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
Taxation Is Largely Irrelevant
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

Arclight on how it is mourning in America:

A significant share of the population – though for different reasons – do not view our government and institutions as legitimate, the release of tons of prisoners because of Covid plus new weak on crime municipal governments means criminal activity of all kinds will increase along with homicides as people have more freedom of movement, and a lot of the jobs wiped out by the lockdowns will be very slow to return to the extent that do at all.

The right needs to be smart about this – there are a lot of working/middle class people that were clearly receptive to the populist politics of Trump, and many of them who voted for Biden are going to find themselves very disenchanted in the years to come, so there is a huge political opportunity. Target cutting ‘woke’ programming, support spending that helps families, promise to reverse Biden policies that kill blue collar jobs, and don’t get in the way of the donkeys attempts to raise tax rates on corporations, capital gains, and high income households.

The wheels are coming off of the international credit system. The crash is going to be spectacular. Assuming some semblance of elective government remains in place, it’s better not to be behind the wheel when it happens.

Almost Missouri offers a somber postmortem on the Trump presidency:

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.

Personnel is policy, as the aphorism goes. Trump didn’t know all the players, most especially the unelected ones, but he didn’t owe anyone anything either. He was in desperate need of someone who both knew the ropes and would’ve been a steadfast supporter of the America First agenda to guide him in his crucial personnel decisions. Pat Buchanan would’ve fit the role perfectly. Instead, the GOPe did most of the picking and among the few with a distinctive Trumpian bent, only Stephen Miller avoided a purge.

As Almost Missouri points out, for whatever reason Trump wasn’t interested. Maybe he just isn’t a systematic thinker. At all. The pardons that were and the pardons that weren’t at the end of the term when he had nothing left to gain or lose are the most difficult of all to excuse.

Tom Schmidt:

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.

One important point the MMTers make is that taxation and government spending are not causally correlated in the modern monetary system. The state doesn’t tax for money to spend, it conjures money up to spend. In 2020, less than half of federal government expenditures were accounted for through taxation. That is taxation in the conventional sense. Rising prices are a stealth form of taxation that results from money creation. Or at least that’s what unimaginative types like this blogger think.

MMTers argue otherwise. We can have the cake and eat it, too. As long as there is slack in the system, the Fed can create money without causing price inflation. It can do so even more efficiently by cutting out open market operations and digitally distributing dollars to directly to receiving institutions.

Intelligent Dasein asserts the world is running out of immigrants:

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.

Why should affluent Western countries continue to strip mine human resources from poorer countries that no longer have an excess population to spare? Seems greedy. It should stop.

If a single-word answer can be given, it is “growth”. As dfordoom points out:

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.

Mega-corporations will increasingly come to incorporate the state, or the state will incorporate them. It’ll be increasingly difficult to tell where one begins and the other ends. It already is.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Economics, Ideology • Tags: COTW 
Hide 86 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Wall Street is the problem. The culture of consumption starts with (((them))) and extends there. Starve the parasite and the problems start going away.

    • Agree: neutral, Adam Smith
  2. By the way, if you want to get a big-picture view of what the demographic decline is all about, why it’s happening and why it’s inevitable, there really is no better place than The Econimica Blog.

    He collects a lot of data and he posts a lot of charts, his writing is smooth and his analysis spot-on. Comments are closed except to members, but anybody can read the posts. Please give it a look; you won’t regret it.

    One of the main points is that, among the economically developed countries, the under-65 population has already crossed the threshold into negative growth, All population growth is now occurring amongst the over-65s, but these people do not generate wealth or have children. The money-making, money-spending, child-bearing age cohorts have started shrinking.

  3. Birthrates are declining all over the world and are already below replacement in most places.

    Most but not all, the African population explosion is real and significant. Any arguments that they will eventually also have the same demographics don’t mean much because by the time that happens you will have a literal planet of the apes. With at least half the world being black, there will be no country that can resist the black hordes from overwhelming them.

    • Troll: JohnPlywood
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @neutral

    "Intelligent Dasein asserts the world is running out of immigrants"

    I've disagreed with him on so many things another one won't make much odds. The world isn't running out of immigrants as long as there are poor countries and rich ones. And Africa, whose population octupled in the last 70 years, has billions to spare and is very poor.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Africa#History

    "there will be no country that can resist the black hordes from overwhelming them"


    "Can" is the wrong word, unless Africans develop military capabilities far beyond their present capacities.

    It's a matter of will. I bet Israel will still be a Jewish state.

    , @AnotherDad
    @neutral

    Spot on, neutral. ID's comment ...


    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.
     
    ... is one true statement followed by an ambiguous one, followed by a bunch of false conclusions. False mostly because there are huge time lags in demographic changes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

    It's true that fertility rates are falling in most of the world. They are "below replacement in most places" if you are talking about land area. Russia, Canada, China, the US, Brazil, Australia--the big boys of land area--plus Europe are below replacement. So if we could just *stop immigration* the population crisis would abate.

    But if you look at fertility by population, there are still huge population nations--India, Indonesia, Mexico--above replacement, some--Philippines, Egypt, Pakistan growing rapidly--and a few Ethiopia, Nigeria, Congo--absolutely exploding!


    But the two huge problems with this analysis:

    1) One is simply time lag.
    Replacement/sub-replacement TFR doesn't mean immediate shrinking.

    Take Mexico. It's now somewhere near replacement. But that just means that the Mexican generation being born is the largest ever. Yes, the fact that it is not wildly larger than the previous means its job prospects in Mexico should be pretty good. But ... if Mexico stalls ... that's more Mexicans than ever available to bum rush the US.

    And take India. Sure middle class--H-1B supplying--Indian demographic being born is probably smaller than the current one. But there are still 600 million Indians--mostly not very well off--in the youngest Indian generation (0-25). Could have been worse, but that's still a lot of people available to emigrate.

    2) Africa.
    African fertility is trending down. But it is still huge--pre-modern, but without pre-modern disease and death, ergo resulting in exploding populations.

    Africa alone can supply enough immigrants to utterly inundate and destroy the West--heck the entire world.

    The crisis--the Great War--of our day is to stop immigration from destroying Western civilization. But in that war, the absolutely critical battle is to keep Africans in Africa and not let them flow out and destroy civilization in the rest of the world.

    Replies: @Svevlad, @Jay Fink, @128

  4. As Almost Missouri points out, for whatever reason Trump wasn’t interested. Maybe he just isn’t a systematic thinker.

    Trump was on-camera talent. If the production team didn’t put it in front of him, it didn’t get airtime.

    Taxation is going to be largely irrelevant.

    The money it is supposed to collect is irrelevant… the tax system as an instrument of terror and oppression of the citizenry is what matters.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @The Alarmist


    The money it is supposed to collect is irrelevant… the tax system as an instrument of terror and oppression of the citizenry is what matters.

     

    Yes, that's what it comes down to. Tax people via currency debasement, and keep them inline with enforcement.

    Of course, threatening a poor man with prison may not be such a threat. They need to have some economic skin in the game, but the elites have taken that away. As Dylan sang, "When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose."

    Replies: @The Alarmist

  5. …no better place than The Econimica Blog.

    He collects a lot of data and he posts a lot of charts…

    Worth having a look into this blog indeed, as a source, no projection on how long this “inequilibrium” will last generationally though. The other critique from the top of my head: no mirroring of populations based on needs and population engineering for quality, both step stone-ing into “doing” not analyzing statically. The latter being the major engineered in, as to unz.com A-N-D economica blog.

    Intelligent Dasein seems to adopt the notion of an “excess population” (his terminology), we should asynchronously integrate notions and vocabulary maybe as far as my “surplus populations” terminology explained in earlier comments.

    Great effort of A. E. the author of the snippet to address “essentials”, “core” issues as no-one else on the roll.

  6. @neutral

    Birthrates are declining all over the world and are already below replacement in most places.
     
    Most but not all, the African population explosion is real and significant. Any arguments that they will eventually also have the same demographics don't mean much because by the time that happens you will have a literal planet of the apes. With at least half the world being black, there will be no country that can resist the black hordes from overwhelming them.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @AnotherDad

    “Intelligent Dasein asserts the world is running out of immigrants”

    I’ve disagreed with him on so many things another one won’t make much odds. The world isn’t running out of immigrants as long as there are poor countries and rich ones. And Africa, whose population octupled in the last 70 years, has billions to spare and is very poor.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Africa#History

    “there will be no country that can resist the black hordes from overwhelming them”

    “Can” is the wrong word, unless Africans develop military capabilities far beyond their present capacities.

    It’s a matter of will. I bet Israel will still be a Jewish state.

    • Troll: JohnPlywood
  7. Personnel is policy, as the aphorism goes.

    And, Trump needed Senate confirmation for Cabinet and Judiciary appointments.

    The system effectively gave some picks to Mitch McConnell. That is why the betrayal by Jeff “Recusal” Sessions burns so badly. Trump though he had an ally. Unfortunately, what he actually got was a modern Judas.

    The Russia, Russia, Russia impeachment drum beat further shifted power from the Executive to the Legislative branch. How many Senators could Trump offend and remain in office?
    ____

    Another aphorism — Funding is Policy

    Due to Establishment swamp creatures within the GOP, the theoretical majority in Trump’s first two years never funded his priorities. People whine & whinge & bemoan the lack of wall building…. Why blame Trump for not spending money his administration was never allocated? Wouldn’t it make more sense to blame those who withheld the money?

    Change takes time, and the worst of the GOP(e) swamp critters have been forced into the light. For the GOP to change into a true Populist party, those below need to be forced out.
    ____

    Perhaps it would have been better strategy to declare himself Triumphus I, God Emperor of America. He could have dissolved the Legislature & Judiciary. Burned the Constitution as waste paper. That is the only way Trump could have delivered 100% of what he wanted.

