyptians have more of the cyan eastern farmer component. What could this be?

    An immediate thought comes to mind. We focus a great deal on Sub-Saharan African slavery. One reason is that it is visible. Black Africans are physically distinct from most Middle Eastern populations. But Egypt was long the center of another slave trade: “white slaves” from the Caucasus. Circassians. For hundreds of years Mamluks were recruited from the Caucasus as military slaves. They eventually became the ruling class of Egypt, until their decimation in the 19th century under Muhammad Ali (who himself was an Albanian Ottoman who never learned to speak Arabic well).

    Similarly, there was clearly gene flow from Southwest Asia. This is again historically attested, especially in the Nile Delta (though foreign garrisons of mercenaries are recorded in Upper Egypt as well).

    The Roman period probably did introduce some gene flow from Southeast Europe and Southwest Asia. But these populations are not that distinct from Egyptians.

    Similarly, the Islamic period also brought in different peoples from Arabia and the Caucasus.
     
    And finally, the admixtures were not uniformly distributed across Egypt. Some parts got this much Sub-Saharan, some parts this much Caucasian, some parts this much Arabian, some parts this much Turkish, other parts this much Greek, and some parts this much Levantine and so forth.

    Who got the most of the Turkish/Greek/Levantine/Caucasian blood? Upper and middle class Muslim Egyptians in the major urban centers (Cairo and Alexandria). Who got the most part sub-Saharan blood? Muslim peasants and lower middle class Egyptian in the towns and villages. Who received very little admixture from either groups? Copts and some rural Muslim Egyptians.

    The result is that modern-day urban upper and middle class Muslim Egyptians are whiterthan either Coptic or Ancient Egyptians, while lower class Muslim Egyptians are more shifted towards sub-saharans than Copts or the Ancients (Though there is some mix and match here and there.)

    A cross-section of famous Egyptian actors (from various classes and areas):

    http://storage.googleapis.com/nrpassets/uploads/articles/1522757964-Main.jpg



    Upper Class Egyptians:

    http://www.egypttoday.com/siteimages/Larg/48569.jpg

    https://www.hoteliermiddleeast.com/public/images/2019/12/08/rania.jpg

    Note: all the ladies in the picture above are Muslims. Upper-class Muslim Egyptian women generally don’t wear the hijab. It’s seen as ‘low-class’.


    Middle Class Egyptians:

    https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/World-Bank-Photo-21.02.17.jpg


    Lower Class Egyptians:

    http://format-com-cld-res.cloudinary.com/image/private/s--jPL5AYxA--/c_limit,g_center,h_550,w_65535/fl_keep_iptc.progressive,q_95/v1/e64f67fde63cd173fedeafa78fad569a/egypt_-3.jpg
  77. For example, countering the specific things that people do and spend money on in place of children. Imagine if long-distance travel tickets were only available to those with two children or more.

    I would think bio-engineering will give us anti-aging life extension long before the fertility issue really becomes a problem. Life extension also has the benefit of being pro-liberty.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Abelard Lindsey

    Do people really believe this shit?

    , @Catdog
    @Abelard Lindsey

    Imagine how much liberty there will be when our oligarchs can live forever.

  78. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Paperback Writer

    Because when South Korea modernized (i.e. copied the West), the West was already in its terminal narcissistic phase. They imbibed our decline. Japan did likewise, and China is about 30 years behind but will tread the same path.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    This is the kind of cheap thinking so prevalent hereabouts that I reject utterly.

    South Korea, Japan, and China are societies with unique histories. If you have nothing to add, then button it up.

    When I need to know something about Japan, I go to Eamonn Fingleton. Anticipating that you’ll ask me for a link, I’ll tell you to look him up yourself. Fingleton, who lives in Japan, has written that Japan is in no way in decline, and that its demographic policies are carefully thought out. If they decided to turn up the baby-making, they could.

    If anyone else who knows S. Korea can contribute, I’d happily listen.

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    @Paperback Writer

    Here is Eamonn Fingleton from 2010. This is what Paperback Writer is referring to:

    "Letter to the editor of the Economist: Japan’s population “problem”

    Why is Tokyo so complacent about Japan’s demographic “problem” (The Economist, November 18, 2010)? This may be because, in light of unsustainably high population growth rates elsewhere in the world, the authorities quietly regard Japan’s low birthrate less as a problem than a solution. Here are a few facts:
    1. With a population of fully 2,993 per square kilometre of arable land, Japan is burdened with one of the highest population densities of any significant nation in world history. By comparison, China, whose population has long been so high that the Beijing authorities have openly and forcibly controlled the birthrate, has a density less than one third as high. The UK’s ratio is just 37 percent of Japan’s and America’s just 6 percent. (Source: the CIA Factbook.)
    2. Already in former times, when Japan’s population was much lower than it is today, Japanese leaders acted to correct a perceived overpopulation problem. Whereas in the 1930s they resorted to foreign conquest to feed an exploding population, after World War II they moved directly to slash the birthrate, not least via the Eugenic Protection Act of 1948. Under this law Japan became one of the first countries to legalize abortion, and the abortion rate duly rose more than four-fold in the next six years. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1970.) This law, which for obvious reasons the authorities avoided publicizing in the West, also made sterilization and other forms of birth control universally available and instituted a domestic public relations programme to make larger families unfashionable.

    Eamonn Fingleton
    Tokyo 108 0073"

    This does raise an interesting point. Those past a certain age (Fingleton is 72) have a really hard time taking seriously the demographic threat. When they came of age, overpopulation was the thing they heard about all day long.

    Japan's fertility has been below replacement for 50 years, but Fingleton cannot recalibrate.

    The numbers are stark:

    In a century, Japan's working age population would shrink four-fold. Niger's working age population would grow something like 100 fold. This is not remotely sustainable. It is utterly insane. That is a 400 x relative shift. China

    Eamonn Fingleton's thinking is kind of how establishment in DC worries endlessly about Russia threatening our position but hardly ever about China even though China is 10x bigger in population and economy. Russia was the threat they grew up with so that is how their thinking has calcified.

    For Fingleton, overpopulation is the world he knew, but Fingleton's thinking is calcified. Even Bill Gates is 65 years old. And Bill Gates's best friend, he tells us at every opportunity, is Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett is 90 years old.

    The world that these people came of age in is long gone. They simply cannot see what is happening.

    South Korea clocked in an 0.84 births per woman in 2020. That would mean a 60 percent population decline per generation. Compound that and compare against what poor countries are doing and civilizational decline seems very hard to avoid.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Chrisnonymous, @Paperback Writer

    , @Intelligent Dasein
    @Paperback Writer

    Um, I've known who Eamonn Fingleton is for about two decades now. I think most people here do---he's one of the contributors to this website.

    It's usually not a good idea to just blithely assume you know more than someone else, especially when that someone is me.

    And if you really want to know something about Japan, you should check out this guy instead. His blog is sadly inactive, but in its prime it was one of the best things on the internet. A real gem.

  79. @Jay Fink
    @Paperback Writer

    Did they want marijuana legalized for their own recreational use? Or do they want the lower classes to be stoned?

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    Does it matter?

    Maybe both. The point is that AE, much as I admire him, gets it wrong here. Localism is just his version of Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option. Both are wrong. You can live a nice, quiet life only so long, until USG decides to do something that will destroy your way of life.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Paperback Writer


    The point is that AE, much as I admire him, gets it wrong here. Localism is just his version of Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option. Both are wrong. You can live a nice, quiet life only so long, until USG decides to do something that will destroy your way of life.
     
    Agreed. They're both copes.

    The most fatal mistake that any dissident group can make is to draw attention to itself by trying to separate itself from modern society. It's the equivalent of painting a target on your back. In order to maintain a distinct traditionalist community it is necessary to isolate yourself from modern society. The more you isolate yourselves the more successfully you can maintain your cultural/religious identity. And the more you make yourself a target. Ask the Branch Davidians.

    More and more my feeling is that the only way to survive is to blend in. Don't attract any attention. Conform outwardly. I don't like the idea but I'm sceptical as to whether there are any viable alternatives.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Paperback Writer, @iffen

    , @Audacious Epigone
    @Paperback Writer

    You can live a nice, quiet life only so long, until USG decides to do something that will destroy your way of life.

    Think of it as Fabian tactics. The intention is to outlast the empire and be able to go on existing without it.

  80. @Abelard Lindsey

    For example, countering the specific things that people do and spend money on in place of children. Imagine if long-distance travel tickets were only available to those with two children or more.
     
    I would think bio-engineering will give us anti-aging life extension long before the fertility issue really becomes a problem. Life extension also has the benefit of being pro-liberty.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Catdog

    Do people really believe this shit?

  81. @RadicalCenter
    @Yahya

    Cannot gainsay the thrust of your argument, and thank you as well for the beautiful photos.

    Just wondering, though, what was the RACE of the Egyptian elites and even the general public way back then? Apparently quite different from the Africanized mass of Egyptians in recent centuries:

    https://davidjamesboston.com/new-dna-proof-ancient-egyptians-white/

    https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/were-the-ancient-egyptians-black-or-white-scientists-now-know (flatly stating, “The influx of sub-Saharan genes occurred only in the last 1,300 years.”)

    Beautiful and useful things can be created by people of any race or ethnicity, and have been. White or Christian people shouldn’t ignorantly and childishly downplay the great scientific, cultural, philosophical achievements of non-Europeans or Muslims, Hindus, etc. But in this oft-cited case of the pyramids, let’s not pretend that they were designed by Africans or people genetically resembling current Egyptians.

    Replies: @Yahya, @nebulafox, @Yahya

    Cannot gainsay the thrust of your argument, and thank you as well for the beautiful photos.

    Beautiful and useful things can be created by people of any race or ethnicity, and have been. White or Christian people shouldn’t ignorantly and childishly downplay the great scientific, cultural, philosophical achievements of non-Europeans or Muslims, Hindus, etc.

    Thank you. Likewise, non-Europeans (like me) should not be downplaying Western European achievement over the past few centuries, which created many of the modern creature comforts we all benefit from today. But there are times when non-whites encounter a certain species of whites (supremacists), who like to dump on colored people for no reason other than to gratify their egos and sooth their insecurities. In which case, self-defense is necessary. 🙂

    Just wondering, though, what was the RACE of the Egyptian elites and even the general public way back then? Apparently quite different from the Africanized mass of Egyptians in recent centuries:

    This is a topic which is fraught with controversy and much misconception. I’ll start first by describing Ancient Egyptian genetics, then i’ll get to modern day Egypt in another post.

    Since i’m no expert on genetics, i’m going to rely on Razib Khan’s analysis of Ancient Egyptian genetics which he posted here and here.

    The main points:

    1) The framework whereby you compare Ancient Egyptians to whites (Europeans) or blacks (sub-Saharans) is an ill-founded projection of a modern day American context onto the Ancient World.

    There are two basic extreme positions, Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists. Though I have not done a deep dive of the literature of either group, I’ve read a few books from either camp over my lifetime. In fact I believe the last time I read the “primary literature” of Afrocentrist and Eurocentrism was when I was an early teen, and it was rather strange because both groups seem to be recapitulating racial disagreements and viewpoints relevant to the American context, and projecting them back to the ancient world.

    2) The Fayum portraits, which were painted during Roman Egypt, refute the idea that Ancient Egyptians were either Sub-Saharans or (Northern) Europeans.

    The reality is that the best refutation of an Afrocentrist view of of ancient Egypt, which reduces to the idea that ancient Egyptians would be recognizably black African today, are the Fayum portraits.

    But the visible evidence of the Fayum portraits is a strong refutation of the Nordic model. Of course, there is the reality that we now know that the Nordic phenotype, and the genetic components which congealed into that typical of Northern Europe today, was only coming into existence when the Old Kingdom of Egypt was already a mature civilization.

    3) Ancient Egyptians were most closely related to Natufians, or were Natufians themselves (a group of people who inhabited the Levant)

    What you can see here is that to a great extent ancient Egyptians were descended from a population closely related to Natufians, or Natufians themselves. This easily explains the mtDNA affinity to Neolithic farmers: Natufians and Anatolian Neolithic populations were sister populations.

    If you plot the genetic variation of ancient Egyptians they’re closest to Neolithic eastern Mediterranean populations. No great surprise.

    4) The present-day group which is most closely related to Ancient Egyptians are the Copts:

    Down to the present day one population can plausibly claim a connection to ancient Egypt, and that population are the Copts.

    [MORE]

    ————————————————————————————————————-
    This is where I will add my two-cents.

    As an Egyptian, the Ancient Egyptians I see on the paintings on the tombs are *deeply* familiar and instantly recognizable to me, as they are with many other Egyptians. Why? Because we see these features every day in real life. From the light-brown complexion, to the dark hair and dark eyes, to the round facial features, they are present in modern-day Egyptians to varying degrees (some are lighter, some are darker, some are on point etc.)

    Moreover, these features are mostly present in modern day Copts, but also some Muslim Egyptians who received little admixture from foreigners, slaves or invaders over the years (admixture is not uniform across the population. Some areas of Egypt didn’t have much contact with outsiders during Egypt’s long history. I’ll get to more of this in the other post.)

    They neither look like Europeans nor Subsharans. They look distinctly Egyptian. Similar to the Ancient Egyptian images on the tombs:

    Modern-day Copts:

    http://images.app.goo.gl/oAJaTtiq7puyYKB79

    Boutros Boutros-Ghali:

    Sawiris family:

    • Replies: @iffen
    @Yahya

    But there are times when non-whites encounter a certain species of whites (supremacists), who like to dump on colored people for no reason other than to gratify their egos and sooth their insecurities. In which case, self-defense is necessary.

    It's okay to be white. Try it. You might like it.

    Replies: @Yahya

  82. @Yahya
    @Mr. Rational


    Arabs didn’t invent any of the building styles in evidence there
     
    Probably true. But that's not the argument I was responding to.

    and they were probably designed by White architects and built with foreign labor.

     

    If you want to turn this into a racial pissing contest, i'm down to play a round or two.

    First things first. The pendulum of history shifts constantly and consistently. One era a group is flying high, the next era its crashing towards the bottom. You ought to remember that before getting on your high horse.

    One such an era was the early Medieval Ages (500-1000 AD), when Arabs were on top, and Europeans were at the bottom. In what Europeans call the Dark Ages, the Islamic World was experiencing its Golden Age of scientific discovery and progress. Not only that, but the Islamic world in general was far more civilized and prosperous than Western Europe.

    From Scott Alexander's "Were There Dark Ages?":

    I’m probably an overly literal person, but whenever I think about dark ages, I think of the modern (and anachronistic for the period in question) association between light, population density, and economic activity:

    http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/reaction/zrx_image19.png

    The Dark Ages in Europe were a time when things would have been more towards the North Korean end of that picture. In fact, you probably could have taken a similar picture at the time, with an east/west instead of north/south axis. From The Muslims of Andalusia:

    [In medieval times], Europe was darkened at sunset, Al-Andalus shone with public lamps; Europe was dirty, Al-Andalus built a thousand baths; Europe lay in mud, Al-Andalus’ streets were paved.
     

    In Al-Andalus, you had great pieces of architecture like the Mosque of Cordoba, elements of which Europeans would later copy in some of their own buildings:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Mezquita_de_C%C3%B3rdoba_desde_el_aire_%28C%C3%B3rdoba%2C_Espa%C3%B1a%29.jpg/2880px-Mezquita_de_C%C3%B3rdoba_desde_el_aire_%28C%C3%B3rdoba%2C_Espa%C3%B1a%29.jpg


    If you take a step back to 2300 B.C, and compare the stone formations in Egypt, to the stone formations in Northern Europe, you'll also find some interesting disparities. For example, the best Northern Euros could come up with at the time was a bunch of random-ass pile of rocks at Stonehenge, which you think is some great achievement, but is just a total joke compared to the Great Pyramids.


    http://img.traveltriangle.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/cover-image-of-Things-To-Do-In-Giza_3rd-april.jpg


    http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200730020156-stonehenge-0420-full-169.jpg


    Alright, I think that's enough for now. Your turn.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @nebulafox, @Mr. Rational

    >First things first. The pendulum of history shifts constantly and consistently. One era a group is flying high, the next era its crashing towards the bottom. You ought to remember that before getting on your high horse.

    IMO, I’ve never bought the wisdom of seeking the cause of present circumstances in what was reality 200 years ago, let alone 2,000. China was probably the most advanced civilization on the planet for centuries, but fell from grace in an astonishingly short amount of time and only have re-assumed their traditional role in the last couple of decades.

    >In Al-Andalus, you had great pieces of architecture like the Mosque of Cordoba, elements of which Europeans would later copy in some of their own buildings:

    It went both ways. You think the Rashiduns, many of whom once fought for the Roman army, thought of the Dome of the Rock’s late Roman style architecture all by themselves? 😉

    (On the Byzantine side, the emperor Theophilus was a noted Arabophile who attempted to make an alliance with Umayyad Spain after the disaster at Amorium. Had he lived longer, that could have decisively changed history.)

    >One such an era was the early Medieval Ages (500-1000 AD), when Arabs were on top, and Europeans were at the bottom. In what Europeans call the Dark Ages, the Islamic World was experiencing its Golden Age of scientific discovery and progress. Not only that, but the Islamic world in general was far more civilized and prosperous than Western Europe.

    It didn’t stop at 1000. After the Abbasid caliphate disintegrated, the Islamic World remained a healthy, wealthy place, with cutting-edge philosophical and scientific developments coming out of Central Asia until the Mongols showed up. It just wasn’t controlled by a single centralized government anymore. The Seljuks tried to revive the mechanisms of the caliphate, but they were never able to fully succeed and quickly fell into their old steppe habits.

    That said, most of the intellectual heavy lifting of the Abbasid Golden Age was done by Persians working from Zoroastrian intellectual traditions that absorbed Islam rather than the other way around. But then, most of the intellectual heavy lifting of Roman civilization centuries earlier was done by Greeks, working out of intellectual traditions that existed when Rome was ruled by escaped criminals.

    The Arabs, like the Latins, excelled at practical endeavors: war, engineering, and administration. Philosophy, medicine, and science, they were happy to be the students and let their highly educated Persian/Greek servants and slaves do the teaching. In this scheme, that would make the Turkic peoples to the north akin to the Germanic peoples who took over the late antique empire: which actually isn’t a bad analogy, looking at the dynamics of the slave soldiers.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
  83. 4416392

    Modern-day Copts:

    Excuse me. I realized that I posted pictures of mostly older (and fatter) Copts, which makes it more difficult to compare with the mostly younger (and slimmer) Ancient Egyptians depicted in the tombs.

    Here are photos of younger Copts:

  84. @RadicalCenter
    @Yahya

    Cannot gainsay the thrust of your argument, and thank you as well for the beautiful photos.

    Just wondering, though, what was the RACE of the Egyptian elites and even the general public way back then? Apparently quite different from the Africanized mass of Egyptians in recent centuries:

    https://davidjamesboston.com/new-dna-proof-ancient-egyptians-white/

    https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/were-the-ancient-egyptians-black-or-white-scientists-now-know (flatly stating, “The influx of sub-Saharan genes occurred only in the last 1,300 years.”)

    Beautiful and useful things can be created by people of any race or ethnicity, and have been. White or Christian people shouldn’t ignorantly and childishly downplay the great scientific, cultural, philosophical achievements of non-Europeans or Muslims, Hindus, etc. But in this oft-cited case of the pyramids, let’s not pretend that they were designed by Africans or people genetically resembling current Egyptians.

    Replies: @Yahya, @nebulafox, @Yahya

    >Just wondering, though, what was the RACE of the Egyptian elites and even the general public way back then?

    I’ll defer to Yahya here, but probably similar as it is now. Not identical, but similar enough. The Greco-Roman urban elites largely kept to themselves during classical antiquity: out in the Egyptian countryside, things remained largely what they had always been.

    Egyptians, like the Syrians and Palestinians, did change after the Arab conquests. But that didn’t mean there was a complete DNA over-write. The Arabs didn’t have the numbers to do that and were cloistered in garrison cities during the initial century of conquest anyhow. Instead, the locals took up Arabic names, converted to Islam, and their grandchildren grew up thinking of themselves as Arabs. This was possible because Islam-especially in the early days-came from the same thought world as late antique Roman Christianity.

    In the east, where memories of Iranshahr dominated and the geography was quite different, the dynamics were different: the Persians converted to Islam and took up Islamic culture and Arabized names, but they did not become Arabs, or vice versa. It’s similar to how Hellenized culture survived after the Roman conquest: the Greeks became Roman citizens, but they didn’t stop speaking Greek. Eventually, what was left of the Roman Empire was Greek speaking, sort of like the Iranian Buyyids taking Baghdad.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  85. @unit472
    @Almost Missouri

    Yes Trump had the Senate in 2017 if you call Ben Sasse, Richard Burr and Sue Collins 'Republican'. So nominees like Gina Haspel could sail through a Senate Confirmation but John Racliffe or Brett Kavanaugh? Bill Barr went through mainly because , as events proved, he was not going to prosecute anyone involved in the coup against Trump.

    How deep is the corruption at the DoJ and FBI. Well they both had the Weiner laptop since 2016 and the Hunter Biden laptop since January 2020. Any indictments? Of course not. Andrew McCabe, cited for 4 counts of 'lack of candor' by his own Department IG not prosecuted. That staffer at the SSCI who leaked Page's FISA warrant to his twenty something concubine journalist, a slap on the wrist lest he drag Senator Mark Warner to the witness stand. Compare that to what was dished out to Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos.

    Immigration is a difficult subject. Trump did what he could. Building his wall was no easy thing and gaining the cooperation of Mexico's president on stopping the caravans and keeping migrants there to await the outcome of their asylum claims a major accomplishment. The idea that Trump could just start the mass deportation of people with DACA status to countries they've never been to is naive at best. The optics would have been terrible and ignores the fact that they are now adults. Trump raised the price immigrants must pay to become citizens to $5000 plus their attorneys fees.
    That is a pretty effective deterrent to a DACA person.

    As we can't undo the past Trump had to work with what is not what he might like to have been. I'll end with what might be in regards to Latinos. Its about Starr County, Texas. A place I had never heard of but for an article about their problem with Covid. It is the most heavily hispanic county in the US (95%) and the third poorest ( per capital income $7069). Its 60,000 people have voted Democrat in every election since 1892. Here is an amazing bit of info from Wikipedia.

    In 1988 the county gave Michael Dukakis his highest percentage in the nation.[16] Starr County is one of only 17 counties in Texas that gave the majority of their votes to Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who received 7,199 votes (74 percent) while George W. Bush received 2,552 votes (26 percent). In 2008, Illinois Senator Barack H. Obama won Starr County with 8,233 votes (84 percent). Arizona Republican Senator John McCain received 1,488 votes (15 percent). In 2020, Donald Trump came within five points of winning the county, receiving 8,224 votes.

    Maybe instead of being unremittingly hostile to Mexican immigrants the GOP might want to find out what secret sauce Trump found to win their votes.If we want to keep Texas and Florida we're going to have to.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >Maybe instead of being unremittingly hostile to Mexican immigrants the GOP might want to find out what secret sauce Trump found to win their votes.

    1) Don’t shill for the interests of CEOs at the expense of the interests of ordinary Americans.

    2) Be unapologetically masculine and refuse to kowtow to preening self-appointed moral guardians.

    3) Emphasize getting stuff done over ideological preoccupations.

    It’s really that simple. You don’t need more to beat the Woke MBA party.

    • Replies: @anon
    @nebulafox

    >Maybe instead of being unremittingly hostile to Mexican immigrants the GOP

    Strawman. Utterly fake strawman.

    might want to find out what secret sauce Trump found to win their votes.

    Add one thing to nebulafox's list: Trump did not talk down in a condescending way to the Mexicans and Mexican Americans with that whole head-patting "now, now, little people" attitude of the Bush family. He didn't treat them like serfs, he talked to them like fellow humans.

    This is not a skill common in the corporate shill-world of the GOPe for reasons that should be obvious. David French-style graceful loserdom is more their style, with a heaping side of tax cuts for Wall Street and the usual corporate back-scratching.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    , @Paperback Writer
    @nebulafox

    I agree with everything you said. Stand up for yourself. Set boundaries. Never apologize. "Never complain, never explain."

    But -

    People on the patriot side have a tendency to fall into the same trap as the leftoids. The personal is political. We should stop this. The personal isn't political.

    I do explain, but only to loved ones. And I apologize to loved ones for things that I've done that were bad. Make a distinction between leftoids and your nearest & dearest. (I realize you weren't doing this, I'm just saying.)

    Trump appealed to immigrants because he was the only one standing up against BLM and for law and order. That's the secret sauce. Unfortunately, the Repubs are run by worse than cucks.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  86. @RadicalCenter
    @Yahya

    Cannot gainsay the thrust of your argument, and thank you as well for the beautiful photos.

    Just wondering, though, what was the RACE of the Egyptian elites and even the general public way back then? Apparently quite different from the Africanized mass of Egyptians in recent centuries:

    https://davidjamesboston.com/new-dna-proof-ancient-egyptians-white/

    https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/were-the-ancient-egyptians-black-or-white-scientists-now-know (flatly stating, “The influx of sub-Saharan genes occurred only in the last 1,300 years.”)

    Beautiful and useful things can be created by people of any race or ethnicity, and have been. White or Christian people shouldn’t ignorantly and childishly downplay the great scientific, cultural, philosophical achievements of non-Europeans or Muslims, Hindus, etc. But in this oft-cited case of the pyramids, let’s not pretend that they were designed by Africans or people genetically resembling current Egyptians.

    Replies: @Yahya, @nebulafox, @Yahya

    Alright, now onto modern-day Egyptians.

    Apparently quite different from the Africanized mass of Egyptians in recent centuries:

    This is the biggest misconception people have of modern day Egyptians. Modern day Egypt is not teeming with black Africans just because of some admixture since ancient times. The admixture did not significantly affect the phenotypes of Muslim Egyptians, because it simply was not enough (~10 to ~20 percent according to Razib Khan) to make much of a dent. Similar to how the 15-20% European admixture into African-Americans did not make much of a difference in their appearances relative to West Africans. People like Jay Z and Lebron James and Michelle Obama still very much look like black Africans, even though they probably have a significant amount of European ancestry in them.

    Secondly, and this is a much neglected point: sub-saharan ancestry was not the only blood to slip into the Muslim Egyptian blood stream. I can’t believe how many times this part of the genetic study gets neglected by people on this site. From Razib Khan’s post:

    Not the modern Egyptians. Why? It’s pretty clearly because modern Egyptians are shifted toward Sub-Saharan Africans. But there is also another component: modern Egyptians have more of the cyan eastern farmer component. What could this be?

    An immediate thought comes to mind. We focus a great deal on Sub-Saharan African slavery. One reason is that it is visible. Black Africans are physically distinct from most Middle Eastern populations. But Egypt was long the center of another slave trade: “white slaves” from the Caucasus. Circassians. For hundreds of years Mamluks were recruited from the Caucasus as military slaves. They eventually became the ruling class of Egypt, until their decimation in the 19th century under Muhammad Ali (who himself was an Albanian Ottoman who never learned to speak Arabic well).

    Similarly, there was clearly gene flow from Southwest Asia. This is again historically attested, especially in the Nile Delta (though foreign garrisons of mercenaries are recorded in Upper Egypt as well).

    The Roman period probably did introduce some gene flow from Southeast Europe and Southwest Asia. But these populations are not that distinct from Egyptians.

    Similarly, the Islamic period also brought in different peoples from Arabia and the Caucasus.

    And finally, the admixtures were not uniformly distributed across Egypt. Some parts got this much Sub-Saharan, some parts this much Caucasian, some parts this much Arabian, some parts this much Turkish, other parts this much Greek, and some parts this much Levantine and so forth.