    I do not think even his supporters were ready for that in 2016. After 4 years of the Blue Coup, misrule, and economic collapse under Führer Biden…. Who can tell what 2024 might bring.

    PEACE 😇
     

     

    • Agree: follyofwar
    • Replies: @A123
    @A123

    AE,

    The overly tall images were supposed to be covered by a MORE tag. Please feel free to insert one.

    Thanks.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @A123


    How many Senators could Trump offend and remain in office?
    ... the theoretical majority in Trump’s first two years never funded his priorities. ... Wouldn’t it make more sense to blame those who withheld the money?
     
    The President holds the veto power. For Congress to overcome the veto power requires mustering an additional 1/3 votes beyond a bare majority for their agenda. In an environment where bills often pass by a scant majority, holding a cudgel over Congress's head worth a de facto 1/6 of the entire Congress make the President the effective Lawgiver. (This is before getting into any favor trading or other extracurricular maneuvers.) Had the President chosen to use that entirely Constitutional power, it is the Senators who would have been worried about how much they could afford to offend Trump, not vice versa.

    For comparison, look at Lyndon Johnson, another one-termer with a weak popular mandate. He got pretty much everything he wanted from Congress because he knew how intimidating Presidential power can be.

    But again, this is really beside the point. As mentioned above, there was plenty Trump could have done without Senate confirmations and without Congress's cooperation. He did approximately none of it. The bald truth is he just wasn't interested in implementing his putative agenda, which he may never actually have read.

    Replies: @A123

    , @follyofwar
    @A123

    As a PA resident, I'm overjoyed that anti-Trumper Neocon Pat Toomey says he's stepping down in 2022.

    , @Jay Fink
    @A123

    I will get to vote against one of these traitors, Dan Newhouse. If he somehow wins the primary I'll vote against him in the general.

  8. @A123

    Personnel is policy, as the aphorism goes.
     
    And, Trump needed Senate confirmation for Cabinet and Judiciary appointments.

    The system effectively gave some picks to Mitch McConnell. That is why the betrayal by Jeff "Recusal" Sessions burns so badly. Trump though he had an ally. Unfortunately, what he actually got was a modern Judas.

    The Russia, Russia, Russia impeachment drum beat further shifted power from the Executive to the Legislative branch. How many Senators could Trump offend and remain in office?
    ____

    Another aphorism -- Funding is Policy

    Due to Establishment swamp creatures within the GOP, the theoretical majority in Trump's first two years never funded his priorities. People whine & whinge & bemoan the lack of wall building.... Why blame Trump for not spending money his administration was never allocated? Wouldn't it make more sense to blame those who withheld the money?

    Change takes time, and the worst of the GOP(e) swamp critters have been forced into the light. For the GOP to change into a true Populist party, those below need to be forced out.
    ____

    Perhaps it would have been better strategy to declare himself Triumphus I, God Emperor of America. He could have dissolved the Legislature & Judiciary. Burned the Constitution as waste paper. That is the only way Trump could have delivered 100% of what he wanted.

    I do not think even his supporters were ready for that in 2016. After 4 years of the Blue Coup, misrule, and economic collapse under Führer Biden.... Who can tell what 2024 might bring.

    PEACE 😇
     
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OF5MwILfZ6Q/YBRitAqsS2I/AAAAAAACn00/2SR_eMiPz1MScXhP17rfAvx6I8ZfkRcCwCLcBGAsYHQ/s614/q1%2B1%2Bdfsgdfgsdfsdfffffff.jpg

     
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XcHj643-DJs/YBRis94kOGI/AAAAAAACn0w/qdMaf6YiXhMj65Dc8I0QRbBdkV_FtZUAACLcBGAsYHQ/s550/q1%2B1%2Bfdgsdfgsdfgsdfgdgdsdg.jpg

    Replies: @A123, @Almost Missouri, @follyofwar, @Jay Fink

    AE,

    The overly tall images were supposed to be covered by a MORE tag. Please feel free to insert one.

    Thanks.

  9. I don’t think the GOP understands the degree to which “tax cuts” as a political symbol are now looked at with contempt by a lot of their base, regardless of the merits of the policy or how it would benefit them. It’s a reaction against a set priorities visibly out of touch with their needs.

    • Agree: Daniel H
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @nebulafox

    I benefitted financially from the 2017 tax cuts and I speak of them with disgust. I appreciate the money, but fixing healthcare would have been a better use of political capital.

    In 1980, following years of inflation-induced increases in marginal tax rates, tax cuts were really a pressing issue. Tax brackets were subsequently indexed to prevent that sort of growth again. Except... first HW Bush defined inflation lower, and the 2017 tax cuts redefined inflation as "Chained CPI," which will severely understate inflation, leading to higher taxes paid and lower SS benefits paid out.

    Substituting Chained CPI for the previous measurement was originally a Democratic idea. the Stupid Party picked it up and installed it for them. When the tax rate cuts expire, the hot-blowing inflation is going to crush SS recipients (who look demographically like the USA 65 years ago) and taxpayers, and the D's don't have to make any changes to capture that cash flow.

    , @anon
    @nebulafox

    "Tax cuts" is just Reagan-era cargo-cultism. Picture McConnell, Miss Lindsey Graham, a Koch brother all on some jungle island in the Pacific, hanging out in a bamboo tower, calling out "Clear for lan-ding! Clear for lan-ding" in the vain hope of calling a C-47 full of Cargo out of the sky and down to their little rectangle of bare dirt. But hey, it was a winning incantation 40 years ago.

    Forty. Years. Ago. FORTY years ago.

  10. @A123

    Personnel is policy, as the aphorism goes.
     
    And, Trump needed Senate confirmation for Cabinet and Judiciary appointments.

    The system effectively gave some picks to Mitch McConnell. That is why the betrayal by Jeff "Recusal" Sessions burns so badly. Trump though he had an ally. Unfortunately, what he actually got was a modern Judas.

    The Russia, Russia, Russia impeachment drum beat further shifted power from the Executive to the Legislative branch. How many Senators could Trump offend and remain in office?
    ____

    Another aphorism -- Funding is Policy

    Due to Establishment swamp creatures within the GOP, the theoretical majority in Trump's first two years never funded his priorities. People whine & whinge & bemoan the lack of wall building.... Why blame Trump for not spending money his administration was never allocated? Wouldn't it make more sense to blame those who withheld the money?

    Change takes time, and the worst of the GOP(e) swamp critters have been forced into the light. For the GOP to change into a true Populist party, those below need to be forced out.
    ____

    Perhaps it would have been better strategy to declare himself Triumphus I, God Emperor of America. He could have dissolved the Legislature & Judiciary. Burned the Constitution as waste paper. That is the only way Trump could have delivered 100% of what he wanted.

    I do not think even his supporters were ready for that in 2016. After 4 years of the Blue Coup, misrule, and economic collapse under Führer Biden.... Who can tell what 2024 might bring.

    PEACE 😇
     
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OF5MwILfZ6Q/YBRitAqsS2I/AAAAAAACn00/2SR_eMiPz1MScXhP17rfAvx6I8ZfkRcCwCLcBGAsYHQ/s614/q1%2B1%2Bdfsgdfgsdfsdfffffff.jpg

     
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XcHj643-DJs/YBRis94kOGI/AAAAAAACn0w/qdMaf6YiXhMj65Dc8I0QRbBdkV_FtZUAACLcBGAsYHQ/s550/q1%2B1%2Bfdgsdfgsdfgsdfgdgdsdg.jpg

    Replies: @A123, @Almost Missouri, @follyofwar, @Jay Fink

    How many Senators could Trump offend and remain in office?
    … the theoretical majority in Trump’s first two years never funded his priorities. … Wouldn’t it make more sense to blame those who withheld the money?

    The President holds the veto power. For Congress to overcome the veto power requires mustering an additional 1/3 votes beyond a bare majority for their agenda. In an environment where bills often pass by a scant majority, holding a cudgel over Congress’s head worth a de facto 1/6 of the entire Congress make the President the effective Lawgiver. (This is before getting into any favor trading or other extracurricular maneuvers.) Had the President chosen to use that entirely Constitutional power, it is the Senators who would have been worried about how much they could afford to offend Trump, not vice versa.

    For comparison, look at Lyndon Johnson, another one-termer with a weak popular mandate. He got pretty much everything he wanted from Congress because he knew how intimidating Presidential power can be.

    But again, this is really beside the point. As mentioned above, there was plenty Trump could have done without Senate confirmations and without Congress’s cooperation. He did approximately none of it. The bald truth is he just wasn’t interested in implementing his putative agenda, which he may never actually have read.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Almost Missouri


    The President holds the veto power. For Congress to overcome the veto power requires mustering an additional 1/3 votes beyond a bare majority for their agenda. In an environment where bills often pass by a scant majority, holding a cudgel over Congress’s head worth a de facto 1/6 of the entire Congress make the President the effective Lawgiver.
     
    Your analysis has a huge defect. It assumes that Congress needs to pass things. In practice, the existing Establishment laws & regulations meant that Congress could win by standing by pat. There was no need to give into Trump's veto. Indeed just the opposite, Trump was under pressure to pass laws so that his eventual successor would not have an easy road unwinding Executive Orders.

    there was plenty Trump could have done without Senate confirmations and without Congress’s cooperation.
     
    Much less than you mistakenly believe. The Swamp bureaucracy protected by civil service laws were actively undermining Executive policy changes. Then the Establishment Judiciary further enjoined those weakened efforts.

    Trump inherited a situation that was stacked badly against Populist reform. And, he was further burdened by a bogus Special Prosecutor.

    -- Was he perfect? No.
    -- Did he accomplish a great deal given how bad the situation was? Yes.

    At a minimum, there is now the foundation for a Populist party. Under Swampies including, GW, Romney, and McCain the GOP was the weak half of the Globalist Uniparty.