    Who got the most of the Turkish/Greek/Levantine/Caucasian blood? Upper and middle class Muslim Egyptians in the major urban centers (Cairo and Alexandria). Who got the most part sub-Saharan blood? Muslim peasants and lower middle class Egyptian in the towns and villages. Who received very little admixture from either groups? Copts and some rural Muslim Egyptians.

    The result is that modern-day urban upper and middle class Muslim Egyptians are whiterthan either Coptic or Ancient Egyptians, while lower class Muslim Egyptians are more shifted towards sub-saharans than Copts or the Ancients (Though there is some mix and match here and there.)

    A cross-section of famous Egyptian actors (from various classes and areas):

    [MORE]

    Upper Class Egyptians:

    Note: all the ladies in the picture above are Muslims. Upper-class Muslim Egyptian women generally don’t wear the hijab. It’s seen as ‘low-class’.

    Middle Class Egyptians:

    Lower Class Egyptians:

  87. The Zion Empire is dying.
    It doesn’t show all the cracks yet, but its falling down.
    The debts are skyrocketing, and the petrodollar is already being dumped.

    That monopoly money is ALL THEY HAVE.
    The Lugenpresse has no credibility.
    The System has shown it is rigged.

    Its all over but the shooting.
    Killing the System like the old turkey it is.
    No one will pardon these dead birds.

  88. anon[332] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    @unit472

    >Maybe instead of being unremittingly hostile to Mexican immigrants the GOP might want to find out what secret sauce Trump found to win their votes.

    1) Don't shill for the interests of CEOs at the expense of the interests of ordinary Americans.

    2) Be unapologetically masculine and refuse to kowtow to preening self-appointed moral guardians.

    3) Emphasize getting stuff done over ideological preoccupations.

    It's really that simple. You don't need more to beat the Woke MBA party.

    Replies: @anon, @Paperback Writer

    >Maybe instead of being unremittingly hostile to Mexican immigrants the GOP

    Strawman. Utterly fake strawman.

    might want to find out what secret sauce Trump found to win their votes.

    Add one thing to nebulafox’s list: Trump did not talk down in a condescending way to the Mexicans and Mexican Americans with that whole head-patting “now, now, little people” attitude of the Bush family. He didn’t treat them like serfs, he talked to them like fellow humans.

    This is not a skill common in the corporate shill-world of the GOPe for reasons that should be obvious. David French-style graceful loserdom is more their style, with a heaping side of tax cuts for Wall Street and the usual corporate back-scratching.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @anon

    >Maybe instead of being unremittingly hostile to Mexican immigrants the GOP

    Seriously, what's with the compulsive need to conflate a simple lack of familiarity with actual hostility in modern America?

    Average Hispanic voters are motivated by the same factors that average voters in general are: that's why they are called "average voters".

    Replies: @anon

  89. @Jay Fink
    @dfordoom

    I was born during the summer of love. I once asked my dad about the time period I was born in. His said when people think of the 60s they think of hippies and the counterculture but they were deeply unpopular at the time with the mainstream of society, more so than people think today.

    There was as you say an adult culture and it was the dominant culture. This differs from today where I don't see such a seperation between generations. Young people can say "OK Boomer" but in reality they are closer in mentality to boomers than boomers were to their elders.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer

    but they were deeply unpopular at the time with the mainstream of society, more so than people think today.

    Your Dad is 100% correct. George Harrison visited Hashbury in 1968 and came away disgusted. He thought the scene was gross and dirty and said so several times.

    But it doesn’t disprove the fact that the hippies infiltrated all aspects of American culture & remade it. By 1970 the Vietnam vets all looked like the hippies they supposedly despised in 1968. George grew his hair down to his arse and kept it that way for years.

  90. @nebulafox
    @unit472

    >Maybe instead of being unremittingly hostile to Mexican immigrants the GOP might want to find out what secret sauce Trump found to win their votes.

    1) Don't shill for the interests of CEOs at the expense of the interests of ordinary Americans.

    2) Be unapologetically masculine and refuse to kowtow to preening self-appointed moral guardians.

    3) Emphasize getting stuff done over ideological preoccupations.

    It's really that simple. You don't need more to beat the Woke MBA party.

    Replies: @anon, @Paperback Writer

    I agree with everything you said. Stand up for yourself. Set boundaries. Never apologize. “Never complain, never explain.”

    But –

    People on the patriot side have a tendency to fall into the same trap as the leftoids. The personal is political. We should stop this. The personal isn’t political.

    I do explain, but only to loved ones. And I apologize to loved ones for things that I’ve done that were bad. Make a distinction between leftoids and your nearest & dearest. (I realize you weren’t doing this, I’m just saying.)

    Trump appealed to immigrants because he was the only one standing up against BLM and for law and order. That’s the secret sauce. Unfortunately, the Repubs are run by worse than cucks.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Paperback Writer

    I wouldn't go that far: admitting you are human and that not everything is going to turn out perfectly would further distinguish you from the empty suits you run against. But yes, don't kowtow and avoid stock phrases. Be authentic, for lack of a better word, and treat policy as policy rather than either existential battles or la-la lands (trade policy is particularly visible of this mindset) where everybody wins all the time. Above all: treat the voters with *respect*. NOT AS CHILDREN. You remember being a kid? You didn't like it then, either.

    Immigrants have to deal with very understandable feelings of hypocrisy when it comes to the topic of potential restrictions on further immigration. So I'd opt for an implicit approach on that topic. Rather than making an explicit case for restricting immigration, per se, instead highlight how utterly insane "mainstream bipartisan elite" thinking on the topic has become. Strip the emperor of all clothes. I don't like doing this, because I'd rather solve problems than complain about them, but the media atmosphere has become such that outsiders must now provide sophisticated socioeconomic critiques to mainstream narratives, contra popular image. So, shift the parameters. That's fair game.

    Bring up their own statements. Don't let them change the subject. And definitely don't let them racialize it, as they'll inevitably attempt to do to discredit you: play it right, they'll just discredit themselves. (And for me personally, it really isn't. If we faced mass immigration from Russia rather than Central America, I'd still base it off whether America needs a new mass influx of citizens: and the answer in 2021 is a decided "no" for anybody in touch with basic reality, economic or social. When that situation changes, my views change. Simple.) You force them to defend their own conclusions. If they try to deny that this goes against the interests of most Americans. And that's exactly what they'll do, because the technocratic mindset can't even admit to trade-offs anymore. They'll either be perceived as liars or as out of touch with reality when you calmly, unflinchingly follow up with simple supply/demand arguments. If they call you names or try to invoke "Who We Are", even better.

    Trust people to draw their own conclusions. However much they'll vary in degree about the specifics, nobody outside the oligarchic classes and their muppets that is worth talking to is actually going to want the pseudo-open borders that they demand. Exploit that. The worst possible scenario is that the Democrats are forced to moderate on the topic and admit there must be some limit, especially in a time where tens of millions of Americans are struggling and really don't need more competition. Of course, doing this is going to requiring giving the Chamber of Commerce crowd the horse laugh, but that'd be necessary for electoral success anyway. Bringing up Bush II's insane proposals on the topic back in 2004 that would have effectively made America's minimum wage its maximum wage would probably be advantageous, anyway-would further castrate the GOPe.

  91. @Paperback Writer
    @Intelligent Dasein

    This is the kind of cheap thinking so prevalent hereabouts that I reject utterly.

    South Korea, Japan, and China are societies with unique histories. If you have nothing to add, then button it up.

    When I need to know something about Japan, I go to Eamonn Fingleton. Anticipating that you'll ask me for a link, I'll tell you to look him up yourself. Fingleton, who lives in Japan, has written that Japan is in no way in decline, and that its demographic policies are carefully thought out. If they decided to turn up the baby-making, they could.

    If anyone else who knows S. Korea can contribute, I'd happily listen.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Intelligent Dasein

    Here is Eamonn Fingleton from 2010. This is what Paperback Writer is referring to:

    “Letter to the editor of the Economist: Japan’s population “problem”

    Why is Tokyo so complacent about Japan’s demographic “problem” (The Economist, November 18, 2010)? This may be because, in light of unsustainably high population growth rates elsewhere in the world, the authorities quietly regard Japan’s low birthrate less as a problem than a solution. Here are a few facts:
    1. With a population of fully 2,993 per square kilometre of arable land, Japan is burdened with one of the highest population densities of any significant nation in world history. By comparison, China, whose population has long been so high that the Beijing authorities have openly and forcibly controlled the birthrate, has a density less than one third as high. The UK’s ratio is just 37 percent of Japan’s and America’s just 6 percent. (Source: the CIA Factbook.)
    2. Already in former times, when Japan’s population was much lower than it is today, Japanese leaders acted to correct a perceived overpopulation problem. Whereas in the 1930s they resorted to foreign conquest to feed an exploding population, after World War II they moved directly to slash the birthrate, not least via the Eugenic Protection Act of 1948. Under this law Japan became one of the first countries to legalize abortion, and the abortion rate duly rose more than four-fold in the next six years. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1970.) This law, which for obvious reasons the authorities avoided publicizing in the West, also made sterilization and other forms of birth control universally available and instituted a domestic public relations programme to make larger families unfashionable.

    Eamonn Fingleton
    Tokyo 108 0073”

    This does raise an interesting point. Those past a certain age (Fingleton is 72) have a really hard time taking seriously the demographic threat. When they came of age, overpopulation was the thing they heard about all day long.

    Japan’s fertility has been below replacement for 50 years, but Fingleton cannot recalibrate.

    The numbers are stark:

    In a century, Japan’s working age population would shrink four-fold. Niger’s working age population would grow something like 100 fold. This is not remotely sustainable. It is utterly insane. That is a 400 x relative shift. China

    Eamonn Fingleton’s thinking is kind of how establishment in DC worries endlessly about Russia threatening our position but hardly ever about China even though China is 10x bigger in population and economy. Russia was the threat they grew up with so that is how their thinking has calcified.

    For Fingleton, overpopulation is the world he knew, but Fingleton’s thinking is calcified. Even Bill Gates is 65 years old. And Bill Gates’s best friend, he tells us at every opportunity, is Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett is 90 years old.

    The world that these people came of age in is long gone. They simply cannot see what is happening.

    South Korea clocked in an 0.84 births per woman in 2020. That would mean a 60 percent population decline per generation. Compound that and compare against what poor countries are doing and civilizational decline seems very hard to avoid.

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    @DanHessinMD

    Eamonn Fingleton hasn't commented on this in more than 10 years. He isn't even thinking about what has to be the biggest story since our current iteration of civilization began, the sudden collapse of childbearing in every virtually developed country in the world.

    The rare exceptions to the collapse in fertility are among the very religious. This is the only way I can see that populations do not see collapsing fertility.

    The Democrat party is the anti-natalist party in every dimension. Expect big declines in fertility going forward.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @DanHessinMD

    This is not a black and white issue. As dfordoom described, we have grown ourselves into a position in which it will be hard to maintain our infrastructure and consumer habits with lower population. However, seen from the perspective of food security, high population is a serious threat. (Not to mention simple quality of life issues associated with density. For example, the metropolitan areas of Tokyo and Osaka are essentially dystopian landscapes of ugly concrete boxes extending as far as the eye cAn see). So, it depends how you look at the problem. The ideal thing would be a much, much lower population with the economy structured in a way that allows that smaller population to keep providing some services formerly needing lots of workers.
    That would make our species much safer from the perspectives of resource utilization and climate changes (whuch happen regaedless of our inputs) . Simply being "pro-natalist" is not a long-term solution for anyone. And, speaking for myself as a small-c conservative, I would prefer a world in which the population were far below the earth's carry capacity so that we could preserve the land our ancestors knew and that created the civilizations we identify with.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Paperback Writer, @dfordoom

    , @Paperback Writer
    @DanHessinMD

    Thanks for doing my heavy lifting.

    Your comment is very typical of Unz - instead of disagreeing factually with what someone wrote, you psychoanalyze him and think that this takes the place of exposing his logical flaws.

    I brought up Fingleton because he's someone who is familiar with Japanese history. It's a fact that the Japanese authorities have discouraged high fertility. That, and only that, is my point - not some mystical argy-bargy mumbo jumbo about collapsing birth rates, despair, and national suicide. It's none of that. It was a policy, promulgated from above and for good reason.

    Can they keep it up forever? I personally like the Japanese and hope they make more of their kind. But I'll tell you this. I'd rather live in Japan over Nigeria now, in 10 years, 20 years, 100 years.

  92. @DanHessinMD
    @Paperback Writer

    Here is Eamonn Fingleton from 2010. This is what Paperback Writer is referring to:

    "Letter to the editor of the Economist: Japan’s population “problem”

    Why is Tokyo so complacent about Japan’s demographic “problem” (The Economist, November 18, 2010)? This may be because, in light of unsustainably high population growth rates elsewhere in the world, the authorities quietly regard Japan’s low birthrate less as a problem than a solution. Here are a few facts:
    1. With a population of fully 2,993 per square kilometre of arable land, Japan is burdened with one of the highest population densities of any significant nation in world history. By comparison, China, whose population has long been so high that the Beijing authorities have openly and forcibly controlled the birthrate, has a density less than one third as high. The UK’s ratio is just 37 percent of Japan’s and America’s just 6 percent. (Source: the CIA Factbook.)
    2. Already in former times, when Japan’s population was much lower than it is today, Japanese leaders acted to correct a perceived overpopulation problem. Whereas in the 1930s they resorted to foreign conquest to feed an exploding population, after World War II they moved directly to slash the birthrate, not least via the Eugenic Protection Act of 1948. Under this law Japan became one of the first countries to legalize abortion, and the abortion rate duly rose more than four-fold in the next six years. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1970.) This law, which for obvious reasons the authorities avoided publicizing in the West, also made sterilization and other forms of birth control universally available and instituted a domestic public relations programme to make larger families unfashionable.

    Eamonn Fingleton
    Tokyo 108 0073"

    This does raise an interesting point. Those past a certain age (Fingleton is 72) have a really hard time taking seriously the demographic threat. When they came of age, overpopulation was the thing they heard about all day long.

    Japan's fertility has been below replacement for 50 years, but Fingleton cannot recalibrate.

    The numbers are stark:

    In a century, Japan's working age population would shrink four-fold. Niger's working age population would grow something like 100 fold. This is not remotely sustainable. It is utterly insane. That is a 400 x relative shift. China

    Eamonn Fingleton's thinking is kind of how establishment in DC worries endlessly about Russia threatening our position but hardly ever about China even though China is 10x bigger in population and economy. Russia was the threat they grew up with so that is how their thinking has calcified.

    For Fingleton, overpopulation is the world he knew, but Fingleton's thinking is calcified. Even Bill Gates is 65 years old. And Bill Gates's best friend, he tells us at every opportunity, is Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett is 90 years old.

    The world that these people came of age in is long gone. They simply cannot see what is happening.

    South Korea clocked in an 0.84 births per woman in 2020. That would mean a 60 percent population decline per generation. Compound that and compare against what poor countries are doing and civilizational decline seems very hard to avoid.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Chrisnonymous, @Paperback Writer

    Eamonn Fingleton hasn’t commented on this in more than 10 years. He isn’t even thinking about what has to be the biggest story since our current iteration of civilization began, the sudden collapse of childbearing in every virtually developed country in the world.

    The rare exceptions to the collapse in fertility are among the very religious. This is the only way I can see that populations do not see collapsing fertility.

    The Democrat party is the anti-natalist party in every dimension. Expect big declines in fertility going forward.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    @DanHessinMD

    "The Democrat party is the anti-natalist party in every dimension. Expect big declines in fertility going forward".

    What about their pro-immigration policies? Won't this slow our plummeting fertility? I realize Hispanics also have significantly declining birth rates, but they are still higher than whites.

    Sub-Saharan Africa is the one place in the world with consistently high birth rates. I would expect more African immigrants in the near future. Although it seems the ones who immigrate here are highly educated and probably have less children than the African average.

  93. @Abelard Lindsey

    For example, countering the specific things that people do and spend money on in place of children. Imagine if long-distance travel tickets were only available to those with two children or more.
     
    I would think bio-engineering will give us anti-aging life extension long before the fertility issue really becomes a problem. Life extension also has the benefit of being pro-liberty.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Catdog

    Imagine how much liberty there will be when our oligarchs can live forever.

  94. @Almost Missouri
    @Intelligent Dasein

    First, I want to say that this is one of the most interesting comments I've read here. I think I largely agree with it.

    Second, I want to ask if this is your original analysis or if you adapted something, say from Aristotle, Aquinas or Machiavelli that has eluded me?

    Third, I want to raise some questions, and learn what you make of them:

    Rome, the Ottomans, various Chinese empires, the Alexandrian empire, among others, became decadent and collapsed, despite facing foreign threats, though arguably not existential threats. Would you say these succumbed to the same thing you are describing?

    It would seem that a "traditional society" (which may be the only kind of long-term society) can have two fates: extinction due to conquest or extinction due to decadence. Well, maybe there is a third possibility: never succumbing to either the former Scylla nor the latter Charybdis, forever shooting the Straits of Messina. Agree?

    For practical statecraft, this may be primarily a matter of reserving the state to its native culture, or in other words: for cultural longevity, do not become an empire!

    If so, a corollary of which would be: too late for the US now. If so, was there an identifiable point at which it became too late? If so, where was that point?
    1989? (Soviet Union vanquished)
    1964? (coerced integration, implicitly subjugating all culture to the imperial state)
    1948? (Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan formally commit US to imperial internationalism)
    1941? (US enters world war from which it never turns back)
    1898? (Spanish-American War is often labelled as start of US Imperialism in textbooks)
    1868? (Fourteenth Amendment opted to citizenize former bondsmen, thereby implicitly citizenizing anyone in the future, making the US inherently a global project)
    1861? (Northern States forbid Southern secession, permanently legitimizing imperial power over State power)
    1846? (Mexican-American War also traditionally cited by textbooks as US Imperial beginning)
    Or was its ultimate demise always inherent in the American project, as it was arguably conceived in imperial terms from the outset?

    Finally, might the US—at least up until recently—be something of a counter-example to the thesis? It no longer faced foreign existential threats on the macro-scale after 1815, yet the decadence didn't become crippling until the late 20th century, so it managed to buck historical inevitability for a century and a half or so.

    I can imagine a couple of answers to my own question:

    1) 150 years isn't very long in the big picture.

    2) While macro-threats were absent, micro-threats all along the frontier amply supplied the missing primum mobile of cultural existence (sort of an adaptation of the Turner Thesis). The closing of the frontier was quickly followed by the missionary-ish Spanish-American War, then by gratuitous participation in the World Wars, and the inevitable Cold War, following victory in which came ennui, decadence and collapse. (This might all be plausible, but it is more moving parts than I like to have in a historical hypothesis.)

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Second, I want to ask if this is your original analysis or if you adapted something, say from Aristotle, Aquinas or Machiavelli that has eluded me?

    Let me give you the academic answer first (lest the pedants here say I don’t know what I’m talking about), and then I’ll tell you my personal opinion.

    Academic answer: In The Prince, Machiavelli made use of a very simple pendular model to describe the cyclic rise and decline of peoples. He averred that states, having reached the pinnacle of their perfection, have nowhere else to go but down; but once having reached the nadir of dissolution, they inevitably rise again. He offered no theory to explain this proposition, nor was he looking for one. Since his object was nothing other than practical politics, he was content with a phenomenological description as long as it captured this basic oscillatory structure.

    Aristotle and Aquinas were more nuanced. Saint Thomas, who anticipated a sort of Hegelian elevation of evil to the role of a dialectical necessity, took care to shut off this heretical line of thought by saying that it is by no means logically necessary that peoples in their triumph should thereafter become morally dissolute. They could maintain their virtues by self-discipline if they chose to, thus it does not do to say that wars and horrors are good things because they keep people in line. Aristotle, displaying his usual good sense, agreed of course. For him, prosperity and peace were aids to virtue rather than hinderances to it, because vice was the child of poverty and violence and want. Both men are correct, but both of them would have been realistic enough to know that men seldom if ever live up to their potential in this regard. Saint Thomas, being not only the world’s greatest philosopher but also a profound mystic, was well aware of the mysteries of theodicy and the historical processes by which God brings good out of evil. The Aristotelian-Thomist school avoids the errors of both Machiavellian phenomenology and Hegelian dialectic by saying that “evil is not necessary, but it happens, and once it happens some use can be made of it.”

    Personal opinion: When I write something in the sociological vein, a lot of my analytical approach actually comes from Oswald Spengler. Psychologists say that the male mind acquires its definitive moral and philosophical outlook around the age of 24. I was lucky enough to have read The Decline of the West when I was about 23, and that book has certainly colored my thinking ever since. Of course, Spengler was something of an irreligious curmudgeon whereas I am a believing Trad-Catholic, so I have to disagree with him at certain points. And I won’t be so falsely modest as to not give myself any credit for this analysis. Spengler made such an impact on me because he set forth in magisterial form a whole host of ideas that I had already independently developed. The meaning and the politics of everyday objects is something that has fascinated me all my life, so when I make statements such as “wall-to-wall carpeting is anti-natal,” I have deep roots in that opinion and I know whereof I speak.

    Rome, the Ottomans, various Chinese empires, the Alexandrian empire, among others, became decadent and collapsed, despite facing foreign threats, though arguably not existential threats.

    Yes, existential is the operative word here. History affords no shortage of examples of slave-peoples and slave-states who, even when menace with attack from without, do nothing to defend themselves and more or less throw open the doors to their conquerors. And even though the conquerors make sport with the heads of the men and the genitals of the women, the slaves don’t care. They would prefer this to actually organizing for resistance; resistance is too much for them. You cannot face an existential threat when your existence is already a nullity.

    What forms a people is an idea. I am deliberately saying “idea” here and not identity Identities are contrived and artificial; any identity a man can make for himself, he can also break for himself when it’s convenient. Unless the purpose of one’s life is felt to be real, self-evident, objective, and external, it cannot serve as a motive. Education and effort cannot create cultural motifs if the self-evident basis for them isn’t already there to be found. They come to us unbidden, from someplace beyond the causality that we can know and understand, just like life itself.

    But by the same token, these cultural motifs are endowed with their own energy and form, and they have a limit. A culture perishes once it has exhausted its inward stock of creative possibilities. As long as men had an idea of themselves they could fight for it, they could raise themselves to the very limit of self-sacrifice and genius in the pursuit of it. But once the idea is spent, its formulae reduced to threadbare word-jugglery and its substance dissolved in self-criticism and cynicism, then not even the most Herculean individual effort can unite a man with a worthwhile task. Art dies, philosophy abdicates, masculinity becomes superfluous. Culture-man becomes slave-man, a mere object for anyone who still has life left in him.

    Well, maybe there is a third possibility: never succumbing to either the former Scylla nor the latter Charybdis, forever shooting the Straits of Messina. Agree?

    With man this is impossible, but with God all things shall be possible. In other words, yes, it can be done, but it requires the assistance of grace.

    If so, a corollary of which would be: too late for the US now. If so, was there an identifiable point at which it became too late? If so, where was that point?…Or was its ultimate demise always inherent in the American project, as it was arguably conceived in imperial terms from the outset?

    This was Spengler’s take, which I happen to agree with. According to him, the United States was never a real country in the first place. It was always a gigantic “criminal enterprise,” a “gangster state” that existed to allow free play for the whims of plutocrats, oligarchs, and robber barons. American “culture,” such as it is, is centered entirely around the act of making money and the cult of the tycoon. It leaves no place for quiet, for reflection, for metaphysics, or for the simple joys of hearth and home. As early as 1895, Paul Bourget in Outre-Mer was already commenting upon how loath Americans were to have children.

    For the West in general, the cancer first erupted in 1789. The ideals of French Revolution and the conquests of Napoleon put an end to the culture-time and brought about our “Alexandrian” era, i.e. two ripe centuries that witnessed the glorification of urbanity and skeptical science, and served as a prelude to the brutal age of empire to come. The die was decisively cast in the upheaval of 1914-17. The final chapter left to be written is the age of the Caesars, of which Donald Trump was a very inadequate foretaste. After that, the history of the West will be most definitively closed

  95. @Paperback Writer
    @Intelligent Dasein

    This is the kind of cheap thinking so prevalent hereabouts that I reject utterly.

    South Korea, Japan, and China are societies with unique histories. If you have nothing to add, then button it up.

    When I need to know something about Japan, I go to Eamonn Fingleton. Anticipating that you'll ask me for a link, I'll tell you to look him up yourself. Fingleton, who lives in Japan, has written that Japan is in no way in decline, and that its demographic policies are carefully thought out. If they decided to turn up the baby-making, they could.

    If anyone else who knows S. Korea can contribute, I'd happily listen.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Intelligent Dasein

    Um, I’ve known who Eamonn Fingleton is for about two decades now. I think most people here do—he’s one of the contributors to this website.

    It’s usually not a good idea to just blithely assume you know more than someone else, especially when that someone is me.

    And if you really want to know something about Japan, you should check out this guy instead. His blog is sadly inactive, but in its prime it was one of the best things on the internet. A real gem.

  96. @Paperback Writer
    @nebulafox

    I agree with everything you said. Stand up for yourself. Set boundaries. Never apologize. "Never complain, never explain."

    But -

    People on the patriot side have a tendency to fall into the same trap as the leftoids. The personal is political. We should stop this. The personal isn't political.

    I do explain, but only to loved ones. And I apologize to loved ones for things that I've done that were bad. Make a distinction between leftoids and your nearest & dearest. (I realize you weren't doing this, I'm just saying.)

    Trump appealed to immigrants because he was the only one standing up against BLM and for law and order. That's the secret sauce. Unfortunately, the Repubs are run by worse than cucks.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    I wouldn’t go that far: admitting you are human and that not everything is going to turn out perfectly would further distinguish you from the empty suits you run against. But yes, don’t kowtow and avoid stock phrases. Be authentic, for lack of a better word, and treat policy as policy rather than either existential battles or la-la lands (trade policy is particularly visible of this mindset) where everybody wins all the time. Above all: treat the voters with *respect*. NOT AS CHILDREN. You remember being a kid? You didn’t like it then, either.

    Immigrants have to deal with very understandable feelings of hypocrisy when it comes to the topic of potential restrictions on further immigration. So I’d opt for an implicit approach on that topic. Rather than making an explicit case for restricting immigration, per se, instead highlight how utterly insane “mainstream bipartisan elite” thinking on the topic has become. Strip the emperor of all clothes. I don’t like doing this, because I’d rather solve problems than complain about them, but the media atmosphere has become such that outsiders must now provide sophisticated socioeconomic critiques to mainstream narratives, contra popular image. So, shift the parameters. That’s fair game.

    Bring up their own statements. Don’t let them change the subject. And definitely don’t let them racialize it, as they’ll inevitably attempt to do to discredit you: play it right, they’ll just discredit themselves. (And for me personally, it really isn’t. If we faced mass immigration from Russia rather than Central America, I’d still base it off whether America needs a new mass influx of citizens: and the answer in 2021 is a decided “no” for anybody in touch with basic reality, economic or social. When that situation changes, my views change. Simple.) You force them to defend their own conclusions. If they try to deny that this goes against the interests of most Americans. And that’s exactly what they’ll do, because the technocratic mindset can’t even admit to trade-offs anymore. They’ll either be perceived as liars or as out of touch with reality when you calmly, unflinchingly follow up with simple supply/demand arguments. If they call you names or try to invoke “Who We Are”, even better.

    Trust people to draw their own conclusions. However much they’ll vary in degree about the specifics, nobody outside the oligarchic classes and their muppets that is worth talking to is actually going to want the pseudo-open borders that they demand. Exploit that. The worst possible scenario is that the Democrats are forced to moderate on the topic and admit there must be some limit, especially in a time where tens of millions of Americans are struggling and really don’t need more competition. Of course, doing this is going to requiring giving the Chamber of Commerce crowd the horse laugh, but that’d be necessary for electoral success anyway. Bringing up Bush II’s insane proposals on the topic back in 2004 that would have effectively made America’s minimum wage its maximum wage would probably be advantageous, anyway-would further castrate the GOPe.

  97. @Yahya
    @RadicalCenter


    Cannot gainsay the thrust of your argument, and thank you as well for the beautiful photos.

    Beautiful and useful things can be created by people of any race or ethnicity, and have been. White or Christian people shouldn’t ignorantly and childishly downplay the great scientific, cultural, philosophical achievements of non-Europeans or Muslims, Hindus, etc.
     
    Thank you. Likewise, non-Europeans (like me) should not be downplaying Western European achievement over the past few centuries, which created many of the modern creature comforts we all benefit from today. But there are times when non-whites encounter a certain species of whites (supremacists), who like to dump on colored people for no reason other than to gratify their egos and sooth their insecurities. In which case, self-defense is necessary. :)

    Just wondering, though, what was the RACE of the Egyptian elites and even the general public way back then? Apparently quite different from the Africanized mass of Egyptians in recent centuries:

     

    This is a topic which is fraught with controversy and much misconception. I'll start first by describing Ancient Egyptian genetics, then i'll get to modern day Egypt in another post.

    Since i'm no expert on genetics, i'm going to rely on Razib Khan's analysis of Ancient Egyptian genetics which he posted here and here.

    The main points:

    1) The framework whereby you compare Ancient Egyptians to whites (Europeans) or blacks (sub-Saharans) is an ill-founded projection of a modern day American context onto the Ancient World.

    There are two basic extreme positions, Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists. Though I have not done a deep dive of the literature of either group, I’ve read a few books from either camp over my lifetime. In fact I believe the last time I read the “primary literature” of Afrocentrist and Eurocentrism was when I was an early teen, and it was rather strange because both groups seem to be recapitulating racial disagreements and viewpoints relevant to the American context, and projecting them back to the ancient world.

     

    2) The Fayum portraits, which were painted during Roman Egypt, refute the idea that Ancient Egyptians were either Sub-Saharans or (Northern) Europeans.

    The reality is that the best refutation of an Afrocentrist view of of ancient Egypt, which reduces to the idea that ancient Egyptians would be recognizably black African today, are the Fayum portraits.

    But the visible evidence of the Fayum portraits is a strong refutation of the Nordic model. Of course, there is the reality that we now know that the Nordic phenotype, and the genetic components which congealed into that typical of Northern Europe today, was only coming into existence when the Old Kingdom of Egypt was already a mature civilization.
     
    3) Ancient Egyptians were most closely related to Natufians, or were Natufians themselves (a group of people who inhabited the Levant)

    What you can see here is that to a great extent ancient Egyptians were descended from a population closely related to Natufians, or Natufians themselves. This easily explains the mtDNA affinity to Neolithic farmers: Natufians and Anatolian Neolithic populations were sister populations.

    If you plot the genetic variation of ancient Egyptians they’re closest to Neolithic eastern Mediterranean populations. No great surprise.

     

    4) The present-day group which is most closely related to Ancient Egyptians are the Copts:

    Down to the present day one population can plausibly claim a connection to ancient Egypt, and that population are the Copts.
     

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is where I will add my two-cents.

    As an Egyptian, the Ancient Egyptians I see on the paintings on the tombs are *deeply* familiar and instantly recognizable to me, as they are with many other Egyptians. Why? Because we see these features every day in real life. From the light-brown complexion, to the dark hair and dark eyes, to the round facial features, they are present in modern-day Egyptians to varying degrees (some are lighter, some are darker, some are on point etc.)

    Moreover, these features are mostly present in modern day Copts, but also some Muslim Egyptians who received little admixture from foreigners, slaves or invaders over the years (admixture is not uniform across the population. Some areas of Egypt didn't have much contact with outsiders during Egypt's long history. I'll get to more of this in the other post.)

    They neither look like Europeans nor Subsharans. They look distinctly Egyptian. Similar to the Ancient Egyptian images on the tombs:

    http://imageproxy.themaven.net//https%3A%2F%2Fwww.history.com%2F.image%2FMTYxNjQ2NjY4MjQ3MjEzNjkz%2Fking_tut_tomb_conservation_getty_promo.jpg

    Modern-day Copts:

    http://images.app.goo.gl/oAJaTtiq7puyYKB79

    http://i2.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/20171229_2_27828042_29347877.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&zoom=1&ssl=1

    http://www.copticsolidarity.org/wp-content/uploads/bfi_thumb/texan-copts-35prbtztygqlfvc77s6m99igw8o9usfcwjdya1z5bs6dwxa18.png

    Boutros Boutros-Ghali:

    http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/78/590x/boutros-644624.jpg


    Sawiris family:

    http://en.amwalalghad.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Sawiris-Family-2.jpg

    Replies: @iffen

    But there are times when non-whites encounter a certain species of whites (supremacists), who like to dump on colored people for no reason other than to gratify their egos and sooth their insecurities. In which case, self-defense is necessary.

    It’s okay to be white. Try it. You might like it.

    • Replies: @Yahya
    @iffen


    It’s okay to be white. Try it. You might like it.
     
    LOL. I already am white, if you are talking about skin color (I inherited my mother's Turkish hue). BUT, I am an Asiatic white. I'm afraid it would be inaccurate of me to classify myself as a European huwite, as I only have 1.5% European ancestry, according to 23andMe.

    Nevertheless, it appears that many people here think that only a European can be white, so I will have to indulge them and pretend to be non-white, so as not to disturb their orderly prejudices and racial frameworks.
  98. @anon
    @nebulafox

    >Maybe instead of being unremittingly hostile to Mexican immigrants the GOP

    Strawman. Utterly fake strawman.

    might want to find out what secret sauce Trump found to win their votes.

    Add one thing to nebulafox's list: Trump did not talk down in a condescending way to the Mexicans and Mexican Americans with that whole head-patting "now, now, little people" attitude of the Bush family. He didn't treat them like serfs, he talked to them like fellow humans.

    This is not a skill common in the corporate shill-world of the GOPe for reasons that should be obvious. David French-style graceful loserdom is more their style, with a heaping side of tax cuts for Wall Street and the usual corporate back-scratching.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >Maybe instead of being unremittingly hostile to Mexican immigrants the GOP

    Seriously, what’s with the compulsive need to conflate a simple lack of familiarity with actual hostility in modern America?

    Average Hispanic voters are motivated by the same factors that average voters in general are: that’s why they are called “average voters”.

    • Replies: @anon
    @nebulafox

    Seriously, what’s with the compulsive need to conflate a simple lack of familiarity with actual hostility in modern America?

    Virtue signaling with rather a touch of binary thinking emoting. In my opinion.

    See, all the Kool Kidz are dumping on the horribly rayciss Repubs, so if someone says something constructive about GOP it must be balanced with something else. Plus binary emoting is much easier than thinking.

    Rolling all the way back to Epigone's OP, it's interesting that none of the usual black-pillers have had anything to observe about the ongoing demographic crash of medieval Israel, what with a TFR of close to 3.0 and all. No comments. Huh. Don't let reality get in the way of a good rant, maybe?

  99. anon[684] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    @anon

    >Maybe instead of being unremittingly hostile to Mexican immigrants the GOP

    Seriously, what's with the compulsive need to conflate a simple lack of familiarity with actual hostility in modern America?

    Average Hispanic voters are motivated by the same factors that average voters in general are: that's why they are called "average voters".

    Replies: @anon

    Seriously, what’s with the compulsive need to conflate a simple lack of familiarity with actual hostility in modern America?

    Virtue signaling with rather a touch of binary thinking emoting. In my opinion.

    See, all the Kool Kidz are dumping on the horribly rayciss Repubs, so if someone says something constructive about GOP it must be balanced with something else. Plus binary emoting is much easier than thinking.

    Rolling all the way back to Epigone’s OP, it’s interesting that none of the usual black-pillers have had anything to observe about the ongoing demographic crash of medieval Israel, what with a TFR of close to 3.0 and all. No comments. Huh. Don’t let reality get in the way of a good rant, maybe?

  100. @iffen
    @Yahya

    But there are times when non-whites encounter a certain species of whites (supremacists), who like to dump on colored people for no reason other than to gratify their egos and sooth their insecurities. In which case, self-defense is necessary.

    It's okay to be white. Try it. You might like it.

    Replies: @Yahya

    It’s okay to be white. Try it. You might like it.

    LOL. I already am white, if you are talking about skin color (I inherited my mother’s Turkish hue). BUT, I am an Asiatic white. I’m afraid it would be inaccurate of me to classify myself as a European huwite, as I only have 1.5% European ancestry, according to 23andMe.

    Nevertheless, it appears that many people here think that only a European can be white, so I will have to indulge them and pretend to be non-white, so as not to disturb their orderly prejudices and racial frameworks.

  101. @anon
    @dfordoom

    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle

    Is that what Israel has done?

    In a modern society natalist policies are pure wishful thinking.

    Is Israel a modern society?

    https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/israel-demographics/

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle

    Is that what Israel has done?

    In a modern society natalist policies are pure wishful thinking.

    Is Israel a modern society?

    I’ll make two points. Firstly, there are geographical, geopolitical, social and cultural conditions that are unique to Israel and cannot be replicated anywhere else. We can’t adopt the “Israel solution” because it won’t work anywhere else. Israel is not a modern society in quite the same way that Australia or Norway are modern societies. It’s an outlier in lots of ways.

    Secondly, demographic collapse is something that has started at different times and proceeded at different paces in different societies. The factors that cause demographic collapse (industrialisation, urbanisation, capitalism, consumerism, mass education, mass media, rising prosperity and increasing lifestyle choices) developed very slowly in the West over the course of a couple of centuries. As a result demographic collapse happened very slowly in the West, beginning in the mid-19th century and still continuing today.

    The factors that cause demographic collapse have hit other societies (such as South Korea) very very quickly and as a result demographic collapse has been incredibly swift.

    It’s quite likely that Israel is just lagging behind the West in this respect. The fact that Israel’s birth rate is quite healthy at the moment does not imply that things won’t change for them. It could change and it could change in a single generation. Especially among secular Israelis. I suspect that fertility will plummet among secular Israelis.

    • Replies: @anon
    @dfordoom

    Previously you wrote:


    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle
     
    Do you still stand by that assertion in the face of evidence that contradicts it?

    We can’t adopt the “Israel solution” because it won’t work anywhere else

    You can't know that. It could be true, or it could be false, but mere assertion proves nothing. Especially since you don't know what Israeli policies have stabilized their TFR at close to 3.0, I'm sure of that .

    Israel is not a modern society in quite the same way that Australia or Norway are modern societies.

    Please expand on this with details. I'm sure you have evidence to support this and you are not just blowing smoke. Compare and contrast Israel with Norway in terms of medical care, industry, demographics and so forth. A free hint: the Norwegian Army uses Leopard tanks bought from Germany, Israel builds their own tanks. Not exactly medieval, is it?

    It’s quite likely that Israel is just lagging behind the West in this respect.

    If you inspect the link I provided you can examine a graph of Israel's TFR. Then you can modify your "quite likely" statement in the light of facts. In order to save you time and energy, I shall repost it:

    https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/israel-demographics/

    All you've shown is that Korea is not Israel. That's a tautology. Dig deeper.

    , @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    Israel is a very modern, developed society. It just happens to have an incredibly fertile religious minority who happens to be both the fastest-growing and poorest part of the populace-Israel's birthrate comes with the price tag of the stress of ultra-Orthodox families on their welfare state. Israel is also a small country, so they can make more of a difference.

    (What it is not and has not been for multiple decades is the "Western country" of American political imagination, but that's irrelevant for this topic: most developed non-Western countries have the same birthrate trends.)

    The same dynamic occurs in Singapore, where the fact that the Muslim Malays have a significantly higher birth rate than the Han majority has led the government to institute mass immigration from mainland China to keep demographics Han dominated. They aren't anywhere near the level of the ultra-Orthodox, but their faith does play an important role in their culture, including in (relative) fecundity.

    Replies: @anon

  102. @Paperback Writer
    @Jay Fink

    Does it matter?

    Maybe both. The point is that AE, much as I admire him, gets it wrong here. Localism is just his version of Rod Dreher's Benedict Option. Both are wrong. You can live a nice, quiet life only so long, until USG decides to do something that will destroy your way of life.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    The point is that AE, much as I admire him, gets it wrong here. Localism is just his version of Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option. Both are wrong. You can live a nice, quiet life only so long, until USG decides to do something that will destroy your way of life.

    Agreed. They’re both copes.

    The most fatal mistake that any dissident group can make is to draw attention to itself by trying to separate itself from modern society. It’s the equivalent of painting a target on your back. In order to maintain a distinct traditionalist community it is necessary to isolate yourself from modern society. The more you isolate yourselves the more successfully you can maintain your cultural/religious identity. And the more you make yourself a target. Ask the Branch Davidians.

    More and more my feeling is that the only way to survive is to blend in. Don’t attract any attention. Conform outwardly. I don’t like the idea but I’m sceptical as to whether there are any viable alternatives.

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    @dfordoom

    The Amish have been separate for centuries and it has been great for them.

    If you don't break any laws, then what will the government do to you?

    If the government cracks down on the Amish, how will that work out? They can't do it without coming across as monsters.

    Localism is a great option. The Orthodox Jews do the same thing as the Amish with terrific success. I don't think rounding up the Jews is something the government wants to be doing.

    Replies: @Wency

    , @Paperback Writer
    @dfordoom

    This has already spurred a discussion on the Amish/Orthodox Jews so I won't repeat points that have already been made.

    There's nothing wrong with the idea of a cope as long as it's recognized as such, and that's exactly what the Amish/OJ's do. They fundamentally disapprove of the secular way of life, but they isolate themselves and they don't threaten mainstream society.

    The line is, obviously, vociferously refusing to obey the law and flouting it. I don't approve of the way the government dealt with the Branch Covidians, but you have to admit that David Koresh wasn't exactly a quiet, pious guy who just wanted to be left alone in peace.

    I don't have "the answer" because I don't think there is any. Liberal industrial society is chugging along until it isn't.

    Replies: @Wency

    , @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Ask the Branch Davidians.</

    Comparing the Branch Davidians to the Amish is like comparing rocks to apples.

    Replies: @anon, @dfordoom

  103. anon[264] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom
    @anon



    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle
     
    Is that what Israel has done?
     


    In a modern society natalist policies are pure wishful thinking.
     
    Is Israel a modern society?
     
    I'll make two points. Firstly, there are geographical, geopolitical, social and cultural conditions that are unique to Israel and cannot be replicated anywhere else. We can't adopt the "Israel solution" because it won't work anywhere else. Israel is not a modern society in quite the same way that Australia or Norway are modern societies. It's an outlier in lots of ways.

    Secondly, demographic collapse is something that has started at different times and proceeded at different paces in different societies. The factors that cause demographic collapse (industrialisation, urbanisation, capitalism, consumerism, mass education, mass media, rising prosperity and increasing lifestyle choices) developed very slowly in the West over the course of a couple of centuries. As a result demographic collapse happened very slowly in the West, beginning in the mid-19th century and still continuing today.

    The factors that cause demographic collapse have hit other societies (such as South Korea) very very quickly and as a result demographic collapse has been incredibly swift.

    It's quite likely that Israel is just lagging behind the West in this respect. The fact that Israel's birth rate is quite healthy at the moment does not imply that things won't change for them. It could change and it could change in a single generation. Especially among secular Israelis. I suspect that fertility will plummet among secular Israelis.

    Replies: @anon, @nebulafox

    Previously you wrote:

    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle

    Do you still stand by that assertion in the face of evidence that contradicts it?

    We can’t adopt the “Israel solution” because it won’t work anywhere else

    You can’t know that. It could be true, or it could be false, but mere assertion proves nothing. Especially since you don’t know what Israeli policies have stabilized their TFR at close to 3.0, I’m sure of that .

    Israel is not a modern society in quite the same way that Australia or Norway are modern societies.

    Please expand on this with details. I’m sure you have evidence to support this and you are not just blowing smoke. Compare and contrast Israel with Norway in terms of medical care, industry, demographics and so forth. A free hint: the Norwegian Army uses Leopard tanks bought from Germany, Israel builds their own tanks. Not exactly medieval, is it?

    It’s quite likely that Israel is just lagging behind the West in this respect.

    If you inspect the link I provided you can examine a graph of Israel’s TFR. Then you can modify your “quite likely” statement in the light of facts. In order to save you time and energy, I shall repost it:

    https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/israel-demographics/

    All you’ve shown is that Korea is not Israel. That’s a tautology. Dig deeper.

  104. @DanHessinMD
    @Paperback Writer

    Here is Eamonn Fingleton from 2010. This is what Paperback Writer is referring to:

    "Letter to the editor of the Economist: Japan’s population “problem”

    Why is Tokyo so complacent about Japan’s demographic “problem” (The Economist, November 18, 2010)? This may be because, in light of unsustainably high population growth rates elsewhere in the world, the authorities quietly regard Japan’s low birthrate less as a problem than a solution. Here are a few facts:
    1. With a population of fully 2,993 per square kilometre of arable land, Japan is burdened with one of the highest population densities of any significant nation in world history. By comparison, China, whose population has long been so high that the Beijing authorities have openly and forcibly controlled the birthrate, has a density less than one third as high. The UK’s ratio is just 37 percent of Japan’s and America’s just 6 percent. (Source: the CIA Factbook.)
    2. Already in former times, when Japan’s population was much lower than it is today, Japanese leaders acted to correct a perceived overpopulation problem. Whereas in the 1930s they resorted to foreign conquest to feed an exploding population, after World War II they moved directly to slash the birthrate, not least via the Eugenic Protection Act of 1948. Under this law Japan became one of the first countries to legalize abortion, and the abortion rate duly rose more than four-fold in the next six years. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1970.) This law, which for obvious reasons the authorities avoided publicizing in the West, also made sterilization and other forms of birth control universally available and instituted a domestic public relations programme to make larger families unfashionable.

    Eamonn Fingleton
    Tokyo 108 0073"

    This does raise an interesting point. Those past a certain age (Fingleton is 72) have a really hard time taking seriously the demographic threat. When they came of age, overpopulation was the thing they heard about all day long.

    Japan's fertility has been below replacement for 50 years, but Fingleton cannot recalibrate.

    The numbers are stark:

    In a century, Japan's working age population would shrink four-fold. Niger's working age population would grow something like 100 fold. This is not remotely sustainable. It is utterly insane. That is a 400 x relative shift. China

    Eamonn Fingleton's thinking is kind of how establishment in DC worries endlessly about Russia threatening our position but hardly ever about China even though China is 10x bigger in population and economy. Russia was the threat they grew up with so that is how their thinking has calcified.

    For Fingleton, overpopulation is the world he knew, but Fingleton's thinking is calcified. Even Bill Gates is 65 years old. And Bill Gates's best friend, he tells us at every opportunity, is Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett is 90 years old.

    The world that these people came of age in is long gone. They simply cannot see what is happening.

    South Korea clocked in an 0.84 births per woman in 2020. That would mean a 60 percent population decline per generation. Compound that and compare against what poor countries are doing and civilizational decline seems very hard to avoid.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Chrisnonymous, @Paperback Writer

    This is not a black and white issue. As dfordoom described, we have grown ourselves into a position in which it will be hard to maintain our infrastructure and consumer habits with lower population. However, seen from the perspective of food security, high population is a serious threat. (Not to mention simple quality of life issues associated with density. For example, the metropolitan areas of Tokyo and Osaka are essentially dystopian landscapes of ugly concrete boxes extending as far as the eye cAn see). So, it depends how you look at the problem. The ideal thing would be a much, much lower population with the economy structured in a way that allows that smaller population to keep providing some services formerly needing lots of workers.
    That would make our species much safer from the perspectives of resource utilization and climate changes (whuch happen regaedless of our inputs) . Simply being “pro-natalist” is not a long-term solution for anyone. And, speaking for myself as a small-c conservative, I would prefer a world in which the population were far below the earth’s carry capacity so that we could preserve the land our ancestors knew and that created the civilizations we identify with.

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    @Chrisnonymous

    "For example, the metropolitan areas of Tokyo and Osaka are essentially dystopian landscapes of ugly concrete boxes extending as far as the eye cAn see). "

    That is because Japanese people would rather crowd into a tiny condo in the city than live in a spacious country estate to be had for a song.

    https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/japanese-country-real-estate/index.html

    "In a country known for sky-high real estate prices, buying a large country home (or "kominka") in Japan is still affordable.
    "You can buy a home with a modest lot for as little as $20,000 USD, depending on location. Some towns even maintain lists of free or nearly free houses, in hopes of bringing in new families, " Paul explains."

    This is completely insane. In Japan you can buy a house with land around it for a song, and much of the countryside is sparsely populated.

    This is total lunacy of course. Who would want to live in a cramped box in the city when for the a fraction of the price you can live in a huge country estate. All the Japanese people, apparently.

    "They also spent a lot more money than they could have -- roughly 250 thousand US dollars -- but their 130-year-old home came with about three-quarters of an acre of land, a fully mature garden with a giant Japanese cherry tree, and ancillary buildings such as a "kura," a type of earthen-walled storehouse."

    So 3/4 of an acre with multiple buildings on it and this couple splurges spending way more than they have to because they want everything, for $250K. Laughable when a tiny apartment in Tokyo costs 3x that much.

    This is so absurd.

    The reason Japanese live in tiny urban apartments isn't because they have to, it is because for inscrutable Japanese reasons, that is what they want. They want more crowding and less space. Please don't ask me why. They have the option of land, space, huge houses, for way less then their crappy Tokyo apartments and they refuse.

    The beautiful Japanese countryside is totally empty and estates can be had for a song. Look at what this couple got. Two beautiful buildings are visible at least, amazing garden.

    https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/japanese-country-real-estate/index.html?gallery=0

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    , @Paperback Writer
    @Chrisnonymous


    For example, the metropolitan areas of Tokyo and Osaka are essentially dystopian landscapes of ugly concrete boxes extending as far as the eye cAn see)

     

    Really. Do you live there?

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Chrisnonymous

    , @dfordoom
    @Chrisnonymous


    So, it depends how you look at the problem. The ideal thing would be a much, much lower population with the economy structured in a way that allows that smaller population to keep providing some services formerly needing lots of workers.
     
    I don't disagree with that. Personally I'd have no problem with a world with a smaller population, if it can be achieved without economic and political chaos, if the population decline can be accomplished gradually (which will make the economic and political problems more manageable) and if the population can eventually be stabilised rather than just go on declining forever.

    Those are big ifs.

    But certainly I can see plenty of advantages to a less populated world.

    Maybe the Japanese can achieve it. I think they have a much better chance than most countries of achieving population reduction without economic and political chaos and without having their culture destroyed. It helps if you already have a functional society and a healthy culture.

    I'm sceptical of the chances of any western country being able to do it without disaster.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  105. @dfordoom
    @Paperback Writer


    The point is that AE, much as I admire him, gets it wrong here. Localism is just his version of Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option. Both are wrong. You can live a nice, quiet life only so long, until USG decides to do something that will destroy your way of life.
     
    Agreed. They're both copes.

    The most fatal mistake that any dissident group can make is to draw attention to itself by trying to separate itself from modern society. It's the equivalent of painting a target on your back. In order to maintain a distinct traditionalist community it is necessary to isolate yourself from modern society. The more you isolate yourselves the more successfully you can maintain your cultural/religious identity. And the more you make yourself a target. Ask the Branch Davidians.

    More and more my feeling is that the only way to survive is to blend in. Don't attract any attention. Conform outwardly. I don't like the idea but I'm sceptical as to whether there are any viable alternatives.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Paperback Writer, @iffen

    The Amish have been separate for centuries and it has been great for them.

    If you don’t break any laws, then what will the government do to you?

    If the government cracks down on the Amish, how will that work out? They can’t do it without coming across as monsters.

    Localism is a great option. The Orthodox Jews do the same thing as the Amish with terrific success. I don’t think rounding up the Jews is something the government wants to be doing.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @DanHessinMD

    We've covered the Amish a lot in these discussions. dfordoom is more pessimistic on their prospects than I am -- I'm more ambivalent.

    On the one hand, the obvious way to start breaking groups like the Amish is to mandate K-12 public schooling for them. The idea of breaking homeschooling is a very real proposal -- homeschooling is largely an American thing -- and the Amish could just be collateral damage in a larger struggle against conservative Christians. If you want to dial up the war, do things like mandate Internet access and various modern conveniences in their homes and forbid child labor (with CPS taking kids away for noncompliance on any of these points).

    But I do think that being quirky, interesting, hard-working, law-abiding, and pacifistic -- all around good and desirable neighbors -- still has its benefits, and contrary to the pessimists, I believe that could save the Amish. I think it's largely why the Roman anti-Christian persecutions ultimately fizzled out. In soft, decadent multicultural societies, it's tough to harness all that much energy to eliminate the "other", especially if the "other" is so naturally inoffensive.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @DanHessinMD, @dfordoom

  106. @Chrisnonymous
    @DanHessinMD

    This is not a black and white issue. As dfordoom described, we have grown ourselves into a position in which it will be hard to maintain our infrastructure and consumer habits with lower population. However, seen from the perspective of food security, high population is a serious threat. (Not to mention simple quality of life issues associated with density. For example, the metropolitan areas of Tokyo and Osaka are essentially dystopian landscapes of ugly concrete boxes extending as far as the eye cAn see). So, it depends how you look at the problem. The ideal thing would be a much, much lower population with the economy structured in a way that allows that smaller population to keep providing some services formerly needing lots of workers.
    That would make our species much safer from the perspectives of resource utilization and climate changes (whuch happen regaedless of our inputs) . Simply being "pro-natalist" is not a long-term solution for anyone. And, speaking for myself as a small-c conservative, I would prefer a world in which the population were far below the earth's carry capacity so that we could preserve the land our ancestors knew and that created the civilizations we identify with.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Paperback Writer, @dfordoom

    “For example, the metropolitan areas of Tokyo and Osaka are essentially dystopian landscapes of ugly concrete boxes extending as far as the eye cAn see). ”

    That is because Japanese people would rather crowd into a tiny condo in the city than live in a spacious country estate to be had for a song.

    https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/japanese-country-real-estate/index.html

    “In a country known for sky-high real estate prices, buying a large country home (or “kominka”) in Japan is still affordable.
    “You can buy a home with a modest lot for as little as $20,000 USD, depending on location. Some towns even maintain lists of free or nearly free houses, in hopes of bringing in new families, ” Paul explains.”

    This is completely insane. In Japan you can buy a house with land around it for a song, and much of the countryside is sparsely populated.

    This is total lunacy of course. Who would want to live in a cramped box in the city when for the a fraction of the price you can live in a huge country estate. All the Japanese people, apparently.

    “They also spent a lot more money than they could have — roughly 250 thousand US dollars — but their 130-year-old home came with about three-quarters of an acre of land, a fully mature garden with a giant Japanese cherry tree, and ancillary buildings such as a “kura,” a type of earthen-walled storehouse.”

    So 3/4 of an acre with multiple buildings on it and this couple splurges spending way more than they have to because they want everything, for $250K. Laughable when a tiny apartment in Tokyo costs 3x that much.

    This is so absurd.

    The reason Japanese live in tiny urban apartments isn’t because they have to, it is because for inscrutable Japanese reasons, that is what they want. They want more crowding and less space. Please don’t ask me why. They have the option of land, space, huge houses, for way less then their crappy Tokyo apartments and they refuse.