    Creating a true Populist reform will take time & effort over multiple administrations. Demanding 100% of everything instantaneously is unreasonable. With a system that contains Separation of Powers, no President can deliver unilaterally.

    Or, are you suggesting that the current system must end in favour of one that can deliver faster, such as an Emperor?

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  11. @nebulafox
    I don't think the GOP understands the degree to which "tax cuts" as a political symbol are now looked at with contempt by a lot of their base, regardless of the merits of the policy or how it would benefit them. It's a reaction against a set priorities visibly out of touch with their needs.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @anon

    I benefitted financially from the 2017 tax cuts and I speak of them with disgust. I appreciate the money, but fixing healthcare would have been a better use of political capital.

    In 1980, following years of inflation-induced increases in marginal tax rates, tax cuts were really a pressing issue. Tax brackets were subsequently indexed to prevent that sort of growth again. Except… first HW Bush defined inflation lower, and the 2017 tax cuts redefined inflation as “Chained CPI,” which will severely understate inflation, leading to higher taxes paid and lower SS benefits paid out.

    Substituting Chained CPI for the previous measurement was originally a Democratic idea. the Stupid Party picked it up and installed it for them. When the tax rate cuts expire, the hot-blowing inflation is going to crush SS recipients (who look demographically like the USA 65 years ago) and taxpayers, and the D’s don’t have to make any changes to capture that cash flow.

  12. @The Alarmist

    As Almost Missouri points out, for whatever reason Trump wasn’t interested. Maybe he just isn’t a systematic thinker.
     
    Trump was on-camera talent. If the production team didn’t put it in front of him, it didn’t get airtime.

    Taxation is going to be largely irrelevant.
     
    The money it is supposed to collect is irrelevant... the tax system as an instrument of terror and oppression of the citizenry is what matters.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

    The money it is supposed to collect is irrelevant… the tax system as an instrument of terror and oppression of the citizenry is what matters.

    Yes, that’s what it comes down to. Tax people via currency debasement, and keep them inline with enforcement.

    Of course, threatening a poor man with prison may not be such a threat. They need to have some economic skin in the game, but the elites have taken that away. As Dylan sang, “When you ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose.”

    • Agree: Jack Armstrong
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @TomSchmidt

    Why send people to prison, when you can do the mother of all outsourcings and lock everyone down in their own hovels with an hour or two in the yard for exercise each day, no hope of parole, and no time off for good behaviour? Bonus: You no longer need courts and judicial proceedings, because there’s no burden of proof on the government.

  13. anon[763] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox
    I don't think the GOP understands the degree to which "tax cuts" as a political symbol are now looked at with contempt by a lot of their base, regardless of the merits of the policy or how it would benefit them. It's a reaction against a set priorities visibly out of touch with their needs.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @anon

    “Tax cuts” is just Reagan-era cargo-cultism. Picture McConnell, Miss Lindsey Graham, a Koch brother all on some jungle island in the Pacific, hanging out in a bamboo tower, calling out “Clear for lan-ding! Clear for lan-ding” in the vain hope of calling a C-47 full of Cargo out of the sky and down to their little rectangle of bare dirt. But hey, it was a winning incantation 40 years ago.

    Forty. Years. Ago. FORTY years ago.

  14. The wheels are coming off of the international credit system. The crash is going to be spectacular.

    This woman(?) plausibly argues that a repeat of the 2008 financial crash was already imminent in late 2019, but naked “quantitative easing” was at its credible limit, so more money printing would have locked the Fed into an undeniable perpetual stimulus cycle, breaking the dollar. Therefore, whether Covid was seized on and amplified or entirely contrived, it served The Powers That Be to run the covid hysteria to the max as it provided an “external” excuse for financial shutdown and drove a global “flight to safety” in the dollar, thereby buying an extra lifecycle for the Dollar Imperium and their own position atop it.

    https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/22/the-old-lady-who-swallowed-a-fly/

    Thought you might be interested as it ties together various “imminent fiscal collapse”, “financial elite meddling”, “new normal” and “covid conspiracy” threads that usually lie unentwined hereabouts.

    I’m not sure I buy it myself, yet I can’t say that any individual component is implausible. It also neatly explains the elite reluctance to abandon many of the manifestly useless covid restrictions: because they are not really covid restrictions, they are dollar-regime life support restrictions.

  15. anonymous[591] • Disclaimer says:

    Average IQ in the US is now 96-97. It will fall to 95 in 20 years and even lower for the working age population. This is the number that probably matters more than anything in predicting the future stagnation of GDP per capita. But one counterpoint I can’t make sense of is the economic performance and demographics of Texas which is currently about 45% white + Asian. The average IQ in Texas is probably in the low 90s. However, Texas still manages a state GDP per capita higher than the national average.

    • Replies: @DanHessinMD
    @anonymous

    "According to the 2018 US Census Bureau estimates, the population of Texas was 73.5% White (41.4% Non-Hispanic White and 32.1% Hispanic White), 12.3% Black or African American, 5.0% Asian, 0.5% Native American and Alaskan Native, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 6.0% Some Other Race, and 2.7% from two or more races."

    Replies: @anonymous

    , @Wency
    @anonymous

    There's some validity to that thinking, but it's somewhat reductionist and also has a tough time explaining how US GDP per capita is above most other places.

    Three things about TX -- it's been undergoing an oil boom, it's been attracting a lot of corporate HQs lately, and it just has a certain optimistic, ambitious, money-making mentality.

    On that last point, I've spent plenty of time in Texas and in the South, and it's interesting comparing the ways TX does and does not resemble the South. It's often a charge against the South that it's inclined to doing business in a sleepy, uncompetitive sort of way, and there's some truth to it. But it just doesn't really apply to Texas. There's more hustle there. I've noticed it among corporate types, among small businessmen, and among people who work for tips. Not as much as in the Northeast, but more than much of the country.

    It's also worth observing that Texas Mexicans are not necessarily equivalent to Mexicans elsewhere in the US. They tend to have more European stock.

    , @Yahya K.
    @anonymous


    Average IQ in the US is now 96-97. It will fall to 95 in 20 years and even lower for the working age population. This is the number that probably matters more than anything in predicting the future stagnation of GDP per capita. But one counterpoint I can’t make sense of is the economic performance and demographics of Texas which is currently about 45% white + Asian. The average IQ in Texas is probably in the low 90s. However, Texas still manages a state GDP per capita higher than the national average.

     

    There are many factors involved in determining GDP per capita, from geographic to cultural to political variables. Of course you can consider average IQ to be the most important factor, but it's not the be-all-end-all. And in terms of IQ, its not the average that matters, it's the quantity at the right-tail of the distribution that matters most. And that is determined both by the average and the variance, which differs from group to group.

    One of the more important concepts floating around the HBD blogoshpere is the “smart fraction theory”, which posits that a nation’s GDP per capita is determined more by how many smart people (IQ 120+) there are in a country, rather than merely the average IQ of the population. The underlying assumption behind the theory is that a modern industrial society requires smart people to assimilate the knowledge needed to operate technology, which will provide most of the productivity oomph to that country. Meanwhile, manual laborers are basically interchangeable units of production whose IQ doesn’t matter that much, because their comparative-advantage-induced contributions to productivity will cancel out any lost productivity from their lower IQs.

    So if you have a state like California, whose average IQ is mediocre, but continues to attract the best talent from around the world, it will continue to outproduce most other US states, and many large countries like the UK as well, despite having a Turkish level average IQ of ~95-96 (due to the Hispanic majority).

    Economies of scale also helps large countries with moderate IQ levels because they will only need a few smart people to operate the really important companies. For example, in the US you have the top 500 companies producing 67% of the countries output. If you put high grade management at the top of those corporations, you can really boost the net efficiency and productivity of those companies - and by extension the whole country. I suspect that’s main reason - along with lower tax rates - why the US still maintains a higher GDP per capita than Europe, even though its average IQ has been steadily decreasing at a faster rate.

    Replies: @anonymous

  16. @Almost Missouri
    @A123


    How many Senators could Trump offend and remain in office?
    ... the theoretical majority in Trump’s first two years never funded his priorities. ... Wouldn’t it make more sense to blame those who withheld the money?
     
    The President holds the veto power. For Congress to overcome the veto power requires mustering an additional 1/3 votes beyond a bare majority for their agenda. In an environment where bills often pass by a scant majority, holding a cudgel over Congress's head worth a de facto 1/6 of the entire Congress make the President the effective Lawgiver. (This is before getting into any favor trading or other extracurricular maneuvers.) Had the President chosen to use that entirely Constitutional power, it is the Senators who would have been worried about how much they could afford to offend Trump, not vice versa.

    For comparison, look at Lyndon Johnson, another one-termer with a weak popular mandate. He got pretty much everything he wanted from Congress because he knew how intimidating Presidential power can be.

    But again, this is really beside the point. As mentioned above, there was plenty Trump could have done without Senate confirmations and without Congress's cooperation. He did approximately none of it. The bald truth is he just wasn't interested in implementing his putative agenda, which he may never actually have read.

    Replies: @A123

    The President holds the veto power. For Congress to overcome the veto power requires mustering an additional 1/3 votes beyond a bare majority for their agenda. In an environment where bills often pass by a scant majority, holding a cudgel over Congress’s head worth a de facto 1/6 of the entire Congress make the President the effective Lawgiver.

    Your analysis has a huge defect. It assumes that Congress needs to pass things. In practice, the existing Establishment laws & regulations meant that Congress could win by standing by pat. There was no need to give into Trump’s veto. Indeed just the opposite, Trump was under pressure to pass laws so that his eventual successor would not have an easy road unwinding Executive Orders.

    there was plenty Trump could have done without Senate confirmations and without Congress’s cooperation.

    Much less than you mistakenly believe. The Swamp bureaucracy protected by civil service laws were actively undermining Executive policy changes. Then the Establishment Judiciary further enjoined those weakened efforts.

    Trump inherited a situation that was stacked badly against Populist reform. And, he was further burdened by a bogus Special Prosecutor.

    — Was he perfect? No.
    — Did he accomplish a great deal given how bad the situation was? Yes.

    At a minimum, there is now the foundation for a Populist party. Under Swampies including, GW, Romney, and McCain the GOP was the weak half of the Globalist Uniparty.

    Creating a true Populist reform will take time & effort over multiple administrations. Demanding 100% of everything instantaneously is unreasonable. With a system that contains Separation of Powers, no President can deliver unilaterally.

    Or, are you suggesting that the current system must end in favour of one that can deliver faster, such as an Emperor?

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @A123


    At a minimum, there is now the foundation for a Populist party.
     
    The last time our two-party system changed one of its parties was in the context of civil war. So if it happens again, I'm guessing it will be far down the list of priorities when it occurs.

    Creating a true Populist reform will take time & effort over multiple administrations.
     
    We're not getting any more administrations. Trump's was our last chance, long shot as it was, and now it's gone.

    Demanding 100% of everything instantaneously is unreasonable.
     
    I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply asking whether Trump himself believed in MAGA. The answer seems to be no.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

  17. @A123

    Personnel is policy, as the aphorism goes.
     
    And, Trump needed Senate confirmation for Cabinet and Judiciary appointments.

    The system effectively gave some picks to Mitch McConnell. That is why the betrayal by Jeff "Recusal" Sessions burns so badly. Trump though he had an ally. Unfortunately, what he actually got was a modern Judas.

    The Russia, Russia, Russia impeachment drum beat further shifted power from the Executive to the Legislative branch. How many Senators could Trump offend and remain in office?
    ____

    Another aphorism -- Funding is Policy

    Due to Establishment swamp creatures within the GOP, the theoretical majority in Trump's first two years never funded his priorities. People whine & whinge & bemoan the lack of wall building.... Why blame Trump for not spending money his administration was never allocated? Wouldn't it make more sense to blame those who withheld the money?

    Change takes time, and the worst of the GOP(e) swamp critters have been forced into the light. For the GOP to change into a true Populist party, those below need to be forced out.
    ____

    Perhaps it would have been better strategy to declare himself Triumphus I, God Emperor of America. He could have dissolved the Legislature & Judiciary. Burned the Constitution as waste paper. That is the only way Trump could have delivered 100% of what he wanted.

    I do not think even his supporters were ready for that in 2016. After 4 years of the Blue Coup, misrule, and economic collapse under Führer Biden.... Who can tell what 2024 might bring.

    PEACE 😇
     
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OF5MwILfZ6Q/YBRitAqsS2I/AAAAAAACn00/2SR_eMiPz1MScXhP17rfAvx6I8ZfkRcCwCLcBGAsYHQ/s614/q1%2B1%2Bdfsgdfgsdfsdfffffff.jpg

     
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XcHj643-DJs/YBRis94kOGI/AAAAAAACn0w/qdMaf6YiXhMj65Dc8I0QRbBdkV_FtZUAACLcBGAsYHQ/s550/q1%2B1%2Bfdgsdfgsdfgsdfgdgdsdg.jpg

    Replies: @A123, @Almost Missouri, @follyofwar, @Jay Fink

    As a PA resident, I’m overjoyed that anti-Trumper Neocon Pat Toomey says he’s stepping down in 2022.

  18. Mega-corporations will increasingly come to incorporate the state, or the state will incorporate them.

    Trying hard not to be black-pilled about western civilization, but it is tough when these corporations, especially the new blood, are touting the LGBT colors as THE symbol of their championing human rights:

    Peace.

    • Replies: @neutral
    @Talha


    black-pilled about western civilization
     
    Western civilization already ended in 1942 at the battle of Stalingrad. Since you are not a Westerner (only whites can truly be called that), why are you so concerned about it?

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom

    , @Johnny Smoggins
    @Talha

    There's a lot of fertile ground for outreach by Islam to conservative White people who are sick of non stop gay.

    Replies: @Talha

  19. @Talha

    Mega-corporations will increasingly come to incorporate the state, or the state will incorporate them.

     

    Trying hard not to be black-pilled about western civilization, but it is tough when these corporations, especially the new blood, are touting the LGBT colors as THE symbol of their championing human rights:
    https://www.twitter.com/Teslarati/status/1356248593225703424

    Peace.

    Replies: @neutral, @Johnny Smoggins

    black-pilled about western civilization

    Western civilization already ended in 1942 at the battle of Stalingrad. Since you are not a Westerner (only whites can truly be called that), why are you so concerned about it?

    • Replies: @Talha
    @neutral

    I live in it. Even if one is, say, renting an apartment, they are concerned if the building catches on fire.

    Peace.

    Replies: @neutral

    , @dfordoom
    @neutral


    Western civilization already ended in 1942 at the battle of Stalingrad.
     
    Western civilisation did not end in 1942 (or 1914 for that matter although 1914 was a much more significant date) and it's not likely to collapse. At the moment western civilisation dominates the entire planet.

    There has never been a western civilisation as such. There's been a series of civilisations in the West, each one radically different from the preceding one. These western civilisations periodically transform themselves into something entirely new and quite unrecognisable from the preceding version.

    The Reformation and the Industrial Revolution both created entirely new versions of western civilisation. But western civilisation did not collapse and was not destroyed. It transformed itself into a new civilisation.

    I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing. In some ways the new civilisations have been better than the previous version, in some ways they've been worse.

    At the moment we seem to be going through another period of transformation, the seeds of which were sown in 1914 although it really hit its stride after WW2. We're going to end up with a version of western civilisation that would be unrecognisable to anyone alive in 1945. All the signs point towards this new western civilisation being much much worse than the preceding one. The results are likely to be very unpleasant.

    Replies: @Talha, @Alexandros, @neutral, @Wency

  20. @neutral
    @Talha


    black-pilled about western civilization
     
    Western civilization already ended in 1942 at the battle of Stalingrad. Since you are not a Westerner (only whites can truly be called that), why are you so concerned about it?

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom

    I live in it. Even if one is, say, renting an apartment, they are concerned if the building catches on fire.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @neutral
    @Talha

    Since you are somewhere in the middle of the victim hierarchy, you are probably safe from SJW persecution, even in the worst case scenario you still have a people and homeland you can return to. Can you say the same applies to any white people, other than perhaps Russians?

    Replies: @Talha

  21. @TomSchmidt
    @The Alarmist


    The money it is supposed to collect is irrelevant… the tax system as an instrument of terror and oppression of the citizenry is what matters.

     

    Yes, that's what it comes down to. Tax people via currency debasement, and keep them inline with enforcement.

    Of course, threatening a poor man with prison may not be such a threat. They need to have some economic skin in the game, but the elites have taken that away. As Dylan sang, "When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose."

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    Why send people to prison, when you can do the mother of all outsourcings and lock everyone down in their own hovels with an hour or two in the yard for exercise each day, no hope of parole, and no time off for good behaviour? Bonus: You no longer need courts and judicial proceedings, because there’s no burden of proof on the government.

  22. “Why should affluent Western countries continue to strip mine human resources from poorer countries that no longer have an excess population to spare? Seems greedy. It should stop.”

    I’m sorry, this is missing a very critical point.

    Rich countries got rich by first moderating their fertility rate, and then slowly accumulating real per-capita wealth.

    Places where people have the maximum number of children that is physically possible have burned up their opportunities, and they remain miserably poor. Now their fertility rates are indeed declining – BUT ONLY BECAUSE THEY NO LONGER HAVE THE RESOURCES TO BREED SEVEN KIDS A POP.

    It is not a good thing when a population stops growing because there is no more food left for it to do so.

    Mind you, as Malthus pointed out, this is not typically due to famine. The main restraint on population growth is grinding subsistence level poverty, which causes women to be malnourished and be physically unable to bring large numbers of pregnancies to term, it increases infant mortality, and the like.

    In India now, the provinces with the highest levels of malnutrition have the lowest fertility rates. Of course, because they are hitting the limits. The provinces with high malnutrition and low fertility are not “running out of people.”

    It takes about 300 kg of grain per year per person to sustain the most miserable level of subsistence. Food production per capita can’t go below that level because people can’t live without food. If you take the total annual grain production of places like India, and divide by the population, you get: about 300 kg/person. India’s population simply cannot grow faster than food production can increase, and it isn’t.

    But just because a third-world country has a low fertility rate does not make it harmless to the rest of the world. It is like a tank of compressed gas, it looks quiet, but crack it open and it can explode. India’s population could remain stable, and yet it could still export enough refugees to easily drag the rest of the world back to the living standards of the 9th century.

    No, every third world refugee the developed world accepts will not in any way reduce the number of people in their sending countries, that’s just wrong.

    For over 50 years the establishment has been saying that we don’t need to worry about population growth and poverty in the third world because any day no these countries will all become rich and stop having so many children and illegal immigration will stop and outsourcing will stop – and for over 50 years these prediction have been utterly false. They were clearly just propaganda, to deflect attention away from a problem by falsely claiming it will soon go away of its own accord…

    And just now the establishment that for many decades has been constantly claiming that the third world population explosion will soon stop, has suddenly sprung on us that the population of Africa will balloon to over four billion by the end of the century! Ooopsie!

    “Running out of people?” Not a. chance.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @TG


    In India now, the provinces with the highest levels of malnutrition have the lowest fertility rates. Of course, because they are hitting the limits. The provinces with high malnutrition and low fertility are not “running out of people.”
     
    You keep saying this but it's not true. The states with the lowest birthrates in India are the southern states and tribal areas in the northeast, who generally score lower on levels of malnutrition and higher in terms of life expectancy. The states with the highest birthrates are overwhelmingly the northern states in the Hindi belt, particularly Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. These states score higher on levels of malnutrition and lower in terms of life expectancy.
  23. Although I can’t really call the Trump presidency a great success, I am much less inclined to blame it on Trump himself.