    The beautiful Japanese countryside is totally empty and estates can be had for a song. Look at what this couple got. Two beautiful buildings are visible at least, amazing garden.

    https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/japanese-country-real-estate/index.html?gallery=0

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @DanHessinMD

    Okay. Wow. I didn't think that on Unz.com, people (ie, you) would be so stupid as to research a CNN travel fluff piece as though it were informative on any serious topic. This is like posting a travel article about Yangon to demonstrate that there is nothing threatening in Myanmar or a travel piece about the Everest expeditions to demonstrate that there is lots of work in the Himalayas. There is a lot to unpack in the article, and it is pretty much irrelevant to the Japanese anyway.

    1- Japanese prefectures are very different in the ways they are dealing with the population drain. Example: some have opened offices in Tokyo to recruit people to move from the city to the counteyside. Some may be introducing housing subsidies or selling off country properties at a fraction of cost to subsidize movement from the city. This is something western retirees (as featured in the article) might do, but young Japanese couldn't. The article is shit, so we don't know any more about it.

    2- These are older expats, which means we really know nothing about them (except that they don't have to worry about raising children). The article states they waited until they got permanent residency status to stop working in the city and move to the counteyside, which implies they were working only to obtain that visa status. They probably have independent financial resources to support themselves in the countryside. We don't know since the article is shit.

    3- The article mentions that the people had very specific requirements and looked "for years" for their house. Contrary to the overall impression given by this article, this implies that their great deal was not so easy to find. As someone who lives and travels in Japan, I can tell you that this anecdotal article is nothing like data about the housing in Japan. The home featured in that article is an aberration--beautiful and preserved (despite the money the article says the couple had to spend on renovation).

    Moreover and more importantly, the article is irrelevant to the japanese situation. People go where there are jobs. The Japanese have created an extensive rail system that funnels millions of people every day from their homes in suburban areas to urban centers because the jobs are all in urban centers. If you are a single young Japanese and not a rich married expat, you can stay in the countryside if you can accept a life of toil on a farm, fishing boat, or factory and possibly not making ends meet and remaining single. This is not much of a choice for young people. Obviously, in an absolute sense, there are many people making small town life possible, but relatively, small town life is dying due to lack of job opportunities, which are due to modern economic structures. The necessity of moving to urban areas to live creates the dystopian (sub)urban sprawl. I live in Japan and can attest to this. You can ride a train for 30 min to an hour out of the center of a city and just pass row upon row of contrete houses and pachinko parlors in bedroom communities. If you want another source for this, read "Dogs and Demons" by Alex Kerr. But don't do 5 min research on shitty CNN articles and say "This is so absurd." That just makes you look naive.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

  107. @DanHessinMD
    @Paperback Writer

    Here is Eamonn Fingleton from 2010. This is what Paperback Writer is referring to:

    "Letter to the editor of the Economist: Japan’s population “problem”

    Why is Tokyo so complacent about Japan’s demographic “problem” (The Economist, November 18, 2010)? This may be because, in light of unsustainably high population growth rates elsewhere in the world, the authorities quietly regard Japan’s low birthrate less as a problem than a solution. Here are a few facts:
    1. With a population of fully 2,993 per square kilometre of arable land, Japan is burdened with one of the highest population densities of any significant nation in world history. By comparison, China, whose population has long been so high that the Beijing authorities have openly and forcibly controlled the birthrate, has a density less than one third as high. The UK’s ratio is just 37 percent of Japan’s and America’s just 6 percent. (Source: the CIA Factbook.)
    2. Already in former times, when Japan’s population was much lower than it is today, Japanese leaders acted to correct a perceived overpopulation problem. Whereas in the 1930s they resorted to foreign conquest to feed an exploding population, after World War II they moved directly to slash the birthrate, not least via the Eugenic Protection Act of 1948. Under this law Japan became one of the first countries to legalize abortion, and the abortion rate duly rose more than four-fold in the next six years. (Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1970.) This law, which for obvious reasons the authorities avoided publicizing in the West, also made sterilization and other forms of birth control universally available and instituted a domestic public relations programme to make larger families unfashionable.

    Eamonn Fingleton
    Tokyo 108 0073"

    This does raise an interesting point. Those past a certain age (Fingleton is 72) have a really hard time taking seriously the demographic threat. When they came of age, overpopulation was the thing they heard about all day long.

    Japan's fertility has been below replacement for 50 years, but Fingleton cannot recalibrate.

    The numbers are stark:

    In a century, Japan's working age population would shrink four-fold. Niger's working age population would grow something like 100 fold. This is not remotely sustainable. It is utterly insane. That is a 400 x relative shift. China

    Eamonn Fingleton's thinking is kind of how establishment in DC worries endlessly about Russia threatening our position but hardly ever about China even though China is 10x bigger in population and economy. Russia was the threat they grew up with so that is how their thinking has calcified.

    For Fingleton, overpopulation is the world he knew, but Fingleton's thinking is calcified. Even Bill Gates is 65 years old. And Bill Gates's best friend, he tells us at every opportunity, is Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett is 90 years old.

    The world that these people came of age in is long gone. They simply cannot see what is happening.

    South Korea clocked in an 0.84 births per woman in 2020. That would mean a 60 percent population decline per generation. Compound that and compare against what poor countries are doing and civilizational decline seems very hard to avoid.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Chrisnonymous, @Paperback Writer

    Thanks for doing my heavy lifting.

    Your comment is very typical of Unz – instead of disagreeing factually with what someone wrote, you psychoanalyze him and think that this takes the place of exposing his logical flaws.

    I brought up Fingleton because he’s someone who is familiar with Japanese history. It’s a fact that the Japanese authorities have discouraged high fertility. That, and only that, is my point – not some mystical argy-bargy mumbo jumbo about collapsing birth rates, despair, and national suicide. It’s none of that. It was a policy, promulgated from above and for good reason.

    Can they keep it up forever? I personally like the Japanese and hope they make more of their kind. But I’ll tell you this. I’d rather live in Japan over Nigeria now, in 10 years, 20 years, 100 years.

    • Disagree: Chrisnonymous
  108. @Chrisnonymous
    @DanHessinMD

    This is not a black and white issue. As dfordoom described, we have grown ourselves into a position in which it will be hard to maintain our infrastructure and consumer habits with lower population. However, seen from the perspective of food security, high population is a serious threat. (Not to mention simple quality of life issues associated with density. For example, the metropolitan areas of Tokyo and Osaka are essentially dystopian landscapes of ugly concrete boxes extending as far as the eye cAn see). So, it depends how you look at the problem. The ideal thing would be a much, much lower population with the economy structured in a way that allows that smaller population to keep providing some services formerly needing lots of workers.
    That would make our species much safer from the perspectives of resource utilization and climate changes (whuch happen regaedless of our inputs) . Simply being "pro-natalist" is not a long-term solution for anyone. And, speaking for myself as a small-c conservative, I would prefer a world in which the population were far below the earth's carry capacity so that we could preserve the land our ancestors knew and that created the civilizations we identify with.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Paperback Writer, @dfordoom

    For example, the metropolitan areas of Tokyo and Osaka are essentially dystopian landscapes of ugly concrete boxes extending as far as the eye cAn see)

    Really. Do you live there?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Paperback Writer

    Tokyo and Osaka were completely destroyed in WWII, as was Seoul during the Korean War, so near as I can discern, functionality was far more important than appearance. This was especially the case in the latter where tons of people swarmed into the city from the countryside, to the point where the Park government tried to put the breaks on Seoul's growth by encouraging rural development. But I don't think this is a specifically Asian thing. German and Polish buildings are similar once you get away from the touristy areas: the university campuses are much more the postwar type. Germany and Poland suffered similar levels of destruction during WWII. I cannot speak for the former USSR, but I'd be surprised if it weren't the case there, too.

    What is different about East Asian (including Singapore) cities for a Westerner is that the poorer areas of town do not feel noticeably different from the rest. They look shabbier, and some selected ones have more "disreputable" businesses going on than average. But you don't feel like you are in a different country as you do in Europe, let alone a war zone like in America or Brazil.

    (One pseudo-exception is Daerim in Seoul, where the ethnic Koreans from China landed. Mandarin coexisting with Korean everywhere, at least off the main streets. The European analogue is Marzahn in Berlin, I suppose, full of ethnic Germans from Russia, but I saw way less German in Marzahn than Korean in Daerim.)

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Chrisnonymous

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Paperback Writer

    Yes, I do. a quick check of my commenting history would reveal that, lazy man.

  109. @dfordoom
    @anon



    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle
     
    Is that what Israel has done?
     


    In a modern society natalist policies are pure wishful thinking.
     
    Is Israel a modern society?
     
    I'll make two points. Firstly, there are geographical, geopolitical, social and cultural conditions that are unique to Israel and cannot be replicated anywhere else. We can't adopt the "Israel solution" because it won't work anywhere else. Israel is not a modern society in quite the same way that Australia or Norway are modern societies. It's an outlier in lots of ways.

    Secondly, demographic collapse is something that has started at different times and proceeded at different paces in different societies. The factors that cause demographic collapse (industrialisation, urbanisation, capitalism, consumerism, mass education, mass media, rising prosperity and increasing lifestyle choices) developed very slowly in the West over the course of a couple of centuries. As a result demographic collapse happened very slowly in the West, beginning in the mid-19th century and still continuing today.

    The factors that cause demographic collapse have hit other societies (such as South Korea) very very quickly and as a result demographic collapse has been incredibly swift.

    It's quite likely that Israel is just lagging behind the West in this respect. The fact that Israel's birth rate is quite healthy at the moment does not imply that things won't change for them. It could change and it could change in a single generation. Especially among secular Israelis. I suspect that fertility will plummet among secular Israelis.

    Replies: @anon, @nebulafox

    Israel is a very modern, developed society. It just happens to have an incredibly fertile religious minority who happens to be both the fastest-growing and poorest part of the populace-Israel’s birthrate comes with the price tag of the stress of ultra-Orthodox families on their welfare state. Israel is also a small country, so they can make more of a difference.

    (What it is not and has not been for multiple decades is the “Western country” of American political imagination, but that’s irrelevant for this topic: most developed non-Western countries have the same birthrate trends.)

    The same dynamic occurs in Singapore, where the fact that the Muslim Malays have a significantly higher birth rate than the Han majority has led the government to institute mass immigration from mainland China to keep demographics Han dominated. They aren’t anywhere near the level of the ultra-Orthodox, but their faith does play an important role in their culture, including in (relative) fecundity.

    • Replies: @anon
    @nebulafox

    Israel is a very modern, developed society. It just happens to have an incredibly fertile religious minority who happens to be both the fastest-growing and poorest part of the populace-Israel’s birthrate comes with the price tag of the stress of ultra-Orthodox families on their welfare state. I

    Do you have a link to the demographics in question? I know from personal conversations that the various sub-sets of Orthodox have many children both in New York and in Israel, but I would like to see actual evidence that the Israeli TFR is driven solely or even mainly by the Orthodox.

    Because there is another factor to consider: Israel is more of a nation-state than many others, plus the elites of Israel apparently actually like their countrymen as a group. I've come to realize over the last 4 to 12 years just how much that can matter. Imagine a country where the leadership doesn't actively work to obliterate ordinary, working people and replace them with foreigners - that's got to have a lot of social and cultural effects. It could well be that non Orthodox are also having more than 1.7 children. The implications are important.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  110. @DanHessinMD
    @DanHessinMD

    Eamonn Fingleton hasn't commented on this in more than 10 years. He isn't even thinking about what has to be the biggest story since our current iteration of civilization began, the sudden collapse of childbearing in every virtually developed country in the world.

    The rare exceptions to the collapse in fertility are among the very religious. This is the only way I can see that populations do not see collapsing fertility.

    The Democrat party is the anti-natalist party in every dimension. Expect big declines in fertility going forward.

    Replies: @Jay Fink

    “The Democrat party is the anti-natalist party in every dimension. Expect big declines in fertility going forward”.

    What about their pro-immigration policies? Won’t this slow our plummeting fertility? I realize Hispanics also have significantly declining birth rates, but they are still higher than whites.

    Sub-Saharan Africa is the one place in the world with consistently high birth rates. I would expect more African immigrants in the near future. Although it seems the ones who immigrate here are highly educated and probably have less children than the African average.

  111. @Paperback Writer
    @Chrisnonymous


    For example, the metropolitan areas of Tokyo and Osaka are essentially dystopian landscapes of ugly concrete boxes extending as far as the eye cAn see)

     

    Really. Do you live there?

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Chrisnonymous

    Tokyo and Osaka were completely destroyed in WWII, as was Seoul during the Korean War, so near as I can discern, functionality was far more important than appearance. This was especially the case in the latter where tons of people swarmed into the city from the countryside, to the point where the Park government tried to put the breaks on Seoul’s growth by encouraging rural development. But I don’t think this is a specifically Asian thing. German and Polish buildings are similar once you get away from the touristy areas: the university campuses are much more the postwar type. Germany and Poland suffered similar levels of destruction during WWII. I cannot speak for the former USSR, but I’d be surprised if it weren’t the case there, too.

    What is different about East Asian (including Singapore) cities for a Westerner is that the poorer areas of town do not feel noticeably different from the rest. They look shabbier, and some selected ones have more “disreputable” businesses going on than average. But you don’t feel like you are in a different country as you do in Europe, let alone a war zone like in America or Brazil.

    (One pseudo-exception is Daerim in Seoul, where the ethnic Koreans from China landed. Mandarin coexisting with Korean everywhere, at least off the main streets. The European analogue is Marzahn in Berlin, I suppose, full of ethnic Germans from Russia, but I saw way less German in Marzahn than Korean in Daerim.)

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @nebulafox


    But I don’t think this is a specifically Asian thing.

     

    No, not at all. The outskirts of Rome are made up of cheap. slapped up post-WW2 housing. No one ever accused the Italians of not having design sense.

    I was responding, sarcastically to the previous commenter's oafish comment about Japanese "inscrutability" with respect to living in faceless apartment blocks. I'm guessing he knows nothing about Japan.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    @nebulafox

    It is not only the war. Osaka may have have been destroyed (I don't know), but Kyoto was saved purposefully by the US state department. Nevertheless, residents have chosen to tear down old buildings in favor of concrete squares because progress. I think losing the war accelerated this tendency. But the real issue is the in-between spaces. Kyoto, for example, is in a basin hemmed in by mountains, and Osaka and Kobe are constrained by the sea. However, these all used to be separate communities, but are now essentially one large metropolitan area. If you take trains between them, you can see mountains and rivers, but there is nowhere that is free of proliferating concrete boxes. Nara is the only civilized place left that feels at human scale and integrated with nature.

  112. @nebulafox
    @Paperback Writer

    Tokyo and Osaka were completely destroyed in WWII, as was Seoul during the Korean War, so near as I can discern, functionality was far more important than appearance. This was especially the case in the latter where tons of people swarmed into the city from the countryside, to the point where the Park government tried to put the breaks on Seoul's growth by encouraging rural development. But I don't think this is a specifically Asian thing. German and Polish buildings are similar once you get away from the touristy areas: the university campuses are much more the postwar type. Germany and Poland suffered similar levels of destruction during WWII. I cannot speak for the former USSR, but I'd be surprised if it weren't the case there, too.

    What is different about East Asian (including Singapore) cities for a Westerner is that the poorer areas of town do not feel noticeably different from the rest. They look shabbier, and some selected ones have more "disreputable" businesses going on than average. But you don't feel like you are in a different country as you do in Europe, let alone a war zone like in America or Brazil.

    (One pseudo-exception is Daerim in Seoul, where the ethnic Koreans from China landed. Mandarin coexisting with Korean everywhere, at least off the main streets. The European analogue is Marzahn in Berlin, I suppose, full of ethnic Germans from Russia, but I saw way less German in Marzahn than Korean in Daerim.)

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Chrisnonymous

    But I don’t think this is a specifically Asian thing.

    No, not at all. The outskirts of Rome are made up of cheap. slapped up post-WW2 housing. No one ever accused the Italians of not having design sense.

    I was responding, sarcastically to the previous commenter’s oafish comment about Japanese “inscrutability” with respect to living in faceless apartment blocks. I’m guessing he knows nothing about Japan.

  113. Since, unfortunately, comments are now closed on the thread Fertility By Race and Religiosity I’ve taken the liberty of posting this reply to a comment by anon[248] on this thread (where I think it’s at least vaguely relevant). I hope AE doesn’t mind but it is in relation to a point he made earlier about the plummeting TFR in South Africa.

    anon[248] said

    TFR by race in South Africa tells a more race-centric story.

    Black African: 2.7
    White: 1.5
    Coloured: 2.5
    Indian: 1.7

    The more accurate analysis of TFR is that it is both a function of development and race. As a nation develops, TFR decreases, but TFR for Eurasian races is still lower than that for black and mulatto races.

    Not necessarily. White South Africans undoubtedly experienced the benefits of development before black South Africans and they undoubtedly still enjoy more of the benefits of development (being richer, more urbanised, more likely to be middle-class, likely to be more educated and more secular). So those figures are exactly what we would expect to see if TFR is purely a function of development.

    As the level of development gets spread more evenly black TFR will drop to the same low levels as white TFR.

  114. @RadicalCenter
    @Nodwink

    Trump allegedly inciting supporters to invade the Capitol and vandalize, without using firearms at all and without harming any of the apparently largely defenseless Congressmen inside — that’s the modern equivalent of invading a foreign country and killing many millions of men, women, and children? The statement refutes itself. Hey, we all get carried away online sometimes.

    You are right, of course, that the globalist elite is in firmer control of public opinion and now, public physical movement, interaction, commerce, and education, than ever before in our country’s history. But never give up hope.

    Replies: @Nodwink

    Hey, we all get carried away online sometimes.

    In terms of scale, they are vastly different; but it is a disaster of monumental proportions, which Trumpists haven’t grasped yet. I have posted a video on this thread, and I suggest every Trump supporter watch it. This truly is 9/11 for liberals, and Trump is now Osama bin Laden.

  115. @Chrisnonymous
    @DanHessinMD

    This is not a black and white issue. As dfordoom described, we have grown ourselves into a position in which it will be hard to maintain our infrastructure and consumer habits with lower population. However, seen from the perspective of food security, high population is a serious threat. (Not to mention simple quality of life issues associated with density. For example, the metropolitan areas of Tokyo and Osaka are essentially dystopian landscapes of ugly concrete boxes extending as far as the eye cAn see). So, it depends how you look at the problem. The ideal thing would be a much, much lower population with the economy structured in a way that allows that smaller population to keep providing some services formerly needing lots of workers.
    That would make our species much safer from the perspectives of resource utilization and climate changes (whuch happen regaedless of our inputs) . Simply being "pro-natalist" is not a long-term solution for anyone. And, speaking for myself as a small-c conservative, I would prefer a world in which the population were far below the earth's carry capacity so that we could preserve the land our ancestors knew and that created the civilizations we identify with.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Paperback Writer, @dfordoom

    So, it depends how you look at the problem. The ideal thing would be a much, much lower population with the economy structured in a way that allows that smaller population to keep providing some services formerly needing lots of workers.

    I don’t disagree with that. Personally I’d have no problem with a world with a smaller population, if it can be achieved without economic and political chaos, if the population decline can be accomplished gradually (which will make the economic and political problems more manageable) and if the population can eventually be stabilised rather than just go on declining forever.

    Those are big ifs.

    But certainly I can see plenty of advantages to a less populated world.

    Maybe the Japanese can achieve it. I think they have a much better chance than most countries of achieving population reduction without economic and political chaos and without having their culture destroyed. It helps if you already have a functional society and a healthy culture.

    I’m sceptical of the chances of any western country being able to do it without disaster.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @dfordoom


    I think they have a much better chance than most countries of achieving population reduction without economic and political chaos and without having their culture destroyed
     
    Unfortunately, the government is already talking about making Japan "a multiethnic society", which implies that they are going the immigration route. They are conservative, but also America's bitch. The political situation in America or the Anglosphere has to change before Japan will. But if it does, there is willingness in Japan to fight for the future.

    Replies: @Wency, @dfordoom

  116. @Paperback Writer
    @Chrisnonymous


    For example, the metropolitan areas of Tokyo and Osaka are essentially dystopian landscapes of ugly concrete boxes extending as far as the eye cAn see)

     

    Really. Do you live there?

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Chrisnonymous

    Yes, I do. a quick check of my commenting history would reveal that, lazy man.

  117. Yes, I do. a quick check of my commenting history would reveal that, lazy man.

    Sorry, I have a lot of other stuff on my plate and I don’t usually look up other commenters’ histories before I ask a casual question in a casual forum. Complaining about answering a casual question in a casual forum strikes me as being pretty lazy.

    Complaining about answering a casual question in a casual forum and then insulting the questioner strikes me as perverse. Good thing there’s an ignore feature.

    • LOL: Chrisnonymous
  118. @DanHessinMD
    @Chrisnonymous

    "For example, the metropolitan areas of Tokyo and Osaka are essentially dystopian landscapes of ugly concrete boxes extending as far as the eye cAn see). "

    That is because Japanese people would rather crowd into a tiny condo in the city than live in a spacious country estate to be had for a song.

    https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/japanese-country-real-estate/index.html

    "In a country known for sky-high real estate prices, buying a large country home (or "kominka") in Japan is still affordable.
    "You can buy a home with a modest lot for as little as $20,000 USD, depending on location. Some towns even maintain lists of free or nearly free houses, in hopes of bringing in new families, " Paul explains."

    This is completely insane. In Japan you can buy a house with land around it for a song, and much of the countryside is sparsely populated.

    This is total lunacy of course. Who would want to live in a cramped box in the city when for the a fraction of the price you can live in a huge country estate. All the Japanese people, apparently.

    "They also spent a lot more money than they could have -- roughly 250 thousand US dollars -- but their 130-year-old home came with about three-quarters of an acre of land, a fully mature garden with a giant Japanese cherry tree, and ancillary buildings such as a "kura," a type of earthen-walled storehouse."

    So 3/4 of an acre with multiple buildings on it and this couple splurges spending way more than they have to because they want everything, for $250K. Laughable when a tiny apartment in Tokyo costs 3x that much.

    This is so absurd.

    The reason Japanese live in tiny urban apartments isn't because they have to, it is because for inscrutable Japanese reasons, that is what they want. They want more crowding and less space. Please don't ask me why. They have the option of land, space, huge houses, for way less then their crappy Tokyo apartments and they refuse.

    The beautiful Japanese countryside is totally empty and estates can be had for a song. Look at what this couple got. Two beautiful buildings are visible at least, amazing garden.

    https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/japanese-country-real-estate/index.html?gallery=0

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Okay. Wow. I didn’t think that on Unz.com, people (ie, you) would be so stupid as to research a CNN travel fluff piece as though it were informative on any serious topic. This is like posting a travel article about Yangon to demonstrate that there is nothing threatening in Myanmar or a travel piece about the Everest expeditions to demonstrate that there is lots of work in the Himalayas. There is a lot to unpack in the article, and it is pretty much irrelevant to the Japanese anyway.

    1- Japanese prefectures are very different in the ways they are dealing with the population drain. Example: some have opened offices in Tokyo to recruit people to move from the city to the counteyside. Some may be introducing housing subsidies or selling off country properties at a fraction of cost to subsidize movement from the city. This is something western retirees (as featured in the article) might do, but young Japanese couldn’t. The article is shit, so we don’t know any more about it.

    2- These are older expats, which means we really know nothing about them (except that they don’t have to worry about raising children). The article states they waited until they got permanent residency status to stop working in the city and move to the counteyside, which implies they were working only to obtain that visa status. They probably have independent financial resources to support themselves in the countryside. We don’t know since the article is shit.

    3- The article mentions that the people had very specific requirements and looked “for years” for their house. Contrary to the overall impression given by this article, this implies that their great deal was not so easy to find. As someone who lives and travels in Japan, I can tell you that this anecdotal article is nothing like data about the housing in Japan. The home featured in that article is an aberration–beautiful and preserved (despite the money the article says the couple had to spend on renovation).

    Moreover and more importantly, the article is irrelevant to the japanese situation. People go where there are jobs. The Japanese have created an extensive rail system that funnels millions of people every day from their homes in suburban areas to urban centers because the jobs are all in urban centers. If you are a single young Japanese and not a rich married expat, you can stay in the countryside if you can accept a life of toil on a farm, fishing boat, or factory and possibly not making ends meet and remaining single. This is not much of a choice for young people. Obviously, in an absolute sense, there are many people making small town life possible, but relatively, small town life is dying due to lack of job opportunities, which are due to modern economic structures. The necessity of moving to urban areas to live creates the dystopian (sub)urban sprawl. I live in Japan and can attest to this. You can ride a train for 30 min to an hour out of the center of a city and just pass row upon row of contrete houses and pachinko parlors in bedroom communities. If you want another source for this, read “Dogs and Demons” by Alex Kerr. But don’t do 5 min research on shitty CNN articles and say “This is so absurd.” That just makes you look naive.

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    @Chrisnonymous

    Bro, my wife is Japanese. I know a decent amount about Japan. I wasn't writing to show how smart I am, I was just pointing something out for people who aren't aware --

    There is an extremely strong desire for urban living that is hard to understand for Americans because most Americans aren't like this. Or at least not to the same extent. Americans spread out across the land, more or less. Japanese people are doing the opposite, crowding more tightly into cities than they have to.

    This was a post about population, and if you want a decent sized family, it helps to have a real house with a yard to play. But the Japanese people are voting with their feet that they do not want this.

    Yes there are more opportunities in the cities but it doesn't have to be that way. Japanese corporate culture has been slow to embrace telework and companies choose to be based in cities in spite of extremely high rents.

    Americans too have less opportunity in rural areas, but they choose to drive great distances or accept less money. Japanese people aren't doing this.

    Regarding telework, I had a work conference several years ago and there was a large cohort from Japan. Most of us Americans frequently worked from home, something which was shocking to those in the Japanese group, for cultural reasons. Work from home simply wasn't socially acceptable then.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  119. @dfordoom
    @Chrisnonymous


    So, it depends how you look at the problem. The ideal thing would be a much, much lower population with the economy structured in a way that allows that smaller population to keep providing some services formerly needing lots of workers.
     
    I don't disagree with that. Personally I'd have no problem with a world with a smaller population, if it can be achieved without economic and political chaos, if the population decline can be accomplished gradually (which will make the economic and political problems more manageable) and if the population can eventually be stabilised rather than just go on declining forever.

    Those are big ifs.

    But certainly I can see plenty of advantages to a less populated world.

    Maybe the Japanese can achieve it. I think they have a much better chance than most countries of achieving population reduction without economic and political chaos and without having their culture destroyed. It helps if you already have a functional society and a healthy culture.

    I'm sceptical of the chances of any western country being able to do it without disaster.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    I think they have a much better chance than most countries of achieving population reduction without economic and political chaos and without having their culture destroyed

    Unfortunately, the government is already talking about making Japan “a multiethnic society”, which implies that they are going the immigration route. They are conservative, but also America’s bitch. The political situation in America or the Anglosphere has to change before Japan will. But if it does, there is willingness in Japan to fight for the future.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Chrisnonymous

    The US alliance doesn't help, but I really think it's Capital pushing multi-culturalism all around the developed world (with America being Capital's greatest champion), rather than anything exceptional about America per se. There is a natural alliance that exists between Capital and political leaders, particularly in atomized modern societies where there's not really an organized opposition to Capital, all the more so if Capital is willing to adopt whatever superficial memes it must to neutralize its opposition (e.g. Woke Capital).