    Why?

    He created populism almost alone with his incredible energy, sense of the times, insane optimism, showmanship, courage and willingness to take verbal abuse and criticism far beyond anything seen in American history.

    In a business, the most important, crucial and irreplaceable role BY FAR is the role of the salesman and visionary. Trump provided this and he brought in excited and enthusiastic customers by the tens of millions. Compared to such incredible big-picture salesmanship, the ability to execute mundane engineering is far more common in the world. Just ask yourself:

    (a) How many true populist leaders exist with the courage, charisma and energy to rally tens of millions of Americans in the face of near total elite and media elite opposition?

    (b) How many conservative ‘engineers’ are there who can follow a plan, execute instructions, balance a budget and so forth?

    For (b) the answer is a huge number, including many in the leadership of every red state. For (a) the answer is, other than Trump, nobody. There is nobody within a 100 miles of him. Who was the second most powerful Republican after Trump? Mitch McConnell, a man with no charisma, no vision and few customers outside of the Beltway.

    Trump’s populist leadership and resiliency in the face of continuous attack was miraculous and unprecedented in modern history. Compared to this, it was a much smaller ask for the Republican party to support Trump and help figure out the nuts and bolts of implementation.

    No, I blame the Republican party who failed utterly to grasp the importance of the moment, to embrace necessary populism, or so act as the engineers to complement Trump’s salesmanship and outlines of populism.

    Mostly the Republicans were pulling in the opposite direction, wanting war, never caring about the American people, looking down on Trump’s base which was offered to them even while their own base was far smaller — a base establishment folks like Romney attacked at every opportunity.

    Trump was willing to sell whatever his party could give him to sell. They gave him almost nothing. Right up to the end, after Trump had lost the election (an election where he was stabbed fatally in the first debate by ‘conservative’ Fox News and ambushed by a ‘bipartisan’ debate commission consisting of only Democrats and never-Trumpers), Trump and his whole family labored for two hapless Georgia Republicans while the Republican Senate wouldn’t move an inch in the direction of populism. In the crucial month before the Georgia runoff, they committed two big own goals in doing an immigration amnesty and rejecting meaningful COVID relief for the people after a year of absurd lockdown. After the second own goal, polling for the Republicans in Georgia collapsed.

    The lack of a pardon for Assange was a huge disappointment but by that point, Trump was broken, his very voice blocked on every platform. Vice President Pence had led the persecution of Assange for years, and Mitch McConnell, who hadn’t fought a day for populism in his life, was 100% behind the Deep State in the end — holding a knife to Trump’s throat in the form of threatening to support Trump’s impeachment after Trump’s departure if he pardoned Assange — even if that meant blowing up the party. And if we are honest with ourselves, a pardon of Assange would have been meaningless in this situation, because new bipartisan charges against Assange would have been created within a day.

  24. @Talha
    @neutral

    I live in it. Even if one is, say, renting an apartment, they are concerned if the building catches on fire.

    Peace.

    Replies: @neutral

    Since you are somewhere in the middle of the victim hierarchy, you are probably safe from SJW persecution, even in the worst case scenario you still have a people and homeland you can return to. Can you say the same applies to any white people, other than perhaps Russians?

    • Replies: @Talha
    @neutral


    Can you say the same applies to any white people, other than perhaps Russians?
     
    Perhaps or perhaps not. I don’t know if Russia will accept whites who have helped ruin their own countries with self-destructive policies.

    Either way, I’m fine with a white homeland (Whitekanda) breaking away from the rest of the US. If it came out as a national plebiscite and there were enough white people wanting it, I would vote for a clean partition and divorce. I wouldn’t even mind moving my family if it needed to be done to accommodate the new borders...nothing new, my family moved into Pakistan from India after Partition - no big deal.

    It is sad though, my in laws are Swedish and quite liberal - very, very nice guys, but the way they are going (if my in laws are an indication)...they will be replaced by their own choice.

    Peace.
  25. @neutral
    @Talha

    Since you are somewhere in the middle of the victim hierarchy, you are probably safe from SJW persecution, even in the worst case scenario you still have a people and homeland you can return to. Can you say the same applies to any white people, other than perhaps Russians?

    Replies: @Talha

    Can you say the same applies to any white people, other than perhaps Russians?

    Perhaps or perhaps not. I don’t know if Russia will accept whites who have helped ruin their own countries with self-destructive policies.

    Either way, I’m fine with a white homeland (Whitekanda) breaking away from the rest of the US. If it came out as a national plebiscite and there were enough white people wanting it, I would vote for a clean partition and divorce. I wouldn’t even mind moving my family if it needed to be done to accommodate the new borders…nothing new, my family moved into Pakistan from India after Partition – no big deal.

    It is sad though, my in laws are Swedish and quite liberal – very, very nice guys, but the way they are going (if my in laws are an indication)…they will be replaced by their own choice.

    Peace.

  26. @neutral

    Birthrates are declining all over the world and are already below replacement in most places.
     
    Most but not all, the African population explosion is real and significant. Any arguments that they will eventually also have the same demographics don't mean much because by the time that happens you will have a literal planet of the apes. With at least half the world being black, there will be no country that can resist the black hordes from overwhelming them.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @AnotherDad

    Spot on, neutral. ID’s comment …

    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.

    … is one true statement followed by an ambiguous one, followed by a bunch of false conclusions. False mostly because there are huge time lags in demographic changes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

    It’s true that fertility rates are falling in most of the world. They are “below replacement in most places” if you are talking about land area. Russia, Canada, China, the US, Brazil, Australia–the big boys of land area–plus Europe are below replacement. So if we could just *stop immigration* the population crisis would abate.

    But if you look at fertility by population, there are still huge population nations–India, Indonesia, Mexico–above replacement, some–Philippines, Egypt, Pakistan growing rapidly–and a few Ethiopia, Nigeria, Congo–absolutely exploding!

    But the two huge problems with this analysis:

    1) One is simply time lag.
    Replacement/sub-replacement TFR doesn’t mean immediate shrinking.

    Take Mexico. It’s now somewhere near replacement. But that just means that the Mexican generation being born is the largest ever. Yes, the fact that it is not wildly larger than the previous means its job prospects in Mexico should be pretty good. But … if Mexico stalls … that’s more Mexicans than ever available to bum rush the US.

    And take India. Sure middle class–H-1B supplying–Indian demographic being born is probably smaller than the current one. But there are still 600 million Indians–mostly not very well off–in the youngest Indian generation (0-25). Could have been worse, but that’s still a lot of people available to emigrate.

    2) Africa.
    African fertility is trending down. But it is still huge–pre-modern, but without pre-modern disease and death, ergo resulting in exploding populations.

    Africa alone can supply enough immigrants to utterly inundate and destroy the West–heck the entire world.

    The crisis–the Great War–of our day is to stop immigration from destroying Western civilization. But in that war, the absolutely critical battle is to keep Africans in Africa and not let them flow out and destroy civilization in the rest of the world.

    • Replies: @Svevlad
    @AnotherDad

    Immigration ceases to be a problem if our economy gets torpedoed. Then they have nothing to get, and mother nature takes natural eugenics with a speed never seen before.

    But hey if we tank it now and become dirt poor, in 3 generations Africans would probably be 1/4 of the current size, but at white levels of intelligence. Everyone wins, really.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @AnotherDad

    , @Jay Fink
    @AnotherDad

    The African immigrants I have met over the years seem to be high quality people. They are far from the ghetto black mentality. From what I understand they can not relate to African-Americans in general. I wonder though if their children and especially grandchildren and future generations will start assimilating more into the general black American culture with all its pathologies such as crime and lack of traditional family?

    Replies: @anon, @Alexandros, @Wency, @AnotherDad

    , @128
    @AnotherDad

    The Phillpines' fertility rate is at 2.5, not a lot above 2.2.

  27. MMT can work… If the money conjured is spent on actually tangible things instead of being given to financiers.

  28. @AnotherDad
    @neutral

    Spot on, neutral. ID's comment ...


    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.
     
    ... is one true statement followed by an ambiguous one, followed by a bunch of false conclusions. False mostly because there are huge time lags in demographic changes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

    It's true that fertility rates are falling in most of the world. They are "below replacement in most places" if you are talking about land area. Russia, Canada, China, the US, Brazil, Australia--the big boys of land area--plus Europe are below replacement. So if we could just *stop immigration* the population crisis would abate.

    But if you look at fertility by population, there are still huge population nations--India, Indonesia, Mexico--above replacement, some--Philippines, Egypt, Pakistan growing rapidly--and a few Ethiopia, Nigeria, Congo--absolutely exploding!


    But the two huge problems with this analysis:

    1) One is simply time lag.
    Replacement/sub-replacement TFR doesn't mean immediate shrinking.

    Take Mexico. It's now somewhere near replacement. But that just means that the Mexican generation being born is the largest ever. Yes, the fact that it is not wildly larger than the previous means its job prospects in Mexico should be pretty good. But ... if Mexico stalls ... that's more Mexicans than ever available to bum rush the US.

    And take India. Sure middle class--H-1B supplying--Indian demographic being born is probably smaller than the current one. But there are still 600 million Indians--mostly not very well off--in the youngest Indian generation (0-25). Could have been worse, but that's still a lot of people available to emigrate.

    2) Africa.
    African fertility is trending down. But it is still huge--pre-modern, but without pre-modern disease and death, ergo resulting in exploding populations.

    Africa alone can supply enough immigrants to utterly inundate and destroy the West--heck the entire world.

    The crisis--the Great War--of our day is to stop immigration from destroying Western civilization. But in that war, the absolutely critical battle is to keep Africans in Africa and not let them flow out and destroy civilization in the rest of the world.