    All the people in this thread observing that depopulation has its benefits -- this is true, for Labor. For the common man, the young working person, the precise effects of depopulation depend on the particulars of the situation, sometimes good, sometimes bad. It's a sticky, complicated issue, and if organized labor won't or can't sound an alarm, then Labor as a whole is basically ambivalent and neutralized on the matter. All the more so once a division forms between native and immigrant labor.

    For Capital, however, there's no ambivalence about it. Depopulation is always and everywhere an unmitigated disaster, a constant depreciation on asset values and their corresponding cash flows, a weakening of its bargaining position vis-a-vis an increasingly thin supply of labor. And so Capital will fight depopulation tooth and nail, do whatever it takes to keep the bodies living amidst its real estate, patronizing and laboring at its businesses. In practice, that means importing immigrants.

    Moreover, in an aging society, the vast population of elders (who so love to vote) are often inclined to align with Capital upon which their pensions depend, not Labor, the dwindling group of younger people with whom so many of the elders, being childless, have no association.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @dfordoom

    , @dfordoom
    @Chrisnonymous


    Unfortunately, the government is already talking about making Japan “a multiethnic society”, which implies that they are going the immigration route. They are conservative, but also America’s bitch. The political situation in America or the Anglosphere has to change before Japan will. But if it does, there is willingness in Japan to fight for the future.
     
    Yep. Japan has a chance of survival but it's not a particularly good chance.

    No country that has economic/political/cultural ties to the US has any realistic chance of survival unless it finds a way of breaking free of American influence.
  120. @nebulafox
    @Paperback Writer

    Tokyo and Osaka were completely destroyed in WWII, as was Seoul during the Korean War, so near as I can discern, functionality was far more important than appearance. This was especially the case in the latter where tons of people swarmed into the city from the countryside, to the point where the Park government tried to put the breaks on Seoul's growth by encouraging rural development. But I don't think this is a specifically Asian thing. German and Polish buildings are similar once you get away from the touristy areas: the university campuses are much more the postwar type. Germany and Poland suffered similar levels of destruction during WWII. I cannot speak for the former USSR, but I'd be surprised if it weren't the case there, too.

    What is different about East Asian (including Singapore) cities for a Westerner is that the poorer areas of town do not feel noticeably different from the rest. They look shabbier, and some selected ones have more "disreputable" businesses going on than average. But you don't feel like you are in a different country as you do in Europe, let alone a war zone like in America or Brazil.

    (One pseudo-exception is Daerim in Seoul, where the ethnic Koreans from China landed. Mandarin coexisting with Korean everywhere, at least off the main streets. The European analogue is Marzahn in Berlin, I suppose, full of ethnic Germans from Russia, but I saw way less German in Marzahn than Korean in Daerim.)

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @Chrisnonymous

    It is not only the war. Osaka may have have been destroyed (I don’t know), but Kyoto was saved purposefully by the US state department. Nevertheless, residents have chosen to tear down old buildings in favor of concrete squares because progress. I think losing the war accelerated this tendency. But the real issue is the in-between spaces. Kyoto, for example, is in a basin hemmed in by mountains, and Osaka and Kobe are constrained by the sea. However, these all used to be separate communities, but are now essentially one large metropolitan area. If you take trains between them, you can see mountains and rivers, but there is nowhere that is free of proliferating concrete boxes. Nara is the only civilized place left that feels at human scale and integrated with nature.

  121. @Yahya
    @Mr. Rational


    Arabs didn’t invent any of the building styles in evidence there
     
    Probably true. But that's not the argument I was responding to.

    and they were probably designed by White architects and built with foreign labor.

     

    If you want to turn this into a racial pissing contest, i'm down to play a round or two.

    First things first. The pendulum of history shifts constantly and consistently. One era a group is flying high, the next era its crashing towards the bottom. You ought to remember that before getting on your high horse.

    One such an era was the early Medieval Ages (500-1000 AD), when Arabs were on top, and Europeans were at the bottom. In what Europeans call the Dark Ages, the Islamic World was experiencing its Golden Age of scientific discovery and progress. Not only that, but the Islamic world in general was far more civilized and prosperous than Western Europe.

    From Scott Alexander's "Were There Dark Ages?":

    I’m probably an overly literal person, but whenever I think about dark ages, I think of the modern (and anachronistic for the period in question) association between light, population density, and economic activity:

    http://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/reaction/zrx_image19.png

    The Dark Ages in Europe were a time when things would have been more towards the North Korean end of that picture. In fact, you probably could have taken a similar picture at the time, with an east/west instead of north/south axis. From The Muslims of Andalusia:

    [In medieval times], Europe was darkened at sunset, Al-Andalus shone with public lamps; Europe was dirty, Al-Andalus built a thousand baths; Europe lay in mud, Al-Andalus’ streets were paved.
     

    In Al-Andalus, you had great pieces of architecture like the Mosque of Cordoba, elements of which Europeans would later copy in some of their own buildings:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Mezquita_de_C%C3%B3rdoba_desde_el_aire_%28C%C3%B3rdoba%2C_Espa%C3%B1a%29.jpg/2880px-Mezquita_de_C%C3%B3rdoba_desde_el_aire_%28C%C3%B3rdoba%2C_Espa%C3%B1a%29.jpg


    If you take a step back to 2300 B.C, and compare the stone formations in Egypt, to the stone formations in Northern Europe, you'll also find some interesting disparities. For example, the best Northern Euros could come up with at the time was a bunch of random-ass pile of rocks at Stonehenge, which you think is some great achievement, but is just a total joke compared to the Great Pyramids.


    http://img.traveltriangle.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/cover-image-of-Things-To-Do-In-Giza_3rd-april.jpg


    http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200730020156-stonehenge-0420-full-169.jpg


    Alright, I think that's enough for now. Your turn.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter, @nebulafox, @Mr. Rational

    One such an era was the early Medieval Ages (500-1000 AD), when Arabs were on top, and Europeans were at the bottom.

    There was no such thing as Islam until the 7th century.

    In what Europeans call the Dark Ages, the Islamic World was experiencing its Golden Age of scientific discovery and progress.

    Europe was suffering from a breakdown in communications and trade due to Arabic piracy and enslavement after the collapse of the western Roman empire.  Further, it was just plain too cold in much of Europe to support advanced civilization.  It wasn’t in Greece and Egypt, and the reigning civilization across the entire area was Greco-Roman until the empire fell.  Does the name “Ptolemy” ring a bell?

    Most of the “Islamic” advances were stolen from conquered peoples (e.g. “arabic” numerals are actually Indian).  Progress continued for a while, then stagnated as innovation was stifled by orthodoxy.  I understand that more books are translated into Swedish every year than Arabic.  This holds across the third world; India publishes less than 1/3 as many books per year as the far less populous United States.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Mr. Rational

    As I mentioned earlier, the big intellectual pushes made in the medieval Islamic world mostly came from an older Persianate intellectual tradition stretching across Central Asia which absorbed Islam rather than the other way around. Many in the House of Wisdom came from "recent convert" background. But this wasn't unusual: the Latin Romans had a similar dynamic with the Hellenistic culture to the east which absorbed Romanness but did not fundamentally change its base roots. What followed in both situations was cultural interchange: "Captive Greece conquered her rude conqueror" and all that, and the Abbasid court resembling the Sassanids.

    There's a case to be made that the complete breakdown of centralized political authority in Europe lay the seeds for a tension between church and state that helped fuel the distinguishing traits of Western culture. That a distinction could be made at all between spiritual and temporal authority: that was a big departure from previous human traditions. I personally think that anything that simple is never the answer by itself, but it's interesting to note that you don't need to go to China or the Islamic World, or even leave Christendom at all, to see a comparison where that did not happen. In the east, the centralized Roman state did not fall. The emperors in Constantinople never faced resistance from religious authorities like Western European rulers eventually would when the reform Papacy came. Later, the Russians would inherit that tradition: part of the reason the Tsar was more powerful than his counterparts was that church and state were not separate in the Orthodox world. Can you imagine stuff like the Reformation or the Enlightenment originating in Russia rather than Western and Central Europe?

    Replies: @iffen, @Yahya

  122. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Almost Missouri


    Surely, once the plutocracy’s global logistics start delivering them to your doorstep it will become your concern?
     
    It is very concerning. I just meant that it was not my concern in this particular discussion. I do think, however, that the clock is running out on the rationale, the ability, and even the mere possibility of bringing ever increasing numbers of migrants into the West. Even if our current elites stay in power, it will not always be in their interests to continue the same policy forever. They will use the hordes for as long as they have to, but they will eventually abandon them just like they've already abandoned us.

    After the demographic ravages of the medieval Black Death, for example
     
    I think there are two important differences here. First, the Black Death was a pretty indiscriminate killer affecting old and young alike, thus shrinking society but preserving its natural age distribution; but a protracted population pyramid inversion, where every generation is smaller than the last, leaves you with permanently skewed dependency ratio that locks society into a downward spiral of economic stagnation. Second, the Black Death was a plague, an exogenous factor that was menacing a society already in a basically healthy condition, whereas we actually have a culture of death. It is to this I wish now to turn.

    I might be best to just start with a comprehensive description of the problem. I know Rosie and dfordoom have repeatedly asked for one, so here it is.

    Many causes have been proffered to explain demographic decline, from the decline of the hierarchy and the patriarchy, the education of women, modern convenience, and so forth. These are all symptoms, not causes. The real cause is the lack of a foreign existential threat.

    For, in "traditional" societies---and here the word "traditional" comprises everything from Beduin tribes to city-states and even Westphalian nation-states up to the year 1900 so---the whole impetus of cultural life is provided by the fact that these entities are constantly trying to destroy one another. "Foreign policy" thus becomes the raison d'être and the primum mobile of cultural existence, and it governs how everything else is organized, including those symptoms which are sometimes erroneously thought to be causes. Here we have a "patriarchy" because the men who do the fighting are the only ones standing between the tribe and annihilation, and here we have a "hierarchy" because the men who lead and command are the most necessary and valuable of the man-type. Here women are married off early and spend their lives doing housework, making babies, and raising children, not because they are oppressed but because, in the grand project of keeping the state fit for its essential purpose of confronting the foreign threat, this also is necessary work and who else can do it except the woman? Here the keeping of women and the training of children are tightly controlled and serious matters, not a field of experimentation for effete playwrights and bureaucratic ninnies.

    But in addition to this, every facet of the culture, from first to last, is either consciously or unconsciously (and mostly unconsciously) stylized with reference to the main theme. A thousand different details about the architecture of the house, the display of public art, standards of manners and dress, the vesting of public authority, the customs of craftwork and markets---it's all comprehensibly "pro-natal" because it's all made to harmonize with central criterion of keeping the state in fighting form.

    When the external threat is removed through the overcoming and absorption of all enemies, or simply through successful urbanization progressively making man's environment more and more artificial, thereupon enters what Christopher Lasch so expertly described as the "Age of Narcissism." It is here that, for the first time, the old social order is felt to be restrictive and protests are raised against it, and it is here that the one foreign threat is replaced by the war of all against all. In the old order, one's identity extended out to one's family and clan, not only laterally in space but also forward and backward in time. Property was felt to be something received from ancestors and held in trust for descendants, not something to be ruthlessly exploited to maximize present profits. It would have been insanity in the past to act against the interests of one's family, but in the Age of Narcissism one's own parents, children and spouses become the enemy. They are the principle threats to the further expansion of one's own profligacy and self-indulgence, which is all that remains open to modern man's ambition.

    And finally, this is precisely why all the thousand details of culture, which in the past facilitated natalism, now militate so heavily against it. The architecture of our houses is not conducive to raising children, our work schedules and practices are prohibitive, childless sociopaths and homosexuals have every advantage over the family man in corporate culture, and the freedom of adults to engage in every perversion is prioritized in the public sphere over against the wellbeing of children. Our "culture of death" makes childrearing more difficult in every particular because it's all organized around the exaltation of the individual ego.

    No economic incentives or any other changes to our material condition will reverse this. Religion will not help because its behavior-constraining apparatus has been removed from the public square and the number of people who truly believe enough to be countercultural for God's sake has been shown to be, as it is in every age, but a little flock. Even war, famine, disease, and cataclysm will do nothing to shock people back into condition when once they have experienced the liberation of the ego; with the very world falling down around them, they will continue only to pine for the fleshpots of Egypt rather than reevaluate the meaning of their existence.

    This is why demographic collapse is inevitable, why it will go on for a long time, and why it will not offer the same kind of opportunities that the Black Death did. Our demographic decline is our cultural decline and vice verse. It is the dying off of a dissolute and spiritually broken people with nothing left to fight for.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Wency

    It’s an interesting comment, and I agree with it in part. I do like to point out (and maybe I did it last thread, maybe it was further back) — what is the reason given in the Bible for having a large family?

    Proverbs 127:3-5
    I normally abhor “The Message” translation, but it gets right to the point on this one:

    “Oh, how blessed are you parents, with your quivers full of children! Your enemies don’t stand a chance against you; you’ll sweep them right off your doorstep.”

    I do think this motivation makes a lot more sense than the whole business about having more children to work the farm that everyone likes to cite. Putting children to work is a way to defray the costs of childcare, it’s not reliably profitable in itself. But having an entire clan that will reliably protect the farm/herd, and just as importantly the women, that can’t easily be bought off like hired guards, that will even raid weaker neighbors for resources (including women) — now that’s something. And they look out for one another, generation after generation — “brother against cousin, cousin against outsider” as the Bedouins say.

    All that said, I don’t believe that this is always the most important reason, let alone the sole reason, that past societies had children. I see it more as a single meme within a larger memetic competition that also interfaces with biology. Societies with insufficiently pro-natal or martial cultures have a strong tendency to face destruction by neighbors, through some combination of massacre (especially of men), enslavement, displacement, and assimilation. But different mixes of memes worked in different places, which had long, relatively static eons to develop them, hence my remarks about contrasting matrilocal and patriarchal structures.

    Now the old pro-natal memeplexes are broken almost everywhere by modernity (which is largely what you’re describing as “Age of Narcissism”). And even where they’re not entirely broken (i.e. Africa), immigration can’t really restore it, because African immigrants largely assimilate to the Western memeplex, they are not conquerors that destroy it, make themselves the new overclass, take several fecund wives each, and impose their own culture on the offspring.

    In the past, there was always some aggressive tribe on the fringes prepared to do just this if the center could not hold. Decadent Byzantium let its guard down for a few years a millennium ago, and they speak Turkish to this day in the place once called Asia Minor, which in turn had been Hellenized over a millennium prior to that under somewhat similar circumstances.

    But now it seems there are no tribes on the fringes. If this mechanism is to re-assert itself again (and civilized men everywhere hope and pray it won’t), such an aggressive tribe would have to appear de novo. Which, if I understand him, is sort of what “Bronze Age Mindset” is about.

  123. @DanHessinMD
    @dfordoom

    The Amish have been separate for centuries and it has been great for them.

    If you don't break any laws, then what will the government do to you?

    If the government cracks down on the Amish, how will that work out? They can't do it without coming across as monsters.

    Localism is a great option. The Orthodox Jews do the same thing as the Amish with terrific success. I don't think rounding up the Jews is something the government wants to be doing.

    Replies: @Wency

    We’ve covered the Amish a lot in these discussions. dfordoom is more pessimistic on their prospects than I am — I’m more ambivalent.

    On the one hand, the obvious way to start breaking groups like the Amish is to mandate K-12 public schooling for them. The idea of breaking homeschooling is a very real proposal — homeschooling is largely an American thing — and the Amish could just be collateral damage in a larger struggle against conservative Christians. If you want to dial up the war, do things like mandate Internet access and various modern conveniences in their homes and forbid child labor (with CPS taking kids away for noncompliance on any of these points).

    But I do think that being quirky, interesting, hard-working, law-abiding, and pacifistic — all around good and desirable neighbors — still has its benefits, and contrary to the pessimists, I believe that could save the Amish. I think it’s largely why the Roman anti-Christian persecutions ultimately fizzled out. In soft, decadent multicultural societies, it’s tough to harness all that much energy to eliminate the “other”, especially if the “other” is so naturally inoffensive.

    • Replies: @Paperback Writer
    @Wency


    K-12 education

     

    That's already happened. A bunch of Amish men went to jail back the 1950s and they won the right to school their kids to the 8th grade. There's a lot on the web about this.

    Replies: @Wency

    , @DanHessinMD
    @Wency

    dfordoom is in Australia. Has he ever even seen an Amish person?

    The USG simply doesn't have the resources or desire to micromanage well functioning groups when urban crime is rampant. The state of Pennsylvania has that whole "Philadelphia" issue to sort out.

    As for homeschooling, formal homeschooling has doubled to tripled in the last year. Most homeschool families are committed to it and if states tried banning it, people would just move.

    I think urban areas must be pretty shell-shocked at the flight they have already seen.

    Replies: @Wency

    , @dfordoom
    @Wency


    The idea of breaking homeschooling is a very real proposal — homeschooling is largely an American thing — and the Amish could just be collateral damage in a larger struggle against conservative Christians.
     
    That would seem to be the most likely scenario. The war against conservative Christians is obviously going to intensify and those who want to destroy conservative Christians aren't going to be worried if innocent bystanders get stomped as well.

    Do the Amish have a powerful lobby group to protect them if they do look like becoming collateral damage?

    If homeschooling were to be outlawed what do you think conservatives would do? I'd expect them to start writing articles such as The Conservative Case For Banning Homeschooling.

    What would ordinary people do? I'll take a wild guess - they'll do nothing at all. It will be like every other battle in the Culture Wars.

    Replies: @Wency

  124. @Chrisnonymous
    @dfordoom


    I think they have a much better chance than most countries of achieving population reduction without economic and political chaos and without having their culture destroyed
     
    Unfortunately, the government is already talking about making Japan "a multiethnic society", which implies that they are going the immigration route. They are conservative, but also America's bitch. The political situation in America or the Anglosphere has to change before Japan will. But if it does, there is willingness in Japan to fight for the future.

    Replies: @Wency, @dfordoom

    The US alliance doesn’t help, but I really think it’s Capital pushing multi-culturalism all around the developed world (with America being Capital’s greatest champion), rather than anything exceptional about America per se. There is a natural alliance that exists between Capital and political leaders, particularly in atomized modern societies where there’s not really an organized opposition to Capital, all the more so if Capital is willing to adopt whatever superficial memes it must to neutralize its opposition (e.g. Woke Capital).

    All the people in this thread observing that depopulation has its benefits — this is true, for Labor. For the common man, the young working person, the precise effects of depopulation depend on the particulars of the situation, sometimes good, sometimes bad. It’s a sticky, complicated issue, and if organized labor won’t or can’t sound an alarm, then Labor as a whole is basically ambivalent and neutralized on the matter. All the more so once a division forms between native and immigrant labor.

    For Capital, however, there’s no ambivalence about it. Depopulation is always and everywhere an unmitigated disaster, a constant depreciation on asset values and their corresponding cash flows, a weakening of its bargaining position vis-a-vis an increasingly thin supply of labor. And so Capital will fight depopulation tooth and nail, do whatever it takes to keep the bodies living amidst its real estate, patronizing and laboring at its businesses. In practice, that means importing immigrants.

    Moreover, in an aging society, the vast population of elders (who so love to vote) are often inclined to align with Capital upon which their pensions depend, not Labor, the dwindling group of younger people with whom so many of the elders, being childless, have no association.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @Wency

    I don't know much about the perspective of Japanese managerial class. In the past, they have been fairly conservative, but you may be right that they are pushing for immigration. However, the desire to be "free" in the way Americans are apparently free from social constraints is strong and growing stronger with Japanese people's increasing exposure to social media.

    , @dfordoom
    @Wency


    For Capital, however, there’s no ambivalence about it. Depopulation is always and everywhere an unmitigated disaster, a constant depreciation on asset values and their corresponding cash flows, a weakening of its bargaining position vis-a-vis an increasingly thin supply of labor. And so Capital will fight depopulation tooth and nail, do whatever it takes to keep the bodies living amidst its real estate, patronizing and laboring at its businesses. In practice, that means importing immigrants.
     
    Yes, I agree with all that.

    It also needs to be pointed out that it's not just mega-corporations. Small businesses and farmers are even more keen on keeping wage levels as low as possible. Never make the mistake of idealising small businesessmen - many if not most are greedy, vicious and shortsighted. Small businessmen are on the whole horrified by the idea of paying decent wages.

    Anyone who thinks that Woke Capital wants depopulation, or will willingly accept depopulation, is living a world of paranoid delusions.

    Replies: @Wency

  125. anon[584] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    @dfordoom

    Israel is a very modern, developed society. It just happens to have an incredibly fertile religious minority who happens to be both the fastest-growing and poorest part of the populace-Israel's birthrate comes with the price tag of the stress of ultra-Orthodox families on their welfare state. Israel is also a small country, so they can make more of a difference.

    (What it is not and has not been for multiple decades is the "Western country" of American political imagination, but that's irrelevant for this topic: most developed non-Western countries have the same birthrate trends.)

    The same dynamic occurs in Singapore, where the fact that the Muslim Malays have a significantly higher birth rate than the Han majority has led the government to institute mass immigration from mainland China to keep demographics Han dominated. They aren't anywhere near the level of the ultra-Orthodox, but their faith does play an important role in their culture, including in (relative) fecundity.

    Replies: @anon

    Israel is a very modern, developed society. It just happens to have an incredibly fertile religious minority who happens to be both the fastest-growing and poorest part of the populace-Israel’s birthrate comes with the price tag of the stress of ultra-Orthodox families on their welfare state. I

    Do you have a link to the demographics in question? I know from personal conversations that the various sub-sets of Orthodox have many children both in New York and in Israel, but I would like to see actual evidence that the Israeli TFR is driven solely or even mainly by the Orthodox.

    Because there is another factor to consider: Israel is more of a nation-state than many others, plus the elites of Israel apparently actually like their countrymen as a group. I’ve come to realize over the last 4 to 12 years just how much that can matter. Imagine a country where the leadership doesn’t actively work to obliterate ordinary, working people and replace them with foreigners – that’s got to have a lot of social and cultural effects. It could well be that non Orthodox are also having more than 1.7 children. The implications are important.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @anon

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/haredi-population-growing-twice-as-fast-as-total-israeli-population-report/

    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/269748

    I'm having a hard time finding precise statistics for inter-group birth rates (plenty on Christians vs. Jews vs. Muslims) that aren't at least 20 years out of date. I will say that I probably overstated my case: I'm not trying to evasively dodge this, I was wrong. I'm reading online, and it does seem that non-Orthodox Israelis still have significantly higher birth rates from popular news articles. But I still have a hard time imagining Israeli Jews would never have a higher birth rate than the Muslim countries if the Orthodox weren't there. Muslims in Israel have had declining birth rates, but that's not the case in the countries around them.


    >Because there is another factor to consider: Israel is more of a nation-state than many others, plus the elites of Israel apparently actually like their countrymen as a group.

    More importantly, they identify on some level with them, as do elites in Asia. They aren't some country apart.

    Replies: @anon

  126. @Wency
    @DanHessinMD

    We've covered the Amish a lot in these discussions. dfordoom is more pessimistic on their prospects than I am -- I'm more ambivalent.

    On the one hand, the obvious way to start breaking groups like the Amish is to mandate K-12 public schooling for them. The idea of breaking homeschooling is a very real proposal -- homeschooling is largely an American thing -- and the Amish could just be collateral damage in a larger struggle against conservative Christians. If you want to dial up the war, do things like mandate Internet access and various modern conveniences in their homes and forbid child labor (with CPS taking kids away for noncompliance on any of these points).

    But I do think that being quirky, interesting, hard-working, law-abiding, and pacifistic -- all around good and desirable neighbors -- still has its benefits, and contrary to the pessimists, I believe that could save the Amish. I think it's largely why the Roman anti-Christian persecutions ultimately fizzled out. In soft, decadent multicultural societies, it's tough to harness all that much energy to eliminate the "other", especially if the "other" is so naturally inoffensive.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @DanHessinMD, @dfordoom

    K-12 education

    That’s already happened. A bunch of Amish men went to jail back the 1950s and they won the right to school their kids to the 8th grade. There’s a lot on the web about this.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Paperback Writer

    Yep, Wisconsin v. Yoder. A Supreme Court case, not an irrevocable law of the universe.

  127. @dfordoom
    @Paperback Writer


    The point is that AE, much as I admire him, gets it wrong here. Localism is just his version of Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option. Both are wrong. You can live a nice, quiet life only so long, until USG decides to do something that will destroy your way of life.
     
    Agreed. They're both copes.

    The most fatal mistake that any dissident group can make is to draw attention to itself by trying to separate itself from modern society. It's the equivalent of painting a target on your back. In order to maintain a distinct traditionalist community it is necessary to isolate yourself from modern society. The more you isolate yourselves the more successfully you can maintain your cultural/religious identity. And the more you make yourself a target. Ask the Branch Davidians.

    More and more my feeling is that the only way to survive is to blend in. Don't attract any attention. Conform outwardly. I don't like the idea but I'm sceptical as to whether there are any viable alternatives.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Paperback Writer, @iffen

    This has already spurred a discussion on the Amish/Orthodox Jews so I won’t repeat points that have already been made.

    There’s nothing wrong with the idea of a cope as long as it’s recognized as such, and that’s exactly what the Amish/OJ’s do. They fundamentally disapprove of the secular way of life, but they isolate themselves and they don’t threaten mainstream society.

    The line is, obviously, vociferously refusing to obey the law and flouting it. I don’t approve of the way the government dealt with the Branch Covidians, but you have to admit that David Koresh wasn’t exactly a quiet, pious guy who just wanted to be left alone in peace.

    I don’t have “the answer” because I don’t think there is any. Liberal industrial society is chugging along until it isn’t.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Paperback Writer

    I agree that there's a distinction here that's important. I double down on my earlier remarks that the Amish are pretty close to ideal neighbors, and I do believe that goes a long way.

    But also, let's be clear, while the Branch Davidians weren't exactly Amish in terms of the neighborly ideal, they had pretty good relations with the local community and local law enforcement. There was absolutely a smear campaign against them that has still stuck to this day. Every step of the Fed process of destroying them was driven by lies and bloodlust.

  128. @dfordoom
    @Paperback Writer


    The point is that AE, much as I admire him, gets it wrong here. Localism is just his version of Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option. Both are wrong. You can live a nice, quiet life only so long, until USG decides to do something that will destroy your way of life.
     
    Agreed. They're both copes.

    The most fatal mistake that any dissident group can make is to draw attention to itself by trying to separate itself from modern society. It's the equivalent of painting a target on your back. In order to maintain a distinct traditionalist community it is necessary to isolate yourself from modern society. The more you isolate yourselves the more successfully you can maintain your cultural/religious identity. And the more you make yourself a target. Ask the Branch Davidians.

    More and more my feeling is that the only way to survive is to blend in. Don't attract any attention. Conform outwardly. I don't like the idea but I'm sceptical as to whether there are any viable alternatives.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Paperback Writer, @iffen

    Ask the Branch Davidians.</

    Comparing the Branch Davidians to the Amish is like comparing rocks to apples.

    • Replies: @anon
    @iffen

    Yes, in fact comparing the Anabaptist Amish with the 7th Day Adventist splinter group-turned-cult Branch Davidians is retarded at best, and outright lying propaganda at worst.

    Replies: @iffen

    , @dfordoom
    @iffen


    Comparing the Branch Davidians to the Amish is like comparing rocks to apples.
     
    I wasn't comparing them. I was suggesting that any group that decides to ostentatiously separate itself from mainstream society could meet the same fate as the Branch Davidians.

    A question for AE - is there any polling data on how people really feel about the Amish? Do they really have widespread support or are they regarded with suspicion? Is that changing?
  129. @Paperback Writer
    @Wency


    K-12 education

     

    That's already happened. A bunch of Amish men went to jail back the 1950s and they won the right to school their kids to the 8th grade. There's a lot on the web about this.

    Replies: @Wency

    Yep, Wisconsin v. Yoder. A Supreme Court case, not an irrevocable law of the universe.

  130. @Paperback Writer
    @dfordoom

    This has already spurred a discussion on the Amish/Orthodox Jews so I won't repeat points that have already been made.

    There's nothing wrong with the idea of a cope as long as it's recognized as such, and that's exactly what the Amish/OJ's do. They fundamentally disapprove of the secular way of life, but they isolate themselves and they don't threaten mainstream society.

    The line is, obviously, vociferously refusing to obey the law and flouting it. I don't approve of the way the government dealt with the Branch Covidians, but you have to admit that David Koresh wasn't exactly a quiet, pious guy who just wanted to be left alone in peace.

    I don't have "the answer" because I don't think there is any. Liberal industrial society is chugging along until it isn't.

    Replies: @Wency

    I agree that there’s a distinction here that’s important. I double down on my earlier remarks that the Amish are pretty close to ideal neighbors, and I do believe that goes a long way.

    But also, let’s be clear, while the Branch Davidians weren’t exactly Amish in terms of the neighborly ideal, they had pretty good relations with the local community and local law enforcement. There was absolutely a smear campaign against them that has still stuck to this day. Every step of the Fed process of destroying them was driven by lies and bloodlust.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  131. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Ask the Branch Davidians.</

    Comparing the Branch Davidians to the Amish is like comparing rocks to apples.

    Replies: @anon, @dfordoom

    Yes, in fact comparing the Anabaptist Amish with the 7th Day Adventist splinter group-turned-cult Branch Davidians is retarded at best, and outright lying propaganda at worst.

    • Replies: @iffen
    @anon

    Doom is confused but is hardly a propagandist.

  132. @Chrisnonymous
    @DanHessinMD

    Okay. Wow. I didn't think that on Unz.com, people (ie, you) would be so stupid as to research a CNN travel fluff piece as though it were informative on any serious topic. This is like posting a travel article about Yangon to demonstrate that there is nothing threatening in Myanmar or a travel piece about the Everest expeditions to demonstrate that there is lots of work in the Himalayas. There is a lot to unpack in the article, and it is pretty much irrelevant to the Japanese anyway.

    1- Japanese prefectures are very different in the ways they are dealing with the population drain. Example: some have opened offices in Tokyo to recruit people to move from the city to the counteyside. Some may be introducing housing subsidies or selling off country properties at a fraction of cost to subsidize movement from the city. This is something western retirees (as featured in the article) might do, but young Japanese couldn't. The article is shit, so we don't know any more about it.

    2- These are older expats, which means we really know nothing about them (except that they don't have to worry about raising children). The article states they waited until they got permanent residency status to stop working in the city and move to the counteyside, which implies they were working only to obtain that visa status. They probably have independent financial resources to support themselves in the countryside. We don't know since the article is shit.

    3- The article mentions that the people had very specific requirements and looked "for years" for their house. Contrary to the overall impression given by this article, this implies that their great deal was not so easy to find. As someone who lives and travels in Japan, I can tell you that this anecdotal article is nothing like data about the housing in Japan. The home featured in that article is an aberration--beautiful and preserved (despite the money the article says the couple had to spend on renovation).

    Moreover and more importantly, the article is irrelevant to the japanese situation. People go where there are jobs. The Japanese have created an extensive rail system that funnels millions of people every day from their homes in suburban areas to urban centers because the jobs are all in urban centers. If you are a single young Japanese and not a rich married expat, you can stay in the countryside if you can accept a life of toil on a farm, fishing boat, or factory and possibly not making ends meet and remaining single. This is not much of a choice for young people. Obviously, in an absolute sense, there are many people making small town life possible, but relatively, small town life is dying due to lack of job opportunities, which are due to modern economic structures. The necessity of moving to urban areas to live creates the dystopian (sub)urban sprawl. I live in Japan and can attest to this. You can ride a train for 30 min to an hour out of the center of a city and just pass row upon row of contrete houses and pachinko parlors in bedroom communities. If you want another source for this, read "Dogs and Demons" by Alex Kerr. But don't do 5 min research on shitty CNN articles and say "This is so absurd." That just makes you look naive.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD

    Bro, my wife is Japanese. I know a decent amount about Japan. I wasn’t writing to show how smart I am, I was just pointing something out for people who aren’t aware —

    There is an extremely strong desire for urban living that is hard to understand for Americans because most Americans aren’t like this. Or at least not to the same extent. Americans spread out across the land, more or less. Japanese people are doing the opposite, crowding more tightly into cities than they have to.

    This was a post about population, and if you want a decent sized family, it helps to have a real house with a yard to play. But the Japanese people are voting with their feet that they do not want this.

    Yes there are more opportunities in the cities but it doesn’t have to be that way. Japanese corporate culture has been slow to embrace telework and companies choose to be based in cities in spite of extremely high rents.

    Americans too have less opportunity in rural areas, but they choose to drive great distances or accept less money. Japanese people aren’t doing this.

    Regarding telework, I had a work conference several years ago and there was a large cohort from Japan. Most of us Americans frequently worked from home, something which was shocking to those in the Japanese group, for cultural reasons. Work from home simply wasn’t socially acceptable then.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @DanHessinMD

    Fiirst of all, let me apologize for using inflammatory words like stupid and naive. I really try not to get sucked into that bad habit that afflicts many UR discussions. Unfortunately, I was drunk-posting last night. I am sure you are not stupid, and think probably much smarter than I am.

    You are right that some telework can let some people move away from the sprawl, but that corporate culture discourages it. This is changing somewhat now that people are at home for Corona. Some managers are saying they can do this permanently, and some department stores are actively making parallel online shops, etc. However, there are also those who complain that they don't like working from home, as has happened with telework in the US too.

    However, there is always work in urban centers that arises due to the proximity of people--massage parlors, restaurants,convenience store jobs, etc --that cannot be done by telework. These are not great jobs but they exist precisely because of the urban context. In smaller less dense communities, you cannot just pop into the corner 7-Eleven or massage parlor for a quick sandwich or 20 minutes relaxation so they can't exist. ( To say nothing of, for example, lawyers, who despite doing primarily office work, need to be able to meet face-to-face sometimes, or doctors who need to touch people sometimes.)

    So, there are actual structural reasons that create jobs in urban places. The question, then, is how people get to work--massive numbers of people mean long distances which translate into either roads or public trnasportation. Japan's public trnasportation system is very well-developed, but you still need to live close to a node (eg, a train station). This is what's driving sprawling urban areas--the combination of enhanced economic activity and necessity of living in proximity to public transportation. All the concrete box communities that literally stretch from Lake Biwa to the Inland Sea are bedroom communities for Osaka-Kobe existing in a web of train lines.

    Actually, these communities have a lot of houses. There are stretches of train track where you get unobstructed views of the horizon because the buildings are all low, but very few places where this view shows anything but pavement and buildings. Some green space could be reclaimed bht it would involve intentionally moving people into highrises, which people don't want for QOL and also because they are afraid of earthquake damage.

    It's true that there are Japanese people who dislike nature and like the urban sprawl. But I think that is an effect of living in these communities, not a cause. After you are away from nature for a while, you start to feel scared by it. This is like people who were born in NYC and are afraid to leave it or not interested in seeing the outside world.

    By the way, you might be interested in this:
    https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/07/bmjnph-2020-000151
    Very disappointing.

  133. @Wency
    @DanHessinMD

    We've covered the Amish a lot in these discussions. dfordoom is more pessimistic on their prospects than I am -- I'm more ambivalent.

    On the one hand, the obvious way to start breaking groups like the Amish is to mandate K-12 public schooling for them. The idea of breaking homeschooling is a very real proposal -- homeschooling is largely an American thing -- and the Amish could just be collateral damage in a larger struggle against conservative Christians. If you want to dial up the war, do things like mandate Internet access and various modern conveniences in their homes and forbid child labor (with CPS taking kids away for noncompliance on any of these points).

    But I do think that being quirky, interesting, hard-working, law-abiding, and pacifistic -- all around good and desirable neighbors -- still has its benefits, and contrary to the pessimists, I believe that could save the Amish. I think it's largely why the Roman anti-Christian persecutions ultimately fizzled out. In soft, decadent multicultural societies, it's tough to harness all that much energy to eliminate the "other", especially if the "other" is so naturally inoffensive.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @DanHessinMD, @dfordoom

    dfordoom is in Australia. Has he ever even seen an Amish person?

    The USG simply doesn’t have the resources or desire to micromanage well functioning groups when urban crime is rampant. The state of Pennsylvania has that whole “Philadelphia” issue to sort out.

    As for homeschooling, formal homeschooling has doubled to tripled in the last year. Most homeschool families are committed to it and if states tried banning it, people would just move.

    I think urban areas must be pretty shell-shocked at the flight they have already seen.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @DanHessinMD


    dfordoom is in Australia. Has he ever even seen an Amish person?
     
    Ad hominem -- don't care. Though again I partly disagree and partly agree with him.

    The USG simply doesn’t have the resources or desire to micromanage well functioning groups when urban crime is rampant. The state of Pennsylvania has that whole “Philadelphia” issue to sort out.
     
    I mean, do we have to bring up anarcho-tyranny? Like many concepts I think it's demonstrably at least partly true, though sometimes stretched too widely. But it's worth observing that Wisconsin v. Yoder came in 1972 -- i.e., the last time that government really overreached in trying to smack down the Amish, the homicide rate had just about doubled from the previous decade and was still on the increase.

    As for states, they're drifting ever-leftward, as is the nation. Not everyone can uproot. And the Federal government will no doubt try to assert itself in this matter as well. Which is not to say it's not a battle that can be won, but there is going to be a battle here, particularly once Democrats take back the courts.
  134. @Nodwink
    The anti-Establishment rebellions have been crushed. The swamp has won.

    Trumpism - which was the least rebellious of these - will be wiped out. The Capitol insurrection was a fatal mistake, which could leave Trump himself in prison. The modern equivalent of Hitler's invasion of Russia.

    On the Left, Bernie-ism was destroyed with a few phone calls from Barack Obama. All of the Berniecrats within the Democratic Party fell in line, with barely a whimper. In Britain, Corbynism was destroyed in the 2019 election, with no chance of returning any time soon.

    The elite grip on power is stronger than it was five years ago.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Barack Obama's secret Unz account, @Nodwink, @RadicalCenter, @Patrick McNally

    I don’t quite agree. The atmosphere of the Biden inauguration reminds me a lot of the declaration of martial law in Poland in 1981. One didn’t have to be a fervent Cold Warrior (I certainly was not) in order to smell the signs of something like 1989 on its way when Jaruzelski declared martial law in 1981. Who knows what this will look like in 2028?

  135. @anon
    @iffen

    Yes, in fact comparing the Anabaptist Amish with the 7th Day Adventist splinter group-turned-cult Branch Davidians is retarded at best, and outright lying propaganda at worst.

    Replies: @iffen

    Doom is confused but is hardly a propagandist.

  136. @DanHessinMD
    @Wency

    dfordoom is in Australia. Has he ever even seen an Amish person?

    The USG simply doesn't have the resources or desire to micromanage well functioning groups when urban crime is rampant. The state of Pennsylvania has that whole "Philadelphia" issue to sort out.

    As for homeschooling, formal homeschooling has doubled to tripled in the last year. Most homeschool families are committed to it and if states tried banning it, people would just move.

    I think urban areas must be pretty shell-shocked at the flight they have already seen.

    Replies: @Wency

    dfordoom is in Australia. Has he ever even seen an Amish person?

    Ad hominem — don’t care. Though again I partly disagree and partly agree with him.

    The USG simply doesn’t have the resources or desire to micromanage well functioning groups when urban crime is rampant. The state of Pennsylvania has that whole “Philadelphia” issue to sort out.

    I mean, do we have to bring up anarcho-tyranny? Like many concepts I think it’s demonstrably at least partly true, though sometimes stretched too widely. But it’s worth observing that Wisconsin v. Yoder came in 1972 — i.e., the last time that government really overreached in trying to smack down the Amish, the homicide rate had just about doubled from the previous decade and was still on the increase.

    As for states, they’re drifting ever-leftward, as is the nation. Not everyone can uproot. And the Federal government will no doubt try to assert itself in this matter as well. Which is not to say it’s not a battle that can be won, but there is going to be a battle here, particularly once Democrats take back the courts.

  137. @DanHessinMD
    @Chrisnonymous

    Bro, my wife is Japanese. I know a decent amount about Japan. I wasn't writing to show how smart I am, I was just pointing something out for people who aren't aware --

    There is an extremely strong desire for urban living that is hard to understand for Americans because most Americans aren't like this. Or at least not to the same extent. Americans spread out across the land, more or less. Japanese people are doing the opposite, crowding more tightly into cities than they have to.

    This was a post about population, and if you want a decent sized family, it helps to have a real house with a yard to play. But the Japanese people are voting with their feet that they do not want this.

    Yes there are more opportunities in the cities but it doesn't have to be that way. Japanese corporate culture has been slow to embrace telework and companies choose to be based in cities in spite of extremely high rents.

    Americans too have less opportunity in rural areas, but they choose to drive great distances or accept less money. Japanese people aren't doing this.

    Regarding telework, I had a work conference several years ago and there was a large cohort from Japan. Most of us Americans frequently worked from home, something which was shocking to those in the Japanese group, for cultural reasons. Work from home simply wasn't socially acceptable then.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    Fiirst of all, let me apologize for using inflammatory words like stupid and naive. I really try not to get sucked into that bad habit that afflicts many UR discussions. Unfortunately, I was drunk-posting last night. I am sure you are not stupid, and think probably much smarter than I am.

    You are right that some telework can let some people move away from the sprawl, but that corporate culture discourages it. This is changing somewhat now that people are at home for Corona. Some managers are saying they can do this permanently, and some department stores are actively making parallel online shops, etc. However, there are also those who complain that they don’t like working from home, as has happened with telework in the US too.

    However, there is always work in urban centers that arises due to the proximity of people–massage parlors, restaurants,convenience store jobs, etc –that cannot be done by telework. These are not great jobs but they exist precisely because of the urban context. In smaller less dense communities, you cannot just pop into the corner 7-Eleven or massage parlor for a quick sandwich or 20 minutes relaxation so they can’t exist. ( To say nothing of, for example, lawyers, who despite doing primarily office work, need to be able to meet face-to-face sometimes, or doctors who need to touch people sometimes.)

    So, there are actual structural reasons that create jobs in urban places. The question, then, is how people get to work–massive numbers of people mean long distances which translate into either roads or public trnasportation. Japan’s public trnasportation system is very well-developed, but you still need to live close to a node (eg, a train station). This is what’s driving sprawling urban areas–the combination of enhanced economic activity and necessity of living in proximity to public transportation. All the concrete box communities that literally stretch from Lake Biwa to the Inland Sea are bedroom communities for Osaka-Kobe existing in a web of train lines.

    Actually, these communities have a lot of houses. There are stretches of train track where you get unobstructed views of the horizon because the buildings are all low, but very few places where this view shows anything but pavement and buildings. Some green space could be reclaimed bht it would involve intentionally moving people into highrises, which people don’t want for QOL and also because they are afraid of earthquake damage.

    It’s true that there are Japanese people who dislike nature and like the urban sprawl. But I think that is an effect of living in these communities, not a cause. After you are away from nature for a while, you start to feel scared by it. This is like people who were born in NYC and are afraid to leave it or not interested in seeing the outside world.

    By the way, you might be interested in this:
    https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/07/bmjnph-2020-000151
    Very disappointing.

  138. @Wency
    @Chrisnonymous

    The US alliance doesn't help, but I really think it's Capital pushing multi-culturalism all around the developed world (with America being Capital's greatest champion), rather than anything exceptional about America per se. There is a natural alliance that exists between Capital and political leaders, particularly in atomized modern societies where there's not really an organized opposition to Capital, all the more so if Capital is willing to adopt whatever superficial memes it must to neutralize its opposition (e.g. Woke Capital).

    All the people in this thread observing that depopulation has its benefits -- this is true, for Labor. For the common man, the young working person, the precise effects of depopulation depend on the particulars of the situation, sometimes good, sometimes bad. It's a sticky, complicated issue, and if organized labor won't or can't sound an alarm, then Labor as a whole is basically ambivalent and neutralized on the matter. All the more so once a division forms between native and immigrant labor.

    For Capital, however, there's no ambivalence about it. Depopulation is always and everywhere an unmitigated disaster, a constant depreciation on asset values and their corresponding cash flows, a weakening of its bargaining position vis-a-vis an increasingly thin supply of labor. And so Capital will fight depopulation tooth and nail, do whatever it takes to keep the bodies living amidst its real estate, patronizing and laboring at its businesses. In practice, that means importing immigrants.

    Moreover, in an aging society, the vast population of elders (who so love to vote) are often inclined to align with Capital upon which their pensions depend, not Labor, the dwindling group of younger people with whom so many of the elders, being childless, have no association.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @dfordoom

    I don’t know much about the perspective of Japanese managerial class. In the past, they have been fairly conservative, but you may be right that they are pushing for immigration. However, the desire to be “free” in the way Americans are apparently free from social constraints is strong and growing stronger with Japanese people’s increasing exposure to social media.

  139. @Chrisnonymous
    @dfordoom


    I think they have a much better chance than most countries of achieving population reduction without economic and political chaos and without having their culture destroyed
     
    Unfortunately, the government is already talking about making Japan "a multiethnic society", which implies that they are going the immigration route. They are conservative, but also America's bitch. The political situation in America or the Anglosphere has to change before Japan will. But if it does, there is willingness in Japan to fight for the future.

    Replies: @Wency, @dfordoom

    Unfortunately, the government is already talking about making Japan “a multiethnic society”, which implies that they are going the immigration route. They are conservative, but also America’s bitch. The political situation in America or the Anglosphere has to change before Japan will. But if it does, there is willingness in Japan to fight for the future.

    Yep. Japan has a chance of survival but it’s not a particularly good chance.

    No country that has economic/political/cultural ties to the US has any realistic chance of survival unless it finds a way of breaking free of American influence.

  140. @Wency
    @Chrisnonymous

    The US alliance doesn't help, but I really think it's Capital pushing multi-culturalism all around the developed world (with America being Capital's greatest champion), rather than anything exceptional about America per se. There is a natural alliance that exists between Capital and political leaders, particularly in atomized modern societies where there's not really an organized opposition to Capital, all the more so if Capital is willing to adopt whatever superficial memes it must to neutralize its opposition (e.g. Woke Capital).

    All the people in this thread observing that depopulation has its benefits -- this is true, for Labor. For the common man, the young working person, the precise effects of depopulation depend on the particulars of the situation, sometimes good, sometimes bad. It's a sticky, complicated issue, and if organized labor won't or can't sound an alarm, then Labor as a whole is basically ambivalent and neutralized on the matter. All the more so once a division forms between native and immigrant labor.

    For Capital, however, there's no ambivalence about it. Depopulation is always and everywhere an unmitigated disaster, a constant depreciation on asset values and their corresponding cash flows, a weakening of its bargaining position vis-a-vis an increasingly thin supply of labor. And so Capital will fight depopulation tooth and nail, do whatever it takes to keep the bodies living amidst its real estate, patronizing and laboring at its businesses. In practice, that means importing immigrants.

    Moreover, in an aging society, the vast population of elders (who so love to vote) are often inclined to align with Capital upon which their pensions depend, not Labor, the dwindling group of younger people with whom so many of the elders, being childless, have no association.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @dfordoom

    For Capital, however, there’s no ambivalence about it. Depopulation is always and everywhere an unmitigated disaster, a constant depreciation on asset values and their corresponding cash flows, a weakening of its bargaining position vis-a-vis an increasingly thin supply of labor. And so Capital will fight depopulation tooth and nail, do whatever it takes to keep the bodies living amidst its real estate, patronizing and laboring at its businesses. In practice, that means importing immigrants.

    Yes, I agree with all that.

    It also needs to be pointed out that it’s not just mega-corporations. Small businesses and farmers are even more keen on keeping wage levels as low as possible. Never make the mistake of idealising small businesessmen – many if not most are greedy, vicious and shortsighted. Small businessmen are on the whole horrified by the idea of paying decent wages.

    Anyone who thinks that Woke Capital wants depopulation, or will willingly accept depopulation, is living a world of paranoid delusions.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @dfordoom


    Never make the mistake of idealising small businesessmen – many if not most are greedy, vicious and shortsighted.
     
    I'd agree with this, directionally. Though I'm also a small businessman. I know small businesspeople who are generous to a fault. I think you mainly just see a wider mix of humanity and allowable perspectives within this class.

    Anyone who thinks that Woke Capital wants depopulation, or will willingly accept depopulation, is living a world of paranoid delusions.
     
    Yeah, not sure if this is what you're alluding to, but I recently encountered the delusion on Twitter (coming from reactionaries) that Woke Capital wants to use Covid to eradicate most of the population since it's surplus and "not economically needed". How these same people square this with their fears about immigration, I don't know.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  141. @iffen
    @dfordoom

    Ask the Branch Davidians.</

    Comparing the Branch Davidians to the Amish is like comparing rocks to apples.

    Replies: @anon, @dfordoom

    Comparing the Branch Davidians to the Amish is like comparing rocks to apples.

    I wasn’t comparing them. I was suggesting that any group that decides to ostentatiously separate itself from mainstream society could meet the same fate as the Branch Davidians.

    A question for AE – is there any polling data on how people really feel about the Amish? Do they really have widespread support or are they regarded with suspicion? Is that changing?

  142. @Wency
    @DanHessinMD

    We've covered the Amish a lot in these discussions. dfordoom is more pessimistic on their prospects than I am -- I'm more ambivalent.

    On the one hand, the obvious way to start breaking groups like the Amish is to mandate K-12 public schooling for them. The idea of breaking homeschooling is a very real proposal -- homeschooling is largely an American thing -- and the Amish could just be collateral damage in a larger struggle against conservative Christians. If you want to dial up the war, do things like mandate Internet access and various modern conveniences in their homes and forbid child labor (with CPS taking kids away for noncompliance on any of these points).

    But I do think that being quirky, interesting, hard-working, law-abiding, and pacifistic -- all around good and desirable neighbors -- still has its benefits, and contrary to the pessimists, I believe that could save the Amish. I think it's largely why the Roman anti-Christian persecutions ultimately fizzled out. In soft, decadent multicultural societies, it's tough to harness all that much energy to eliminate the "other", especially if the "other" is so naturally inoffensive.

    Replies: @Paperback Writer, @DanHessinMD, @dfordoom

    The idea of breaking homeschooling is a very real proposal — homeschooling is largely an American thing — and the Amish could just be collateral damage in a larger struggle against conservative Christians.

    That would seem to be the most likely scenario. The war against conservative Christians is obviously going to intensify and those who want to destroy conservative Christians aren’t going to be worried if innocent bystanders get stomped as well.

    Do the Amish have a powerful lobby group to protect them if they do look like becoming collateral damage?

    If homeschooling were to be outlawed what do you think conservatives would do? I’d expect them to start writing articles such as The Conservative Case For Banning Homeschooling.

    What would ordinary people do? I’ll take a wild guess – they’ll do nothing at all. It will be like every other battle in the Culture Wars.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @dfordoom


    Do the Amish have a powerful lobby group to protect them if they do look like becoming collateral damage?
     
    The Amish actually won't sue anyone, as part of their beliefs about nonresistance. And they certainly don't have much of a lobby. Refusing to sue anyone is another thing that makes Amish likable and good neighbors. The thing about being especially good at sticking up for yourself, as certain groups are, is that it gives you power, but it also makes enemies. This is fine up to the point that you lose your power, but still have your enemies.

    Last time around, the Amish needed a Lutheran minister to sue on their behalf. The same thing could happen again -- in a national political battle over home school, trying to use Amish as the face of it would be a good strategy for other conservative Christians. Catholics are the next best bet. You don't want to use a family of Southern Baptists in Mississippi.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  143. @dfordoom
    @Wency


    For Capital, however, there’s no ambivalence about it. Depopulation is always and everywhere an unmitigated disaster, a constant depreciation on asset values and their corresponding cash flows, a weakening of its bargaining position vis-a-vis an increasingly thin supply of labor. And so Capital will fight depopulation tooth and nail, do whatever it takes to keep the bodies living amidst its real estate, patronizing and laboring at its businesses. In practice, that means importing immigrants.
     
    Yes, I agree with all that.

    It also needs to be pointed out that it's not just mega-corporations. Small businesses and farmers are even more keen on keeping wage levels as low as possible. Never make the mistake of idealising small businesessmen - many if not most are greedy, vicious and shortsighted. Small businessmen are on the whole horrified by the idea of paying decent wages.

    Anyone who thinks that Woke Capital wants depopulation, or will willingly accept depopulation, is living a world of paranoid delusions.

    Replies: @Wency

    Never make the mistake of idealising small businesessmen – many if not most are greedy, vicious and shortsighted.

    I’d agree with this, directionally. Though I’m also a small businessman. I know small businesspeople who are generous to a fault. I think you mainly just see a wider mix of humanity and allowable perspectives within this class.

    Anyone who thinks that Woke Capital wants depopulation, or will willingly accept depopulation, is living a world of paranoid delusions.

    Yeah, not sure if this is what you’re alluding to, but I recently encountered the delusion on Twitter (coming from reactionaries) that Woke Capital wants to use Covid to eradicate most of the population since it’s surplus and “not economically needed”. How these same people square this with their fears about immigration, I don’t know.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Wency



    Anyone who thinks that Woke Capital wants depopulation, or will willingly accept depopulation, is living a world of paranoid delusions.
     
    Yeah, not sure if this is what you’re alluding to, but I recently encountered the delusion on Twitter (coming from reactionaries) that Woke Capital wants to use Covid to eradicate most of the population since it’s surplus and “not economically needed”. How these same people square this with their fears about immigration, I don’t know.
     
    Yes, that's what I was talking about.
  144. @dfordoom
    @Wency


    The idea of breaking homeschooling is a very real proposal — homeschooling is largely an American thing — and the Amish could just be collateral damage in a larger struggle against conservative Christians.
     
    That would seem to be the most likely scenario. The war against conservative Christians is obviously going to intensify and those who want to destroy conservative Christians aren't going to be worried if innocent bystanders get stomped as well.

    Do the Amish have a powerful lobby group to protect them if they do look like becoming collateral damage?

    If homeschooling were to be outlawed what do you think conservatives would do? I'd expect them to start writing articles such as The Conservative Case For Banning Homeschooling.

    What would ordinary people do? I'll take a wild guess - they'll do nothing at all. It will be like every other battle in the Culture Wars.

    Replies: @Wency

    Do the Amish have a powerful lobby group to protect them if they do look like becoming collateral damage?

    The Amish actually won’t sue anyone, as part of their beliefs about nonresistance. And they certainly don’t have much of a lobby. Refusing to sue anyone is another thing that makes Amish likable and good neighbors. The thing about being especially good at sticking up for yourself, as certain groups are, is that it gives you power, but it also makes enemies. This is fine up to the point that you lose your power, but still have your enemies.

    Last time around, the Amish needed a Lutheran minister to sue on their behalf. The same thing could happen again — in a national political battle over home school, trying to use Amish as the face of it would be a good strategy for other conservative Christians. Catholics are the next best bet. You don’t want to use a family of Southern Baptists in Mississippi.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Wency


    The thing about being especially good at sticking up for yourself, as certain groups are, is that it gives you power, but it also makes enemies. This is fine up to the point that you lose your power, but still have your enemies.
     