    Replies: @Svevlad, @Jay Fink, @128

    Immigration ceases to be a problem if our economy gets torpedoed. Then they have nothing to get, and mother nature takes natural eugenics with a speed never seen before.

    But hey if we tank it now and become dirt poor, in 3 generations Africans would probably be 1/4 of the current size, but at white levels of intelligence. Everyone wins, really.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @Svevlad

    What makes you think being dirt poor would improve Africans?  They were dirt poor for tens of thousands of years, and you know the results.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Svevlad


    Immigration ceases to be a problem if our economy gets torpedoed. Then they have nothing to get, and mother nature takes natural eugenics with a speed never seen before.

    But hey if we tank it now and become dirt poor, in 3 generations Africans would probably be 1/4 of the current size, but at white levels of intelligence. Everyone wins, really.

     

    LOL.

    First off, even with a tanked economy whites--ergo white nations--are way more productive and pleasant.

    And seriously 2 or 3 generations?

    Native American Indians are maybe 10-15 IQ points below whites. They were at the dawn of agriculture in a few places. If Europeans hadn't shown up they would have gradually developed--really needed to tame bison for a draft animal--and in maybe two or three thousand years they might be building something akin to ancient white civilization.

    African are further behind than that in IQ. Even with the genetic and cultural backflow Africans accomplished .... nothing. No pre-contact civilization was even at the level of ancient Egypt.

    Do you plan to teach them physics then execute the bottom 90% of the class. Keep that up for three generations you might have some people capable of white civilization.

    Natural evolution of humans since the neolithic--with gene-culture co-evolution--has been really, really fast by pre-neolithic standards ... but it never goes warp speed. Count on Africans being not very bright for a while yet. (Until ubiquitous gene therapy.)

    Replies: @Svevlad, @JohnPlywood

  29. There’ll be no lack of sub-Saharan immigrants. The place is going through a population explosion to end all population explosions. This is as inevitable as China’s economic development of the last few decades. Events may prevent it, but all of the factors required are already baked in.

  30. @A123

    Personnel is policy, as the aphorism goes.
     
    And, Trump needed Senate confirmation for Cabinet and Judiciary appointments.

    The system effectively gave some picks to Mitch McConnell. That is why the betrayal by Jeff "Recusal" Sessions burns so badly. Trump though he had an ally. Unfortunately, what he actually got was a modern Judas.

    The Russia, Russia, Russia impeachment drum beat further shifted power from the Executive to the Legislative branch. How many Senators could Trump offend and remain in office?
    ____

    Another aphorism -- Funding is Policy

    Due to Establishment swamp creatures within the GOP, the theoretical majority in Trump's first two years never funded his priorities. People whine & whinge & bemoan the lack of wall building.... Why blame Trump for not spending money his administration was never allocated? Wouldn't it make more sense to blame those who withheld the money?

    Change takes time, and the worst of the GOP(e) swamp critters have been forced into the light. For the GOP to change into a true Populist party, those below need to be forced out.
    ____

    Perhaps it would have been better strategy to declare himself Triumphus I, God Emperor of America. He could have dissolved the Legislature & Judiciary. Burned the Constitution as waste paper. That is the only way Trump could have delivered 100% of what he wanted.

    I do not think even his supporters were ready for that in 2016. After 4 years of the Blue Coup, misrule, and economic collapse under Führer Biden.... Who can tell what 2024 might bring.

    PEACE 😇
     
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OF5MwILfZ6Q/YBRitAqsS2I/AAAAAAACn00/2SR_eMiPz1MScXhP17rfAvx6I8ZfkRcCwCLcBGAsYHQ/s614/q1%2B1%2Bdfsgdfgsdfsdfffffff.jpg

     
    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-XcHj643-DJs/YBRis94kOGI/AAAAAAACn0w/qdMaf6YiXhMj65Dc8I0QRbBdkV_FtZUAACLcBGAsYHQ/s550/q1%2B1%2Bfdgsdfgsdfgsdfgdgdsdg.jpg

    Replies: @A123, @Almost Missouri, @follyofwar, @Jay Fink

    I will get to vote against one of these traitors, Dan Newhouse. If he somehow wins the primary I’ll vote against him in the general.

  31. @AnotherDad
    @neutral

    Spot on, neutral. ID's comment ...


    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.
     
    ... is one true statement followed by an ambiguous one, followed by a bunch of false conclusions. False mostly because there are huge time lags in demographic changes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

    It's true that fertility rates are falling in most of the world. They are "below replacement in most places" if you are talking about land area. Russia, Canada, China, the US, Brazil, Australia--the big boys of land area--plus Europe are below replacement. So if we could just *stop immigration* the population crisis would abate.

    But if you look at fertility by population, there are still huge population nations--India, Indonesia, Mexico--above replacement, some--Philippines, Egypt, Pakistan growing rapidly--and a few Ethiopia, Nigeria, Congo--absolutely exploding!


    But the two huge problems with this analysis:

    1) One is simply time lag.
    Replacement/sub-replacement TFR doesn't mean immediate shrinking.

    Take Mexico. It's now somewhere near replacement. But that just means that the Mexican generation being born is the largest ever. Yes, the fact that it is not wildly larger than the previous means its job prospects in Mexico should be pretty good. But ... if Mexico stalls ... that's more Mexicans than ever available to bum rush the US.

    And take India. Sure middle class--H-1B supplying--Indian demographic being born is probably smaller than the current one. But there are still 600 million Indians--mostly not very well off--in the youngest Indian generation (0-25). Could have been worse, but that's still a lot of people available to emigrate.

    2) Africa.
    African fertility is trending down. But it is still huge--pre-modern, but without pre-modern disease and death, ergo resulting in exploding populations.

    Africa alone can supply enough immigrants to utterly inundate and destroy the West--heck the entire world.

    The crisis--the Great War--of our day is to stop immigration from destroying Western civilization. But in that war, the absolutely critical battle is to keep Africans in Africa and not let them flow out and destroy civilization in the rest of the world.

    Replies: @Svevlad, @Jay Fink, @128

    The African immigrants I have met over the years seem to be high quality people. They are far from the ghetto black mentality. From what I understand they can not relate to African-Americans in general. I wonder though if their children and especially grandchildren and future generations will start assimilating more into the general black American culture with all its pathologies such as crime and lack of traditional family?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Jay Fink

    The African immigrants I have met over the years seem to be high quality people.

    1. "I know a good one" is a form of sample error. I know a Nigerian doctor; most Nigerians are not doctors.

    2. Many African immigrants are from the "talented tenth" of their country. This is also a sampling error.

    These two facts should answer your questions. If they don't, I suggest you take a stroll around Gare du Nord in Paris and spend some quality time with the Africans in the streets there. Leave your passport and other valuables locked up, though.

    , @Alexandros
    @Jay Fink

    Emigrating is very expensive. Only the most resourceful can make the trip.

    Compare this to slavery where the least resourceful were the most likely to be caught and sold.

    And no, their children do not continue the trend. They are regressing to the mean, becoming more criminal, more religious. My country has one of the best support systems in the world for blacks. The Government benefits are more than enough for the average black to avoid financial crimes.

    The result? Little kids getting robbed at knife point for their phone or an expensive jacket by elementary school blacks on the way to school.

    , @Wency
    @Jay Fink

    Yeah, I've been wondering this as well. I'm aware of a kid who came from a good African immigrant home in an upper-middle class suburb and got gunned down in a very ghetto sort of incident.

    I've also known a family for many years that consists of an African immigrant, his white American wife, and their 5 children. They are devout Christians, nice people all around. One thing I've observed is that their adult kids (basically good kids, seemingly no vices) seem to have either leaned more into the Christian identity or the black identity, and it's been correlated with their success in life -- none of them apostatized but the more happy/successful have leaned more Christian, with the most devout being the prettiest and the only one who is married so far (to a white boy), with seemingly little interest in blackness. The oldest of the girls are now starting to age out of marriageability, so it's also an interesting case in a pro-natal home not translating into grandchildren or even much marriage.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Jay Fink


    The African immigrants I have met over the years seem to be high quality people.
     
    African immigrants to the US are highly selected. You don't get here in a rubber raft. Over half (i believe) have college degrees. They skew heavily from the African professional and middle classes. But their regression toward the mean is notable. And it's a mean that is quite a bit lower mean to regress toward than for white people. (And then there's the whole issue of picking up our extant "elite" ideology of minoritarianism and developing authentically "black" attitude and/or grift.)

    They are not immigrants you want, and we don't need any immigrants period.

    And ... they are the absolute cream of what you'll get from Africa. If we start getting mass immigration of the African masses ... our civilization is finished.

    Replies: @128, @A123, @Mr. Rational, @JohnPlywood

  32. anon[128] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jay Fink
    @AnotherDad

    The African immigrants I have met over the years seem to be high quality people. They are far from the ghetto black mentality. From what I understand they can not relate to African-Americans in general. I wonder though if their children and especially grandchildren and future generations will start assimilating more into the general black American culture with all its pathologies such as crime and lack of traditional family?

    Replies: @anon, @Alexandros, @Wency, @AnotherDad

    The African immigrants I have met over the years seem to be high quality people.

    1. “I know a good one” is a form of sample error. I know a Nigerian doctor; most Nigerians are not doctors.

    2. Many African immigrants are from the “talented tenth” of their country. This is also a sampling error.

    These two facts should answer your questions. If they don’t, I suggest you take a stroll around Gare du Nord in Paris and spend some quality time with the Africans in the streets there. Leave your passport and other valuables locked up, though.

  33. @Jay Fink
    @AnotherDad

    The African immigrants I have met over the years seem to be high quality people. They are far from the ghetto black mentality. From what I understand they can not relate to African-Americans in general. I wonder though if their children and especially grandchildren and future generations will start assimilating more into the general black American culture with all its pathologies such as crime and lack of traditional family?

    Replies: @anon, @Alexandros, @Wency, @AnotherDad

    Emigrating is very expensive. Only the most resourceful can make the trip.

    Compare this to slavery where the least resourceful were the most likely to be caught and sold.

    And no, their children do not continue the trend. They are regressing to the mean, becoming more criminal, more religious. My country has one of the best support systems in the world for blacks. The Government benefits are more than enough for the average black to avoid financial crimes.

    The result? Little kids getting robbed at knife point for their phone or an expensive jacket by elementary school blacks on the way to school.

    • Thanks: Jay Fink
  34. @anonymous
    Average IQ in the US is now 96-97. It will fall to 95 in 20 years and even lower for the working age population. This is the number that probably matters more than anything in predicting the future stagnation of GDP per capita. But one counterpoint I can't make sense of is the economic performance and demographics of Texas which is currently about 45% white + Asian. The average IQ in Texas is probably in the low 90s. However, Texas still manages a state GDP per capita higher than the national average.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Wency, @Yahya K.

    “According to the 2018 US Census Bureau estimates, the population of Texas was 73.5% White (41.4% Non-Hispanic White and 32.1% Hispanic White), 12.3% Black or African American, 5.0% Asian, 0.5% Native American and Alaskan Native, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 6.0% Some Other Race, and 2.7% from two or more races.”

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @DanHessinMD

    What does a typical white Hispanic look like in Texas? Do you consider them white?

  35. @Svevlad
    @AnotherDad

    Immigration ceases to be a problem if our economy gets torpedoed. Then they have nothing to get, and mother nature takes natural eugenics with a speed never seen before.

    But hey if we tank it now and become dirt poor, in 3 generations Africans would probably be 1/4 of the current size, but at white levels of intelligence. Everyone wins, really.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @AnotherDad

    What makes you think being dirt poor would improve Africans?  They were dirt poor for tens of thousands of years, and you know the results.

  36. @anonymous
    Average IQ in the US is now 96-97. It will fall to 95 in 20 years and even lower for the working age population. This is the number that probably matters more than anything in predicting the future stagnation of GDP per capita. But one counterpoint I can't make sense of is the economic performance and demographics of Texas which is currently about 45% white + Asian. The average IQ in Texas is probably in the low 90s. However, Texas still manages a state GDP per capita higher than the national average.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Wency, @Yahya K.

    There’s some validity to that thinking, but it’s somewhat reductionist and also has a tough time explaining how US GDP per capita is above most other places.

    Three things about TX — it’s been undergoing an oil boom, it’s been attracting a lot of corporate HQs lately, and it just has a certain optimistic, ambitious, money-making mentality.

    On that last point, I’ve spent plenty of time in Texas and in the South, and it’s interesting comparing the ways TX does and does not resemble the South. It’s often a charge against the South that it’s inclined to doing business in a sleepy, uncompetitive sort of way, and there’s some truth to it. But it just doesn’t really apply to Texas. There’s more hustle there. I’ve noticed it among corporate types, among small businessmen, and among people who work for tips. Not as much as in the Northeast, but more than much of the country.

    It’s also worth observing that Texas Mexicans are not necessarily equivalent to Mexicans elsewhere in the US. They tend to have more European stock.

  37. @Jay Fink
    @AnotherDad

    The African immigrants I have met over the years seem to be high quality people. They are far from the ghetto black mentality. From what I understand they can not relate to African-Americans in general. I wonder though if their children and especially grandchildren and future generations will start assimilating more into the general black American culture with all its pathologies such as crime and lack of traditional family?

    Replies: @anon, @Alexandros, @Wency, @AnotherDad

    Yeah, I’ve been wondering this as well. I’m aware of a kid who came from a good African immigrant home in an upper-middle class suburb and got gunned down in a very ghetto sort of incident.

    I’ve also known a family for many years that consists of an African immigrant, his white American wife, and their 5 children. They are devout Christians, nice people all around. One thing I’ve observed is that their adult kids (basically good kids, seemingly no vices) seem to have either leaned more into the Christian identity or the black identity, and it’s been correlated with their success in life — none of them apostatized but the more happy/successful have leaned more Christian, with the most devout being the prettiest and the only one who is married so far (to a white boy), with seemingly little interest in blackness. The oldest of the girls are now starting to age out of marriageability, so it’s also an interesting case in a pro-natal home not translating into grandchildren or even much marriage.

  38. Yahya K. says:

    Why should affluent Western countries continue to strip mine human resources from poorer countries that no longer have an excess population to spare? Seems greedy. It should stop.

    I used to think that the brain drain was the biggest catastrophe to happen to poor countries around the globe. But now that I think about it, it’s probably beneficial, net, to have talent go to where it can flower to its full potential. The resulting innovation would then diffuse back to poorer countries over time. This paper by Rui Xiu supports my intuition:

    High-Skilled Migration and Global Innovation

    For developing source countries, the emigration of highly skilled individuals to the U.S.– often referred to as the “brain drain” – can have negative welfare consequences for those left behind.4 Recent literature, however, emphasizes that various channels of “beneficial brain drain” – such as remittances, facilitation of technology adoption, increased incentives to investing human capital, and induced trade – may compensate the sending countries for their loss of talent.5 The net impact of the brain drain, however, remains to be quantified in a general.

    The proposed model highlights and quantifies a new channel of benefit through frontier knowledge creation. Migrants from developing countries can innovate more efficiently in the U.S. than in their home countries.10 As a result, global innovation will be enhanced through skilled migration. Since knowledge is non-rivalrous, the frontier knowledge created by immigrants will diffuse to the source countries. I refer to this induced benefit of skilled migration as the “frontier growth effect”. Although the idea of frontier growth effect is not new to the literature, there has been no serious attempt to quantify it.

    Science and engineering (S&E) workers are the fundamental inputs into scientific innovation and technology adoption. In the United States, more than 20% of the S&E workers are immigrants from developing countries. In this paper, I evaluate the impact of such brain drain from non-OECD (i.e., developing) countries using a multi-country endogenous growth model. The proposed framework introduces and quantifies a “frontier growth effect” of skilled migration: migrants from developing countries create more frontier knowledge in the U.S., and the non-rivalrous knowledge diffuses to all countries.

    Although I do see a few caveats here and there. For example, I don’t think that doctors who immigrate to the First World are beneficial net to the sending country. I think that is a clear net loss. Maybe too for engineers, unless they are somehow involved in a innovative project. But overall, sending scientists and technology workers over to environments which encourage innovation is net beneficial to everyone involved.

  39. @neutral
    @Talha


    black-pilled about western civilization
     
    Western civilization already ended in 1942 at the battle of Stalingrad. Since you are not a Westerner (only whites can truly be called that), why are you so concerned about it?

    Replies: @Talha, @dfordoom

    Western civilization already ended in 1942 at the battle of Stalingrad.

    Western civilisation did not end in 1942 (or 1914 for that matter although 1914 was a much more significant date) and it’s not likely to collapse. At the moment western civilisation dominates the entire planet.

    There has never been a western civilisation as such. There’s been a series of civilisations in the West, each one radically different from the preceding one. These western civilisations periodically transform themselves into something entirely new and quite unrecognisable from the preceding version.

    The Reformation and the Industrial Revolution both created entirely new versions of western civilisation. But western civilisation did not collapse and was not destroyed. It transformed itself into a new civilisation.

    I’m not saying this is necessarily a good thing. In some ways the new civilisations have been better than the previous version, in some ways they’ve been worse.

    At the moment we seem to be going through another period of transformation, the seeds of which were sown in 1914 although it really hit its stride after WW2. We’re going to end up with a version of western civilisation that would be unrecognisable to anyone alive in 1945. All the signs point towards this new western civilisation being much much worse than the preceding one. The results are likely to be very unpleasant.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @dfordoom


    There has never been a western civilisation as such. There’s been a series of civilisations in the West, each one radically different from the preceding one.
     
    That’s a good point. There are of course some common threads, but quite stark differences in each stage of the evolution as well.

    Peace.
    , @Alexandros
    @dfordoom

    1914 means nothing because that was just your typical Germany. Their victory would only mean a slightly more honest and rational Europe. Until the inevitable.

    The Adolf Hitler era is something completely different. If victorious it would have spelled a golden age for Europe. Something not seen since the days before Rome. The chance to transform the West into a real civilization instead of just an advanced pyramid scheme benefiting hostile elites. Which is basically what West Civ has always been about.

    No, the West is not dead. But it should and must die.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @neutral
    @dfordoom


    There’s been a series of civilisations in the West
     
    Western civilization is not defined by democracy, liberalism, Aristotle and Plato or even Christianity. It is simply a society run and populated by white people, so what exists now cannot be called that, in fact those that rule you are no longer using that term (and when they do they use it in the negative).

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    , @Wency
    @dfordoom

    Pertinent to this point, I'd take a look at this Scott Alexander piece:

    https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/

    His core argument is that there is a distinction between a truly Western culture that once existed and something called "universal culture", which has largely devoured the West and has a tendency to outcompete and devour all other cultures in the absence of consistent resistance.

    Replies: @Wency

  40. @Jay Fink
    @AnotherDad

    The African immigrants I have met over the years seem to be high quality people. They are far from the ghetto black mentality. From what I understand they can not relate to African-Americans in general. I wonder though if their children and especially grandchildren and future generations will start assimilating more into the general black American culture with all its pathologies such as crime and lack of traditional family?

    Replies: @anon, @Alexandros, @Wency, @AnotherDad

    The African immigrants I have met over the years seem to be high quality people.

    African immigrants to the US are highly selected. You don’t get here in a rubber raft. Over half (i believe) have college degrees. They skew heavily from the African professional and middle classes. But their regression toward the mean is notable. And it’s a mean that is quite a bit lower mean to regress toward than for white people. (And then there’s the whole issue of picking up our extant “elite” ideology of minoritarianism and developing authentically “black” attitude and/or grift.)

    They are not immigrants you want, and we don’t need any immigrants period.

    And … they are the absolute cream of what you’ll get from Africa. If we start getting mass immigration of the African masses … our civilization is finished.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @128
    @AnotherDad

    If you look at Eskom or South African Airways the African professional class is not too impressive.

    , @A123
    @AnotherDad


    African immigrants to the US are highly selected. You don’t get here in a rubber raft.
     
    There is not a single pool, but you are looking at the right things.

    The hellscape that is Minneapolis is driven by African Somali refugees. That disaster is so bad it produced anti-Christian & racist Ilhan Omar, who needs to be sent home at the first opportunity. Limited numbers of high value, self funded migrants are a different story.

    This ties back to what VK and I discussed a while ago. The small number of self funded Iranian migrants are those most likely to be on the lam from sociopath Khameni's violent colonial regime.

    One cannot directly judge a source country based on the quality of their voluntary emigrants.

    PEACE 😇
    , @Mr. Rational
    @AnotherDad


    If we start getting mass immigration of the African masses … our civilization is finished.
     
    The Africans already here are doing a bang-up job of trashing it.
    , @JohnPlywood
    @AnotherDad

    You definitely need immigrants, because you're not reproducing yourself, and you haven't been for 40 years. That's a fact. That's why the smart people who actually make it to a position of power have all allowed the migration to flow in, including right-wing politicians. You are not special, you can be replaced, and any argument to the contrary is rooted in the egotistical impulses of a selfish organism. If you think you are more knowledgeable than all of the people who made it to the top of the world, that is exactly what you are. A selfish, annoying, stupid little brat.


    So say it now, "I need immigrants." You're never going to get anywhere in life by denying the truth like a stubborn little brat. You may think that acknowledging this will permanently deflate your ego, but in reality, it is only going to make a lightbulb appear above your head.


    So say it... "I need immigrants"

  41. @AnotherDad
    @neutral

    Spot on, neutral. ID's comment ...


    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.
     
    ... is one true statement followed by an ambiguous one, followed by a bunch of false conclusions. False mostly because there are huge time lags in demographic changes.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

    It's true that fertility rates are falling in most of the world. They are "below replacement in most places" if you are talking about land area. Russia, Canada, China, the US, Brazil, Australia--the big boys of land area--plus Europe are below replacement. So if we could just *stop immigration* the population crisis would abate.

    But if you look at fertility by population, there are still huge population nations--India, Indonesia, Mexico--above replacement, some--Philippines, Egypt, Pakistan growing rapidly--and a few Ethiopia, Nigeria, Congo--absolutely exploding!


    But the two huge problems with this analysis:

    1) One is simply time lag.
    Replacement/sub-replacement TFR doesn't mean immediate shrinking.

    Take Mexico. It's now somewhere near replacement. But that just means that the Mexican generation being born is the largest ever. Yes, the fact that it is not wildly larger than the previous means its job prospects in Mexico should be pretty good. But ... if Mexico stalls ... that's more Mexicans than ever available to bum rush the US.

    And take India. Sure middle class--H-1B supplying--Indian demographic being born is probably smaller than the current one. But there are still 600 million Indians--mostly not very well off--in the youngest Indian generation (0-25). Could have been worse, but that's still a lot of people available to emigrate.

    2) Africa.
    African fertility is trending down. But it is still huge--pre-modern, but without pre-modern disease and death, ergo resulting in exploding populations.

    Africa alone can supply enough immigrants to utterly inundate and destroy the West--heck the entire world.

    The crisis--the Great War--of our day is to stop immigration from destroying Western civilization. But in that war, the absolutely critical battle is to keep Africans in Africa and not let them flow out and destroy civilization in the rest of the world.

    Replies: @Svevlad, @Jay Fink, @128

    The Phillpines’ fertility rate is at 2.5, not a lot above 2.2.

  42. @AnotherDad
    @Jay Fink


    The African immigrants I have met over the years seem to be high quality people.
     
    African immigrants to the US are highly selected. You don't get here in a rubber raft. Over half (i believe) have college degrees. They skew heavily from the African professional and middle classes. But their regression toward the mean is notable. And it's a mean that is quite a bit lower mean to regress toward than for white people. (And then there's the whole issue of picking up our extant "elite" ideology of minoritarianism and developing authentically "black" attitude and/or grift.)

    They are not immigrants you want, and we don't need any immigrants period.

    And ... they are the absolute cream of what you'll get from Africa. If we start getting mass immigration of the African masses ... our civilization is finished.

    Replies: @128, @A123, @Mr. Rational, @JohnPlywood

    If you look at Eskom or South African Airways the African professional class is not too impressive.

  43. Yahya K. says:
    @anonymous
    Average IQ in the US is now 96-97. It will fall to 95 in 20 years and even lower for the working age population. This is the number that probably matters more than anything in predicting the future stagnation of GDP per capita. But one counterpoint I can't make sense of is the economic performance and demographics of Texas which is currently about 45% white + Asian. The average IQ in Texas is probably in the low 90s. However, Texas still manages a state GDP per capita higher than the national average.

    Replies: @DanHessinMD, @Wency, @Yahya K.

    Average IQ in the US is now 96-97. It will fall to 95 in 20 years and even lower for the working age population. This is the number that probably matters more than anything in predicting the future stagnation of GDP per capita. But one counterpoint I can’t make sense of is the economic performance and demographics of Texas which is currently about 45% white + Asian. The average IQ in Texas is probably in the low 90s. However, Texas still manages a state GDP per capita higher than the national average.

    There are many factors involved in determining GDP per capita, from geographic to cultural to political variables. Of course you can consider average IQ to be the most important factor, but it’s not the be-all-end-all. And in terms of IQ, its not the average that matters, it’s the quantity at the right-tail of the distribution that matters most. And that is determined both by the average and the variance, which differs from group to group.

    One of the more important concepts floating around the HBD blogoshpere is the “smart fraction theory”, which posits that a nation’s GDP per capita is determined more by how many smart people (IQ 120+) there are in a country, rather than merely the average IQ of the population. The underlying assumption behind the theory is that a modern industrial society requires smart people to assimilate the knowledge needed to operate technology, which will provide most of the productivity oomph to that country. Meanwhile, manual laborers are basically interchangeable units of production whose IQ doesn’t matter that much, because their comparative-advantage-induced contributions to productivity will cancel out any lost productivity from their lower IQs.

    So if you have a state like California, whose average IQ is mediocre, but continues to attract the best talent from around the world, it will continue to outproduce most other US states, and many large countries like the UK as well, despite having a Turkish level average IQ of ~95-96 (due to the Hispanic majority).

    Economies of scale also helps large countries with moderate IQ levels because they will only need a few smart people to operate the really important companies. For example, in the US you have the top 500 companies producing 67% of the countries output. If you put high grade management at the top of those corporations, you can really boost the net efficiency and productivity of those companies – and by extension the whole country. I suspect that’s main reason – along with lower tax rates – why the US still maintains a higher GDP per capita than Europe, even though its average IQ has been steadily decreasing at a faster rate.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Yahya K.

    According to Anatoly Karlin there is an extremely high correlation between national IQ and GDP per capita when political extremes (communist legacy countries) are taken out. But with Texas it is very difficult to see the correlation. That should come as more of a surprise to people here because we talk a lot about race and IQ.

  44. @AnotherDad
    @Jay Fink


    The African immigrants I have met over the years seem to be high quality people.
     
    African immigrants to the US are highly selected. You don't get here in a rubber raft. Over half (i believe) have college degrees. They skew heavily from the African professional and middle classes. But their regression toward the mean is notable. And it's a mean that is quite a bit lower mean to regress toward than for white people. (And then there's the whole issue of picking up our extant "elite" ideology of minoritarianism and developing authentically "black" attitude and/or grift.)

    They are not immigrants you want, and we don't need any immigrants period.

    And ... they are the absolute cream of what you'll get from Africa. If we start getting mass immigration of the African masses ... our civilization is finished.

    Replies: @128, @A123, @Mr. Rational, @JohnPlywood

    African immigrants to the US are highly selected. You don’t get here in a rubber raft.

    There is not a single pool, but you are looking at the right things.

    The hellscape that is Minneapolis is driven by African Somali refugees. That disaster is so bad it produced anti-Christian & racist Ilhan Omar, who needs to be sent home at the first opportunity. Limited numbers of high value, self funded migrants are a different story.

    This ties back to what VK and I discussed a while ago. The small number of self funded Iranian migrants are those most likely to be on the lam from sociopath Khameni’s violent colonial regime.

    One cannot directly judge a source country based on the quality of their voluntary emigrants.

    PEACE 😇

  45. @Svevlad
    @AnotherDad

    Immigration ceases to be a problem if our economy gets torpedoed. Then they have nothing to get, and mother nature takes natural eugenics with a speed never seen before.

    But hey if we tank it now and become dirt poor, in 3 generations Africans would probably be 1/4 of the current size, but at white levels of intelligence. Everyone wins, really.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational, @AnotherDad

    Immigration ceases to be a problem if our economy gets torpedoed. Then they have nothing to get, and mother nature takes natural eugenics with a speed never seen before.

    But hey if we tank it now and become dirt poor, in 3 generations Africans would probably be 1/4 of the current size, but at white levels of intelligence. Everyone wins, really.

    LOL.

    First off, even with a tanked economy whites–ergo white nations–are way more productive and pleasant.

    And seriously 2 or 3 generations?

    Native American Indians are maybe 10-15 IQ points below whites. They were at the dawn of agriculture in a few places. If Europeans hadn’t shown up they would have gradually developed–really needed to tame bison for a draft animal–and in maybe two or three thousand years they might be building something akin to ancient white civilization.

    African are further behind than that in IQ. Even with the genetic and cultural backflow Africans accomplished …. nothing. No pre-contact civilization was even at the level of ancient Egypt.

    Do you plan to teach them