    Agreed. That's to some extent what happened to the Religious Right. They gained a certain amount of power (or rather they mostly gained the illusion of power) back in the 80s and 90s. But they gained that power by aligning themselves with the Republican Party. Now their power has diminished to almost nothing but they're thoroughly hated by liberals and Democrats. All they really succeeded in doing was making bitter enemies for themselves.
  145. @anon
    @nebulafox

    Israel is a very modern, developed society. It just happens to have an incredibly fertile religious minority who happens to be both the fastest-growing and poorest part of the populace-Israel’s birthrate comes with the price tag of the stress of ultra-Orthodox families on their welfare state. I

    Do you have a link to the demographics in question? I know from personal conversations that the various sub-sets of Orthodox have many children both in New York and in Israel, but I would like to see actual evidence that the Israeli TFR is driven solely or even mainly by the Orthodox.

    Because there is another factor to consider: Israel is more of a nation-state than many others, plus the elites of Israel apparently actually like their countrymen as a group. I've come to realize over the last 4 to 12 years just how much that can matter. Imagine a country where the leadership doesn't actively work to obliterate ordinary, working people and replace them with foreigners - that's got to have a lot of social and cultural effects. It could well be that non Orthodox are also having more than 1.7 children. The implications are important.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/haredi-population-growing-twice-as-fast-as-total-israeli-population-report/

    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/269748

    I’m having a hard time finding precise statistics for inter-group birth rates (plenty on Christians vs. Jews vs. Muslims) that aren’t at least 20 years out of date. I will say that I probably overstated my case: I’m not trying to evasively dodge this, I was wrong. I’m reading online, and it does seem that non-Orthodox Israelis still have significantly higher birth rates from popular news articles. But I still have a hard time imagining Israeli Jews would never have a higher birth rate than the Muslim countries if the Orthodox weren’t there. Muslims in Israel have had declining birth rates, but that’s not the case in the countries around them.

    >Because there is another factor to consider: Israel is more of a nation-state than many others, plus the elites of Israel apparently actually like their countrymen as a group.

    More importantly, they identify on some level with them, as do elites in Asia. They aren’t some country apart.

    • Replies: @anon
    @nebulafox

    Thanks for the links, I have seen things like that for a while though. I've heard similar things second hand from colleagues who spent time in Israel, but...the plural of "anecdote" is rarely "data".

    I haven't found anything in the way of an official census that breaks population growth down in that way. Perhaps it doesn't exist, or perhaps it is only in Hebrew.

    But I still have a hard time imagining Israeli Jews would never have a higher birth rate than the Muslim countries if the Orthodox weren’t there. Muslims in Israel have had declining birth rates, but that’s not the case in the countries around them.

    You might want to check those numbers. I doubt Syria's TFR is even reliably known, but it likely isn't all that high, for a start.

    More importantly, they identify on some level with them, as do elites in Asia. They aren’t some country apart.

    Tomayto, tomahto. My point stands, the elite leadership of Israel isn't doing to that country what the elite leadership of the US is doing to my people.

    Once again our resident blackpilling pontificator dfor has made a sweeping claim that does not hold up under any kind of scrutiny. Well, sure, that just means today is a day ending in a "y", but it would be worth knowing the social and economic factors that have pulled Israeli TFR back up to nearly 3.0, as the graph I posted shows.

  146. @Mr. Rational
    @Yahya


    One such an era was the early Medieval Ages (500-1000 AD), when Arabs were on top, and Europeans were at the bottom.
     
    There was no such thing as Islam until the 7th century.

    In what Europeans call the Dark Ages, the Islamic World was experiencing its Golden Age of scientific discovery and progress.
     
    Europe was suffering from a breakdown in communications and trade due to Arabic piracy and enslavement after the collapse of the western Roman empire.  Further, it was just plain too cold in much of Europe to support advanced civilization.  It wasn't in Greece and Egypt, and the reigning civilization across the entire area was Greco-Roman until the empire fell.  Does the name "Ptolemy" ring a bell?

    Most of the "Islamic" advances were stolen from conquered peoples (e.g. "arabic" numerals are actually Indian).  Progress continued for a while, then stagnated as innovation was stifled by orthodoxy.  I understand that more books are translated into Swedish every year than Arabic.  This holds across the third world; India publishes less than 1/3 as many books per year as the far less populous United States.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    As I mentioned earlier, the big intellectual pushes made in the medieval Islamic world mostly came from an older Persianate intellectual tradition stretching across Central Asia which absorbed Islam rather than the other way around. Many in the House of Wisdom came from “recent convert” background. But this wasn’t unusual: the Latin Romans had a similar dynamic with the Hellenistic culture to the east which absorbed Romanness but did not fundamentally change its base roots. What followed in both situations was cultural interchange: “Captive Greece conquered her rude conqueror” and all that, and the Abbasid court resembling the Sassanids.

    There’s a case to be made that the complete breakdown of centralized political authority in Europe lay the seeds for a tension between church and state that helped fuel the distinguishing traits of Western culture. That a distinction could be made at all between spiritual and temporal authority: that was a big departure from previous human traditions. I personally think that anything that simple is never the answer by itself, but it’s interesting to note that you don’t need to go to China or the Islamic World, or even leave Christendom at all, to see a comparison where that did not happen. In the east, the centralized Roman state did not fall. The emperors in Constantinople never faced resistance from religious authorities like Western European rulers eventually would when the reform Papacy came. Later, the Russians would inherit that tradition: part of the reason the Tsar was more powerful than his counterparts was that church and state were not separate in the Orthodox world. Can you imagine stuff like the Reformation or the Enlightenment originating in Russia rather than Western and Central Europe?

    • Replies: @iffen
    @nebulafox

    Can you imagine stuff like the Reformation or the Enlightenment originating in Russia rather than Western and Central Europe?

    Well, they did have a fairly decent run at applied Marxism so there's that. Can we say that Bolshevism and Leninism originated in Russia?

    Replies: @anon

    , @Yahya
    @nebulafox


    But then, most of the intellectual heavy lifting of Roman civilization centuries earlier was done by Greeks, working out of intellectual traditions that existed when Rome was ruled by escaped criminals.

     

    Correct. But one key difference between the Roman-Greek/Arab-Persian analogy was that, when Persians came under Arab rule, their intellectual productivity accelerated, while Greek productivity decelerated under Roman rule (gone were the days of Aristotle and Plato), keeping in line with the general slower intellectual pace of Rome.

    That said, most of the intellectual heavy lifting of the Abbasid Golden Age was done by Persians working from Zoroastrian intellectual traditions that absorbed Islam rather than the other way around.

     

    Yep. Persians are a pretty smart people. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is reported to have once said: “If learning were suspended in the highest parts of the heaven, the Persians would attain it.”

    But, Arabs contributed some too. In fact, if you take a cursory look on Wikipedia's list of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars, you'll find the number of people on the list (345) to be a bit more than the number on the Persian list (245). However, Persians were overrepresented relative to their population, and made more consequential contributions in the natural sciences, mathematics, philosophy and literature, in my opinion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_scholars_described_as_father_or_founder_of_a_field

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    @Mr. Irrational


    Most of the “Islamic” advances were stolen from conquered peoples (e.g. “arabic” numerals are actually Indian).

     

    The oft-repeated line about Arabic numerals actually being Hindu is true, but is just a strawman used by people like you to obfuscate the full picture and diminish Muslim achievements. You need to do some reading on the many original and ground-breaking insights that were made by Muslims (both Persian and Arab) during the Golden Age. Here's a short list of some great scholars and their field(s) of contribution: Al-Khawarizmi (mathematics, astronomy, geography), Ibn-Khaldun (sociology, historiography, economics), Ibn Al-Haytham (mathematics, astronomy, physics), Ibn Hayyan (chemistry), Al-Biruni (anthropology), Al-Farahidi (lexicography), Al-Farabi (logic and philosophy), Al-Zahrawi (surgery), Al-Majusi (anatomic physiology), Al-Razi (pediatrics), Al-Shaybani (international law).

    While you are at it, you should give The Divine Comedy a read. You'll find that Dante places two people from the Islamic world in the same level as the ‘virtuous pagans’ (Greeks and Romans). One is Averroes, an Arab from Al-Andalus, whose works on epistemology help kick off the Renaissance. The second is Avicenna, a Persian from Central Asia, whose work on astronomy, biology, medicine, and geology (the dude was a true polymath's polymath) lay a lot of the groundwork for modern science.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  147. @Wency
    @dfordoom


    Do the Amish have a powerful lobby group to protect them if they do look like becoming collateral damage?
     
    The Amish actually won't sue anyone, as part of their beliefs about nonresistance. And they certainly don't have much of a lobby. Refusing to sue anyone is another thing that makes Amish likable and good neighbors. The thing about being especially good at sticking up for yourself, as certain groups are, is that it gives you power, but it also makes enemies. This is fine up to the point that you lose your power, but still have your enemies.

    Last time around, the Amish needed a Lutheran minister to sue on their behalf. The same thing could happen again -- in a national political battle over home school, trying to use Amish as the face of it would be a good strategy for other conservative Christians. Catholics are the next best bet. You don't want to use a family of Southern Baptists in Mississippi.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The thing about being especially good at sticking up for yourself, as certain groups are, is that it gives you power, but it also makes enemies. This is fine up to the point that you lose your power, but still have your enemies.

    Agreed. That’s to some extent what happened to the Religious Right. They gained a certain amount of power (or rather they mostly gained the illusion of power) back in the 80s and 90s. But they gained that power by aligning themselves with the Republican Party. Now their power has diminished to almost nothing but they’re thoroughly hated by liberals and Democrats. All they really succeeded in doing was making bitter enemies for themselves.

  148. @Wency
    @dfordoom


    Never make the mistake of idealising small businesessmen – many if not most are greedy, vicious and shortsighted.
     
    I'd agree with this, directionally. Though I'm also a small businessman. I know small businesspeople who are generous to a fault. I think you mainly just see a wider mix of humanity and allowable perspectives within this class.

    Anyone who thinks that Woke Capital wants depopulation, or will willingly accept depopulation, is living a world of paranoid delusions.
     
    Yeah, not sure if this is what you're alluding to, but I recently encountered the delusion on Twitter (coming from reactionaries) that Woke Capital wants to use Covid to eradicate most of the population since it's surplus and "not economically needed". How these same people square this with their fears about immigration, I don't know.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Anyone who thinks that Woke Capital wants depopulation, or will willingly accept depopulation, is living a world of paranoid delusions.

    Yeah, not sure if this is what you’re alluding to, but I recently encountered the delusion on Twitter (coming from reactionaries) that Woke Capital wants to use Covid to eradicate most of the population since it’s surplus and “not economically needed”. How these same people square this with their fears about immigration, I don’t know.

    Yes, that’s what I was talking about.

  149. @nebulafox
    @Mr. Rational

    As I mentioned earlier, the big intellectual pushes made in the medieval Islamic world mostly came from an older Persianate intellectual tradition stretching across Central Asia which absorbed Islam rather than the other way around. Many in the House of Wisdom came from "recent convert" background. But this wasn't unusual: the Latin Romans had a similar dynamic with the Hellenistic culture to the east which absorbed Romanness but did not fundamentally change its base roots. What followed in both situations was cultural interchange: "Captive Greece conquered her rude conqueror" and all that, and the Abbasid court resembling the Sassanids.

    There's a case to be made that the complete breakdown of centralized political authority in Europe lay the seeds for a tension between church and state that helped fuel the distinguishing traits of Western culture. That a distinction could be made at all between spiritual and temporal authority: that was a big departure from previous human traditions. I personally think that anything that simple is never the answer by itself, but it's interesting to note that you don't need to go to China or the Islamic World, or even leave Christendom at all, to see a comparison where that did not happen. In the east, the centralized Roman state did not fall. The emperors in Constantinople never faced resistance from religious authorities like Western European rulers eventually would when the reform Papacy came. Later, the Russians would inherit that tradition: part of the reason the Tsar was more powerful than his counterparts was that church and state were not separate in the Orthodox world. Can you imagine stuff like the Reformation or the Enlightenment originating in Russia rather than Western and Central Europe?

    Replies: @iffen, @Yahya

    Can you imagine stuff like the Reformation or the Enlightenment originating in Russia rather than Western and Central Europe?

    Well, they did have a fairly decent run at applied Marxism so there’s that. Can we say that Bolshevism and Leninism originated in Russia?

    • Replies: @anon
    @iffen

    nebulafox
    Can you imagine stuff like the Reformation or the Enlightenment originating in Russia rather than Western and Central Europe?

    No. Want evidence? The crisis of 1666 and the Old Believers, just for a start.

    Well, they did have a fairly decent run at applied Marxism so there’s that. Can we say that Bolshevism and Leninism originated in Russia?

    No. That is, only in the sense of labeling. Coup d'etat is not unique to Bolshevism, and a desire to reform the entire world by force not unique to Leon Trotsky and his followers.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  150. anon[153] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    @anon

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/haredi-population-growing-twice-as-fast-as-total-israeli-population-report/

    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/269748

    I'm having a hard time finding precise statistics for inter-group birth rates (plenty on Christians vs. Jews vs. Muslims) that aren't at least 20 years out of date. I will say that I probably overstated my case: I'm not trying to evasively dodge this, I was wrong. I'm reading online, and it does seem that non-Orthodox Israelis still have significantly higher birth rates from popular news articles. But I still have a hard time imagining Israeli Jews would never have a higher birth rate than the Muslim countries if the Orthodox weren't there. Muslims in Israel have had declining birth rates, but that's not the case in the countries around them.


    >Because there is another factor to consider: Israel is more of a nation-state than many others, plus the elites of Israel apparently actually like their countrymen as a group.

    More importantly, they identify on some level with them, as do elites in Asia. They aren't some country apart.

    Replies: @anon

    Thanks for the links, I have seen things like that for a while though. I’ve heard similar things second hand from colleagues who spent time in Israel, but…the plural of “anecdote” is rarely “data”.

    I haven’t found anything in the way of an official census that breaks population growth down in that way. Perhaps it doesn’t exist, or perhaps it is only in Hebrew.

    But I still have a hard time imagining Israeli Jews would never have a higher birth rate than the Muslim countries if the Orthodox weren’t there. Muslims in Israel have had declining birth rates, but that’s not the case in the countries around them.

    You might want to check those numbers. I doubt Syria’s TFR is even reliably known, but it likely isn’t all that high, for a start.

    More importantly, they identify on some level with them, as do elites in Asia. They aren’t some country apart.

    Tomayto, tomahto. My point stands, the elite leadership of Israel isn’t doing to that country what the elite leadership of the US is doing to my people.

    Once again our resident blackpilling pontificator dfor has made a sweeping claim that does not hold up under any kind of scrutiny. Well, sure, that just means today is a day ending in a “y”, but it would be worth knowing the social and economic factors that have pulled Israeli TFR back up to nearly 3.0, as the graph I posted shows.

  151. @nebulafox
    @Mr. Rational

    As I mentioned earlier, the big intellectual pushes made in the medieval Islamic world mostly came from an older Persianate intellectual tradition stretching across Central Asia which absorbed Islam rather than the other way around. Many in the House of Wisdom came from "recent convert" background. But this wasn't unusual: the Latin Romans had a similar dynamic with the Hellenistic culture to the east which absorbed Romanness but did not fundamentally change its base roots. What followed in both situations was cultural interchange: "Captive Greece conquered her rude conqueror" and all that, and the Abbasid court resembling the Sassanids.

    There's a case to be made that the complete breakdown of centralized political authority in Europe lay the seeds for a tension between church and state that helped fuel the distinguishing traits of Western culture. That a distinction could be made at all between spiritual and temporal authority: that was a big departure from previous human traditions. I personally think that anything that simple is never the answer by itself, but it's interesting to note that you don't need to go to China or the Islamic World, or even leave Christendom at all, to see a comparison where that did not happen. In the east, the centralized Roman state did not fall. The emperors in Constantinople never faced resistance from religious authorities like Western European rulers eventually would when the reform Papacy came. Later, the Russians would inherit that tradition: part of the reason the Tsar was more powerful than his counterparts was that church and state were not separate in the Orthodox world. Can you imagine stuff like the Reformation or the Enlightenment originating in Russia rather than Western and Central Europe?

    Replies: @iffen, @Yahya

    But then, most of the intellectual heavy lifting of Roman civilization centuries earlier was done by Greeks, working out of intellectual traditions that existed when Rome was ruled by escaped criminals.

    Correct. But one key difference between the Roman-Greek/Arab-Persian analogy was that, when Persians came under Arab rule, their intellectual productivity accelerated, while Greek productivity decelerated under Roman rule (gone were the days of Aristotle and Plato), keeping in line with the general slower intellectual pace of Rome.

    That said, most of the intellectual heavy lifting of the Abbasid Golden Age was done by Persians working from Zoroastrian intellectual traditions that absorbed Islam rather than the other way around.

    Yep. Persians are a pretty smart people. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is reported to have once said: “If learning were suspended in the highest parts of the heaven, the Persians would attain it.”

    But, Arabs contributed some too. In fact, if you take a cursory look on Wikipedia’s list of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars, you’ll find the number of people on the list (345) to be a bit more than the number on the Persian list (245). However, Persians were overrepresented relative to their population, and made more consequential contributions in the natural sciences, mathematics, philosophy and literature, in my opinion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_scholars_described_as_father_or_founder_of_a_field

    ——————————————————————————————————————-
    @Mr. Irrational

    Most of the “Islamic” advances were stolen from conquered peoples (e.g. “arabic” numerals are actually Indian).

    The oft-repeated line about Arabic numerals actually being Hindu is true, but is just a strawman used by people like you to obfuscate the full picture and diminish Muslim achievements. You need to do some reading on the many original and ground-breaking insights that were made by Muslims (both Persian and Arab) during the Golden Age. Here’s a short list of some great scholars and their field(s) of contribution: Al-Khawarizmi (mathematics, astronomy, geography), Ibn-Khaldun (sociology, historiography, economics), Ibn Al-Haytham (mathematics, astronomy, physics), Ibn Hayyan (chemistry), Al-Biruni (anthropology), Al-Farahidi (lexicography), Al-Farabi (logic and philosophy), Al-Zahrawi (surgery), Al-Majusi (anatomic physiology), Al-Razi (pediatrics), Al-Shaybani (international law).

    While you are at it, you should give The Divine Comedy a read. You’ll find that Dante places two people from the Islamic world in the same level as the ‘virtuous pagans’ (Greeks and Romans). One is Averroes, an Arab from Al-Andalus, whose works on epistemology help kick off the Renaissance. The second is Avicenna, a Persian from Central Asia, whose work on astronomy, biology, medicine, and geology (the dude was a true polymath’s polymath) lay a lot of the groundwork for modern science.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Yahya

    >Correct. But one key difference between the Roman-Greek/Arab-Persian analogy was that, when Persians came under Arab rule, their intellectual productivity accelerated, while Greek productivity decelerated under Roman rule (gone were the days of Aristotle and Plato), keeping in line with the general slower intellectual pace of Rome.

    I don't think that's tnecessarily rue: the leading intellectuals in the Empire still mostly came from a Hellenistic background-the quintessential Romanized Easterner in my mind is the doctor Galen. They just identified as Romans, not Greeks, much as the Persians became Muslims. It's easy to forget looking back from today how many centuries were passing for these people in the past, and how long of a time that really is. The identification became so strong that the Byzantines, right until the end, called themselves "Romans".

    (The Byzantines were, unlike in the West, always recognized as carrying on the legacy of Rome by the Islamic World. What can I say, you were the more civilized of our enemies. ;) )

    Later, when the empire Christianized, the theological debates were largely an East-only feature: they stemmed from a culture of intellectual inquiry that wasn't there in the West.

    >But, Arabs contributed some too. In fact, if you take a cursory look on Wikipedia’s list of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars, you’ll find the number of people on the list (345) to be a bit more than the number on the Persian list (245). However, Persians were overrepresented relative to their population, and made more consequential contributions in the natural sciences, mathematics, philosophy and literature, in my opinion.

    Absolutely. And the Latins had Cicero, Virgil, Livy, Sallust, and Lucan, to say nothing of their bent for engineering and architecture (an affinity the Arabs seemed to share).

    It's not that the Latins and Arabs didn't produce scholars at all: they just tended to have a much more practical bent than the people they conquered, and it showed in their priorities. The Romans openly admitted it in the Aeneid, and my guess is the hadiths would glean something similar for the Arabs.


    >While you are at it, you should give The Divine Comedy a read. You’ll find that Dante places two people from the Islamic world in the same level as the ‘virtuous pagans’ (Greeks and Romans). One is Averroes, an Arab from Al-Andalus, whose works on epistemology help kick off the Renaissance. The second is Avicenna, a Persian from Central Asia, whose work on astronomy, biology, medicine, and geology (the dude was a true polymath’s polymath) lay a lot of the groundwork for modern science.

    Can't speak for Mr. Rational, but we've corresponded-Saladin was also put in limbo. We are re-corresponding these days. ;)

    IMO, every great work of ancient literature has some virtue associated with it. The Iliad has courage, the Odyssey resourcefulness, the Aeneid resilience. The Comedy is about control, responsibility. How can I decry the lack of this in others when I myself have never shown it?

    Replies: @Yahya

  152. anon[153] • Disclaimer says:
    @iffen
    @nebulafox

    Can you imagine stuff like the Reformation or the Enlightenment originating in Russia rather than Western and Central Europe?

    Well, they did have a fairly decent run at applied Marxism so there's that. Can we say that Bolshevism and Leninism originated in Russia?

    Replies: @anon

    nebulafox
    Can you imagine stuff like the Reformation or the Enlightenment originating in Russia rather than Western and Central Europe?

    No. Want evidence? The crisis of 1666 and the Old Believers, just for a start.

    Well, they did have a fairly decent run at applied Marxism so there’s that. Can we say that Bolshevism and Leninism originated in Russia?

    No. That is, only in the sense of labeling. Coup d’etat is not unique to Bolshevism, and a desire to reform the entire world by force not unique to Leon Trotsky and his followers.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @anon

    >No. Want evidence? The crisis of 1666 and the Old Believers, just for a start.

    Besides religion, one further parallel between the Byzantine Empire and Tsarist Russia was the nature of the aristocracy: their power was derived not directly from wealth or land, but from state titles and positions that could be revoked by the emperor.

    >You might want to check those numbers. I doubt Syria’s TFR is even reliably known, but it likely isn’t all that high, for a start.

    I can't speak for Syria, but Iraq's was still uber-fertile last time I checked, as was eastern Turkey. Turkey's brought down by the more secularized population to the West. Saudi Arabia had declined some, but was around Israeli levels.

    >Tomayto, tomahto. My point stands, the elite leadership of Israel isn’t doing to that country what the elite leadership of the US is doing to my people.

    They have forgotten nothing, and learned nothing.

    Replies: @anon

  153. @Yahya
    @nebulafox


    But then, most of the intellectual heavy lifting of Roman civilization centuries earlier was done by Greeks, working out of intellectual traditions that existed when Rome was ruled by escaped criminals.

     

    Correct. But one key difference between the Roman-Greek/Arab-Persian analogy was that, when Persians came under Arab rule, their intellectual productivity accelerated, while Greek productivity decelerated under Roman rule (gone were the days of Aristotle and Plato), keeping in line with the general slower intellectual pace of Rome.

    That said, most of the intellectual heavy lifting of the Abbasid Golden Age was done by Persians working from Zoroastrian intellectual traditions that absorbed Islam rather than the other way around.

     

    Yep. Persians are a pretty smart people. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is reported to have once said: “If learning were suspended in the highest parts of the heaven, the Persians would attain it.”

    But, Arabs contributed some too. In fact, if you take a cursory look on Wikipedia's list of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars, you'll find the number of people on the list (345) to be a bit more than the number on the Persian list (245). However, Persians were overrepresented relative to their population, and made more consequential contributions in the natural sciences, mathematics, philosophy and literature, in my opinion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_scholars_described_as_father_or_founder_of_a_field

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    @Mr. Irrational


    Most of the “Islamic” advances were stolen from conquered peoples (e.g. “arabic” numerals are actually Indian).

     

    The oft-repeated line about Arabic numerals actually being Hindu is true, but is just a strawman used by people like you to obfuscate the full picture and diminish Muslim achievements. You need to do some reading on the many original and ground-breaking insights that were made by Muslims (both Persian and Arab) during the Golden Age. Here's a short list of some great scholars and their field(s) of contribution: Al-Khawarizmi (mathematics, astronomy, geography), Ibn-Khaldun (sociology, historiography, economics), Ibn Al-Haytham (mathematics, astronomy, physics), Ibn Hayyan (chemistry), Al-Biruni (anthropology), Al-Farahidi (lexicography), Al-Farabi (logic and philosophy), Al-Zahrawi (surgery), Al-Majusi (anatomic physiology), Al-Razi (pediatrics), Al-Shaybani (international law).

    While you are at it, you should give The Divine Comedy a read. You'll find that Dante places two people from the Islamic world in the same level as the ‘virtuous pagans’ (Greeks and Romans). One is Averroes, an Arab from Al-Andalus, whose works on epistemology help kick off the Renaissance. The second is Avicenna, a Persian from Central Asia, whose work on astronomy, biology, medicine, and geology (the dude was a true polymath's polymath) lay a lot of the groundwork for modern science.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >Correct. But one key difference between the Roman-Greek/Arab-Persian analogy was that, when Persians came under Arab rule, their intellectual productivity accelerated, while Greek productivity decelerated under Roman rule (gone were the days of Aristotle and Plato), keeping in line with the general slower intellectual pace of Rome.

    I don’t think that’s tnecessarily rue: the leading intellectuals in the Empire still mostly came from a Hellenistic background-the quintessential Romanized Easterner in my mind is the doctor Galen. They just identified as Romans, not Greeks, much as the Persians became Muslims. It’s easy to forget looking back from today how many centuries were passing for these people in the past, and how long of a time that really is. The identification became so strong that the Byzantines, right until the end, called themselves “Romans”.

    (The Byzantines were, unlike in the West, always recognized as carrying on the legacy of Rome by the Islamic World. What can I say, you were the more civilized of our enemies. 😉 )

    Later, when the empire Christianized, the theological debates were largely an East-only feature: they stemmed from a culture of intellectual inquiry that wasn’t there in the West.

    >But, Arabs contributed some too. In fact, if you take a cursory look on Wikipedia’s list of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars, you’ll find the number of people on the list (345) to be a bit more than the number on the Persian list (245). However, Persians were overrepresented relative to their population, and made more consequential contributions in the natural sciences, mathematics, philosophy and literature, in my opinion.

    Absolutely. And the Latins had Cicero, Virgil, Livy, Sallust, and Lucan, to say nothing of their bent for engineering and architecture (an affinity the Arabs seemed to share).

    It’s not that the Latins and Arabs didn’t produce scholars at all: they just tended to have a much more practical bent than the people they conquered, and it showed in their priorities. The Romans openly admitted it in the Aeneid, and my guess is the hadiths would glean something similar for the Arabs.

    >While you are at it, you should give The Divine Comedy a read. You’ll find that Dante places two people from the Islamic world in the same level as the ‘virtuous pagans’ (Greeks and Romans). One is Averroes, an Arab from Al-Andalus, whose works on epistemology help kick off the Renaissance. The second is Avicenna, a Persian from Central Asia, whose work on astronomy, biology, medicine, and geology (the dude was a true polymath’s polymath) lay a lot of the groundwork for modern science.

    Can’t speak for Mr. Rational, but we’ve corresponded-Saladin was also put in limbo. We are re-corresponding these days. 😉

    IMO, every great work of ancient literature has some virtue associated with it. The Iliad has courage, the Odyssey resourcefulness, the Aeneid resilience. The Comedy is about control, responsibility. How can I decry the lack of this in others when I myself have never shown it?

    • Thanks: Yahya
    • Replies: @Yahya
    @nebulafox


    >Correct. But one key difference between the Roman-Greek/Arab-Persian analogy was that, when Persians came under Arab rule, their intellectual productivity accelerated, while Greek productivity decelerated under Roman rule (gone were the days of Aristotle and Plato), keeping in line with the general slower intellectual pace of Rome.

    I don’t think that’s tnecessarily rue: the leading intellectuals in the Empire still mostly came from a Hellenistic background-the quintessential Romanized Easterner in my mind is the doctor Galen.
     
    The point I was making in the OP was that Greek intellectual output *decelerated* (i.e slowed down) during Roman rule, not that it stopped completely, or that Romans were more productive. Perhaps I phrased it in a confusing way.

    I believe the validity of the statement is borne out by the data compiled by Charles Murray in Human Accomplishment. I couldn't get my hands on the specific numbers, but if you look at this chart of significant figures (i.e. achievers of excellence in the arts and sciences), you'll see that the European curve was taller during the during the period from 800 B.C. to 150 B.C (which is basically comprised of mostly Greek significant figures) than it was from 150 B.C to the end of Rome.

    http://preview.redd.it/l2sjjw7ee2j41.jpg?width=912&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=adac901e7a71387c80c71a6629f23107042c6912

    It's also clear that most of the Greek giants came before the period of Roman rule. For example, according to Murray, the century from 420 B.C. to 320 B.C was the period when Greece (or Athens to be specific) was cranking out their greatest works of philosophy, even though (on and off) chaos was plaguing Athens at the time.

    From Chapter 10: The Events That Matter II: Meta-Inventions:

    In Greece, the contribution to philosophy during the seminal period is so compressed in time and place that it constitutes one of the enduring mysteries of human accomplishment. The time is a single century from –420 to –320. The place is a single city, Athens, so ravaged by the Peloponnesian War and by plague that the population of free men at Socrates’ death in –399 may have fallen as low as 21,000.¹⁹ In that time and place, in successive teacher-student relationships, came Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, each of whom constitutes one of the great figures of Western intellectual history.

     


    The first and most famous golden age of them all, in Athens from the repulse of Xerxes’ invading fleet at the straits of Salamis in –479 to the death of Aristotle in –322, took place against a backdrop of civil and military strife. It began in the aftermath of a war, albeit a winning one. The First Peloponnesian War followed only 19 years later and lasted for 15 years. After a single decade of peace, the Great Peloponnesian War broke out. Thereafter followed 31 years of conflict that ended with Athens’ abject surrender in –404. The Greek mainland descended into near chaos over the next few decades. Nowhere was the disruption of daily life greater than in Athens itself, ravaged by both war and a plague in –430 that killed a third of the population. And yet this century and a half of war and devastation embraces the Periclean Age. Skipping over the merely significant figures and listing just the major ones, those were the years that saw Aeschylus, Pindar, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Sophocles, Herodotus, Protagoras, Euripides, Myron, Polykleitos, Lysippos, Phidias, Thucydides, Socrates, Democritus, Hippocrates, Polygnotus, Aristophanes, Zeuxis, Eudoxus, Praxiteles, Theophrastus, and, of course, Plato and Aristotle. Everyone in that list from Aristophanes to the end did his most important work in the darkest years of Athens’ troubles and their aftermath.

     

    The rate of scientific discovery and artistic achievement then slowed down during the Roman Empire. From Chapter 3: A Sense Of Place:

    That the Romans could so reverently admire a work of art and so scorn the person who created it is perhaps part of the reason that the Romans left us so little of their own creation in the arts and sciences. There are the exceptions of Virgil, Horace, Cicero, and Ovid, plus a sprinkling of other fine Roman writers, the Stoics in philosophy, and a few major scientific achievements across the Mediterranean in Alexandria. But taken as whole, the Roman world throughout its history, whether republic or empire, was a near intellectual void when it came to the arts and sciences—“peopled by a race of pygmies” in Gibbon’s contemptuous words.23 Scientific, philosophic, and artistic progress did not come to an end when Rome fell, but, without much exaggeration, when Rome rose.

     


    The difference between Greece and China was that the development of secular observation of nature in Europe slowed after a few centuries, was more or less stagnant (with a few exceptions) during the Roman Empire, and then retrogressed for centuries, while in China progress continued without a break. It was not until well into the Renaissance that Europe caught up and passed China, and the mechanism for doing that was not simple observation, but the last of the meta-inventions I will nominate, the invention of the scientific method.

     

  154. @anon
    @iffen

    nebulafox
    Can you imagine stuff like the Reformation or the Enlightenment originating in Russia rather than Western and Central Europe?

    No. Want evidence? The crisis of 1666 and the Old Believers, just for a start.

    Well, they did have a fairly decent run at applied Marxism so there’s that. Can we say that Bolshevism and Leninism originated in Russia?

    No. That is, only in the sense of labeling. Coup d'etat is not unique to Bolshevism, and a desire to reform the entire world by force not unique to Leon Trotsky and his followers.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >No. Want evidence? The crisis of 1666 and the Old Believers, just for a start.

    Besides religion, one further parallel between the Byzantine Empire and Tsarist Russia was the nature of the aristocracy: their power was derived not directly from wealth or land, but from state titles and positions that could be revoked by the emperor.

    >You might want to check those numbers. I doubt Syria’s TFR is even reliably known, but it likely isn’t all that high, for a start.

    I can’t speak for Syria, but Iraq’s was still uber-fertile last time I checked, as was eastern Turkey. Turkey’s brought down by the more secularized population to the West. Saudi Arabia had declined some, but was around Israeli levels.

    >Tomayto, tomahto. My point stands, the elite leadership of Israel isn’t doing to that country what the elite leadership of the US is doing to my people.

    They have forgotten nothing, and learned nothing.

    • Replies: @anon
    @nebulafox

    Besides religion, one further parallel between the Byzantine Empire and Tsarist Russia was the nature of the aristocracy: their power was derived not directly from wealth or land, but from state titles and positions that could be revoked by the emperor.

    Central control has advantages and disadvantages. In the entire East there was never anything that remotely resembled the free cities found in parts of NW Europe. The crisis of 1666 that led to the flight of the Old Believers was strictly about which hierarchy should be followed. There was never a question of "if", and the Old Believers who fled into the forests were sure they were part of the true, the real hierarchy - they weren't setting up their own frei-stadt.

    >You might want to check those numbers. I doubt Syria’s TFR is even reliably known, but it likely isn’t all that high, for a start.

    I can’t speak for Syria, but Iraq’s was still uber-fertile last time I checked,

    Numbers matter. TFR = 2.9 doesn't seem all that uber to me.
    https://www.indexmundi.com/syria/total_fertility_rate.html

    as was eastern Turkey. Turkey’s brought down by the more secularized population to the West.

    Over all it is below replacement, 2020 is estimated at TFR = 1.96

    https://www.indexmundi.com/turkey/total_fertility_rate.html

    Saudi Arabia had declined some, but was around Israeli levels.

    TFR = 1.95 estimated for 2020.
    https://www.indexmundi.com/saudi_arabia/total_fertility_rate.html

    >Tomayto, tomahto. My point stands, the elite leadership of Israel isn’t doing to that country what the elite leadership of the US is doing to my people.

    nebula
    They have forgotten nothing, and learned nothing.

    I totally expect someone at National Review will start comparing Mittens Romney to Ronaldus Maximus pretty soon...

  155. @nebulafox
    @Yahya

    >Correct. But one key difference between the Roman-Greek/Arab-Persian analogy was that, when Persians came under Arab rule, their intellectual productivity accelerated, while Greek productivity decelerated under Roman rule (gone were the days of Aristotle and Plato), keeping in line with the general slower intellectual pace of Rome.

    I don't think that's tnecessarily rue: the leading intellectuals in the Empire still mostly came from a Hellenistic background-the quintessential Romanized Easterner in my mind is the doctor Galen. They just identified as Romans, not Greeks, much as the Persians became Muslims. It's easy to forget looking back from today how many centuries were passing for these people in the past, and how long of a time that really is. The identification became so strong that the Byzantines, right until the end, called themselves "Romans".

    (The Byzantines were, unlike in the West, always recognized as carrying on the legacy of Rome by the Islamic World. What can I say, you were the more civilized of our enemies. ;) )

    Later, when the empire Christianized, the theological debates were largely an East-only feature: they stemmed from a culture of intellectual inquiry that wasn't there in the West.

    >But, Arabs contributed some too. In fact, if you take a cursory look on Wikipedia’s list of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars, you’ll find the number of people on the list (345) to be a bit more than the number on the Persian list (245). However, Persians were overrepresented relative to their population, and made more consequential contributions in the natural sciences, mathematics, philosophy and literature, in my opinion.

    Absolutely. And the Latins had Cicero, Virgil, Livy, Sallust, and Lucan, to say nothing of their bent for engineering and architecture (an affinity the Arabs seemed to share).

    It's not that the Latins and Arabs didn't produce scholars at all: they just tended to have a much more practical bent than the people they conquered, and it showed in their priorities. The Romans openly admitted it in the Aeneid, and my guess is the hadiths would glean something similar for the Arabs.


    >While you are at it, you should give The Divine Comedy a read. You’ll find that Dante places two people from the Islamic world in the same level as the ‘virtuous pagans’ (Greeks and Romans). One is Averroes, an Arab from Al-Andalus, whose works on epistemology help kick off the Renaissance. The second is Avicenna, a Persian from Central Asia, whose work on astronomy, biology, medicine, and geology (the dude was a true polymath’s polymath) lay a lot of the groundwork for modern science.

    Can't speak for Mr. Rational, but we've corresponded-Saladin was also put in limbo. We are re-corresponding these days. ;)

    IMO, every great work of ancient literature has some virtue associated with it. The Iliad has courage, the Odyssey resourcefulness, the Aeneid resilience. The Comedy is about control, responsibility. How can I decry the lack of this in others when I myself have never shown it?

    Replies: @Yahya

    >Correct. But one key difference between the Roman-Greek/Arab-Persian analogy was that, when Persians came under Arab rule, their intellectual productivity accelerated, while Greek productivity decelerated under Roman rule (gone were the days of Aristotle and Plato), keeping in line with the general slower intellectual pace of Rome.

    I don’t think that’s tnecessarily rue: the leading intellectuals in the Empire still mostly came from a Hellenistic background-the quintessential Romanized Easterner in my mind is the doctor Galen.

    The point I was making in the OP was that Greek intellectual output *decelerated* (i.e slowed down) during Roman rule, not that it stopped completely, or that Romans were more productive. Perhaps I phrased it in a confusing way.

    I believe the validity of the statement is borne out by the data compiled by Charles Murray in Human Accomplishment. I couldn’t get my hands on the specific numbers, but if you look at this chart of significant figures (i.e. achievers of excellence in the arts and sciences), you’ll see that the European curve was taller during the during the period from 800 B.C. to 150 B.C (which is basically comprised of mostly Greek significant figures) than it was from 150 B.C to the end of Rome.

    It’s also clear that most of the Greek giants came before the period of Roman rule. For example, according to Murray, the century from 420 B.C. to 320 B.C was the period when Greece (or Athens to be specific) was cranking out their greatest works of philosophy, even though (on and off) chaos was plaguing Athens at the time.

    From Chapter 10: The Events That Matter II: Meta-Inventions:

    In Greece, the contribution to philosophy during the seminal period is so compressed in time and place that it constitutes one of the enduring mysteries of human accomplishment. The time is a single century from –420 to –320. The place is a single city, Athens, so ravaged by the Peloponnesian War and by plague that the population of free men at Socrates’ death in –399 may have fallen as low as 21,000.¹⁹ In that time and place, in successive teacher-student relationships, came Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, each of whom constitutes one of the great figures of Western intellectual history.

    The first and most famous golden age of them all, in Athens from the repulse of Xerxes’ invading fleet at the straits of Salamis in –479 to the death of Aristotle in –322, took place against a backdrop of civil and military strife. It began in the aftermath of a war, albeit a winning one. The First Peloponnesian War followed only 19 years later and lasted for 15 years. After a single decade of peace, the Great Peloponnesian War broke out. Thereafter followed 31 years of conflict that ended with Athens’ abject surrender in –404. The Greek mainland descended into near chaos over the next few decades. Nowhere was the disruption of daily life greater than in Athens itself, ravaged by both war and a plague in –430 that killed a third of the population. And yet this century and a half of war and devastation embraces the Periclean Age. Skipping over the merely significant figures and listing just the major ones, those were the years that saw Aeschylus, Pindar, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Sophocles, Herodotus, Protagoras, Euripides, Myron, Polykleitos, Lysippos, Phidias, Thucydides, Socrates, Democritus, Hippocrates, Polygnotus, Aristophanes, Zeuxis, Eudoxus, Praxiteles, Theophrastus, and, of course, Plato and Aristotle. Everyone in that list from Aristophanes to the end did his most important work in the darkest years of Athens’ troubles and their aftermath.

    The rate of scientific discovery and artistic achievement then slowed down during the Roman Empire. From Chapter 3: A Sense Of Place:

    That the Romans could so reverently admire a work of art and so scorn the person who created it is perhaps part of the reason that the Romans left us so little of their own creation in the arts and sciences. There are the exceptions of Virgil, Horace, Cicero, and Ovid, plus a sprinkling of other fine Roman writers, the Stoics in philosophy, and a few major scientific achievements across the Mediterranean in Alexandria. But taken as whole, the Roman world throughout its history, whether republic or empire, was a near intellectual void when it came to the arts and sciences—“peopled by a race of pygmies” in Gibbon’s contemptuous words.23 Scientific, philosophic, and artistic progress did not come to an end when Rome fell, but, without much exaggeration, when Rome rose.

    The difference between Greece and China was that the development of secular observation of nature in Europe slowed after a few centuries, was more or less stagnant (with a few exceptions) during the Roman Empire, and then retrogressed for centuries, while in China progress continued without a break. It was not until well into the Renaissance that Europe caught up and passed China, and the mechanism for doing that was not simple observation, but the last of the meta-inventions I will nominate, the invention of the scientific method.

  156. anon[271] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    @anon

    >No. Want evidence? The crisis of 1666 and the Old Believers, just for a start.

    Besides religion, one further parallel between the Byzantine Empire and Tsarist Russia was the nature of the aristocracy: their power was derived not directly from wealth or land, but from state titles and positions that could be revoked by the emperor.

    >You might want to check those numbers. I doubt Syria’s TFR is even reliably known, but it likely isn’t all that high, for a start.

    I can't speak for Syria, but Iraq's was still uber-fertile last time I checked, as was eastern Turkey. Turkey's brought down by the more secularized population to the West. Saudi Arabia had declined some, but was around Israeli levels.

    >Tomayto, tomahto. My point stands, the elite leadership of Israel isn’t doing to that country what the elite leadership of the US is doing to my people.

    They have forgotten nothing, and learned nothing.

    Replies: @anon

    Besides religion, one further parallel between the Byzantine Empire and Tsarist Russia was the nature of the aristocracy: their power was derived not directly from wealth or land, but from state titles and positions that could be revoked by the emperor.

    Central control has advantages and disadvantages. In the entire East there was never anything that remotely resembled the free cities found in parts of NW Europe. The crisis of 1666 that led to the flight of the Old Believers was strictly about which hierarchy should be followed. There was never a question of “if”, and the Old Believers who fled into the forests were sure they were part of the true, the real hierarchy – they weren’t setting up their own frei-stadt.

    >You might want to check those numbers. I doubt Syria’s TFR is even reliably known, but it likely isn’t all that high, for a start.

    I can’t speak for Syria, but Iraq’s was still uber-fertile last time I checked,

    Numbers matter. TFR = 2.9 doesn’t seem all that uber to me.
    https://www.indexmundi.com/syria/total_fertility_rate.html

    as was eastern Turkey. Turkey’s brought down by the more secularized population to the West.

    Over all it is below replacement, 2020 is estimated at TFR = 1.96

    https://www.indexmundi.com/turkey/total_fertility_rate.html

    Saudi Arabia had declined some, but was around Israeli levels.

    TFR = 1.95 estimated for 2020.
    https://www.indexmundi.com/saudi_arabia/total_fertility_rate.html

    >Tomayto, tomahto. My point stands, the elite leadership of Israel isn’t doing to that country what the elite leadership of the US is doing to my people.

    nebula
    They have forgotten nothing, and learned nothing.

    I totally expect someone at National Review will start comparing Mittens Romney to Ronaldus Maximus pretty soon…

  157. @Achmed E. Newman
    If Mr. Unz had a [Strongly Agree] button, I'd have mashed that one instead. Nice job, Almost Missouri!

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    Both the immediate problem with the parasitic American axis of evil–Wall Street, Washington, Big Tech–and the longer term modernity-fertility problem are problems of the developed world, globohomo. But they aren’t completely the same problem.

    AE i think it would be goodness when you pull in some quality comments to do it with separate posts. Tightens up the conversation.

  158. @dfordoom
    @Catdog


    Surely natalist policies are cheaper than fighting WARS over access to immigrants.
     
    The problem is that natalist policies don't work. Ask the Hungarians. They tried it. Their TFR is still at long-term extinction level.

    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle and as @Paperback Writer has pointed out, if modernity goes down the tubes then those societies and those communities that currently have high fertility will go down the tubes as well.

    In a modern society natalist policies are pure wishful thinking.

    Replies: @anon, @Chrisnonymous, @AnotherDad

    The problem is that natalist policies don’t work. Ask the Hungarians. They tried it. Their TFR is still at long-term extinction level.

    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle and as has pointed out, if modernity goes down the tubes then those societies and those communities that currently have high fertility will go down the tubes as well.

    In a modern society natalist policies are pure wishful thinking.

    dfordoom, this is a sweeping claim backed by little real world experience.

    The correct statement would be something like “The weak tea natalist policies tried so far don’t work very well.”

    How about a real natalist policy. For example:
    — Singles tax rate = 66%
    — Married tax rate = 33% (then reverts to single rate if say five childless years)
    — Married with children under 18 tax rate = 0%.
    — Children post 18 tax rate = 25%.
    (Tune appropriately including number of kids, ages, etc.)

    In fact, mathematically some natalist policy set must work unless humans are afflicted by some sort of weird anti-natal virus that afflicts every single human and selection is useless.

    There’s basically zero evidence this is the case. Young women still like the idea of getting married;
    still like the idea of babies. Lots of them pick careers that are obvious “nurturing”–often nurturing children.

    What is the case is:
    — there are a lot of distractions in the modern world
    — globohomo cultures pushes female careerism and denigrates healthy fertile motherhood
    — globohomo policies–like mass immigration–make family formation less affordable

    The barrier is not effective policy. I’ve got effective policies. The problem is the reigning globo-homo narrative and anti-national elites. Get over the political/cultural hump where you have nationalist leadership with a mandate to preserve the nation, and the policy set isn’t all that complicated.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @AnotherDad


    The barrier is not effective policy. I’ve got effective policies. The problem is the reigning globo-homo narrative and anti-national elites. Get over the political/cultural hump where you have nationalist leadership with a mandate to preserve the nation, and the policy set isn’t all that complicated.
     
    The policies you've outlined might work, but they'd be political suicide. Really really screwing the childless would dramatically increase public support for immigration.

    Get over the political/cultural hump where you have nationalist leadership with a mandate to preserve the nation, and the policy set isn’t all that complicated.
     
    And how do you propose to get over that hump? It won't work in the current political system and it won't work in any democratic system. Any nationalist leadership will be just as corrupt as the current leadership. They'll sell you out. Or they'll be undermined and removed.

    And people don't want to be coerced into having children. Do you really want to live in a society where people are coerced into having children?
  159. @AnotherDad
    @dfordoom


    The problem is that natalist policies don’t work. Ask the Hungarians. They tried it. Their TFR is still at long-term extinction level.

    The only natalist policy that works is adopting a medieval lifestyle and as @Paperback Writer has pointed out, if modernity goes down the tubes then those societies and those communities that currently have high fertility will go down the tubes as well.

    In a modern society natalist policies are pure wishful thinking.
     

    dfordoom, this is a sweeping claim backed by little real world experience.

    The correct statement would be something like "The weak tea natalist policies tried so far don't work very well."

    How about a real natalist policy. For example:
    -- Singles tax rate = 66%
    -- Married tax rate = 33% (then reverts to single rate if say five childless years)
    -- Married with children under 18 tax rate = 0%.
    -- Children post 18 tax rate = 25%.
    (Tune appropriately including number of kids, ages, etc.)

    In fact, mathematically some natalist policy set must work unless humans are afflicted by some sort of weird anti-natal virus that afflicts every single human and selection is useless.

    There's basically zero evidence this is the case. Young women still like the idea of getting married;
    still like the idea of babies. Lots of them pick careers that are obvious "nurturing"--often nurturing children.

    What is the case is:
    -- there are a lot of distractions in the modern world
    -- globohomo cultures pushes female careerism and denigrates healthy fertile motherhood
    -- globohomo policies--like mass immigration--make family formation less affordable

    The barrier is not effective policy. I've got effective policies. The problem is the reigning globo-homo narrative and anti-national elites. Get over the political/cultural hump where you have nationalist leadership with a mandate to preserve the nation, and the policy set isn't all that complicated.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The barrier is not effective policy. I’ve got effective policies. The problem is the reigning globo-homo narrative and anti-national elites. Get over the political/cultural hump where you have nationalist leadership with a mandate to preserve the nation, and the policy set isn’t all that complicated.

    The policies you’ve outlined might work, but they’d be political suicide. Really really screwing the childless would dramatically increase public support for immigration.

    Get over the political/cultural hump where you have nationalist leadership with a mandate to preserve the nation, and the policy set isn’t all that complicated.

    And how do you propose to get over that hump? It won’t work in the current political system and it won’t work in any democratic system. Any nationalist leadership will be just as corrupt as the current leadership. They’ll sell you out. Or they’ll be undermined and removed.

    And people don’t want to be coerced into having children. Do you really want to live in a society where people are coerced into having children?

  160. @RoatanBill
    @JL

    holding back federal highway funds

    Suppose the states hold back IRS funds from their citizenry by simply stating that their citizens are no longer required to submit funds to the Fed Gov as a matter of state law? The Fed Gov can only give back what they have previously stolen or from new funny money.

    I realize this becomes a legal pissing contest, but just the temporary hint that people don't have to pay federal taxes would be enough for millions in a populous state to hide behind that state legal advice. Other state's residents would also feel that they have the same right and a cascade of failure ensues in the attempt to collect federal taxes.

    That's like a crack in a dam that grows ever wider till the dam fails.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @TomSchmidt, @Audacious Epigone

    This is crucially important because just the credible threat of a state or states doing this will send the dollar plunging. If the dollar breaks, the federal government’s hold on the union becomes very tenuous very fast.

    • Agree: RoatanBill
  161. @Catdog
    The debate on the right now seems to be which of three paths we take from here.

    1. Vote them out in 2022/2024

    2. Civil war

    3. Create alternative institutions and try for peaceful secession

    Remarkably, there is apparently a broad consensus that 1 is the least viable.

    A month ago I would have thought that 2 was the best option. Now, no. I was honestly expecting a wave of right-wing violence after Jan 6. If there was a single incident of it, it would have been all over the news. But there was NOTHING. Not a single person out of 74 million decided that they had nothing to lose. Incredible. BLM causes a billion dollars of damage because of a dead junkie, and our response to a coup is to grudgingly accept it. If white anger is a bell curve, with all that's happened, we still haven't even hit the close edge. We would lose a civil war not because we couldn't win, but because we wouldn't even bother to fight.

    For 3, AM is right that we will not be allowed to have alternative institutions. We already aren't even allowed to be on the internet. So as AE says any alternative institutions will need to be small and local. But small and local alternative institutions can't overcome globohomo.

    The chances of things getting better in our own lifetime seem low. Many hope that a financial collapse would set change in motion, but certainly globohomo would be able to leverage such a situation to make itself stronger and its enemies weaker. Some also hope that the internal contradictions of globohomo capitalism will cause the system to collapse on itself, followed by a proletariat revolution. Well.

    I think all three paths currently are non-viable, but we can take steps to make them viable. We can take those steps while we wait for the storm to break and an opportunity to present itself.

    Things we can focus on, that are easy and achievable:

    Leadership. I think whites are mostly unwilling to take matters into their own hands. They will only act if they have a leader. Unlike the South in the 1860s, the dissident right does not have a storehouse of competent leaders. It's incredible, but we don't. Trump was such a poor leader that an imaginary leader named Q had to be invented. Vdare has an article about how the next leaders of the movement could appear at any moment, with one good speech. I hope so. Anyone sticking their neck out right now is brave.

    Right-wing narrative control. We can't drown out leftists, but we certainly have the power to drown out the neocons and MIGAs. Gab could be a valuable forward operating base for redpilling the boomers with spicy memes. A Tea Party 3.0 could be more effectively protected from rino subversion now than in the pre-Trump era. It's Okay to Be White is still a good tactic. If you know people who still listen to gatekept talk radio, teach them how to use podcasts and recommend a few people.

    Repeal and replace the Republican party. Friends don't let friends vote Republican. Trump kneecapped them, now we cut the throat. If we can get 25-30% of Republican voters to stay home in 2022 it will be a great victory. If we want to challenge R incumbents with 3rd party candidates, if not to win, at least to steal votes away from them, we need to start planning candidates and campaigns now.

    Replies: @216, @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    What gets me is many of those who say #3 is pipe dream that will never work in the same breath say therefore we must try #2. If peaceful political dissolution is hard, a hot civil war is far harder still.

  162. @Paperback Writer
    Marijuana legalization was something that the elites wanted, having spent a good deal of their college years stoned. Al Gore & Laura Bush are but two examples.

    Anything else - trannies on your daughter's b-ball team, for only one example - you'll get crushed.

    Replies: @Jay Fink, @Audacious Epigone

    I’m skeptical. One of the reasons they can’t ever pass tough federal gun regulation is not because of the NRA or because of constitutional protections, it’s because they know states won’t enforce the laws they pass and there won’t be anything they can do about it.

  163. @dfordoom
    @Catdog


    Things we can focus on, that are easy and achievable:
     
    Extremely black-pilled take coming up.

    It may be that the only thing to focus on is survival. Personal survival, and the survival of your loved ones.

    When you look at some of the significant social and cultural revolutions of history - the Late Bronze Age Collapse, the fall of the Roman Empire, the Black Death, the Industrial Revolution - some had positive long-term consequences and some had negative long-term consequences but they were unstoppable. The only sane response was to make sure you were one of those who survived, and (If you were very lucky) maybe even one of those who thrived.

    There wasn't much point in trying to come up with strategies for stopping these events from happening. In fifth century Rome there wasn't much point in wearing a Make Rome Great Again hat.

    It's possible that the long-term consequences of the Great Demographic Collapse will be positive but it's entirely unpredictable and in the short to medium term things are likely to be pretty rough. Total economic chaos is possible. Wars are very likely.

    Aiming to survive might be the best strategy.

    Replies: @Audacious Epigone

    In fifth century Rome there wasn’t much point in wearing a Make Rome Great Again hat.

    On the other hand, in the third century it didn’t seem like there was, either, but the empire made it out to Diocletian.

  164. @Paperback Writer
    @Jay Fink

    Does it matter?

    Maybe both. The point is that AE, much as I admire him, gets it wrong here. Localism is just his version of Rod Dreher's Benedict Option. Both are wrong. You can live a nice, quiet life only so long, until USG decides to do something that will destroy your way of life.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Audacious Epigone

    You can live a nice, quiet life only so long, until USG decides to do something that will destroy your way of life.

    Think of it as Fabian tactics. The intention is to outlast the empire and be able to go on existing without it.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS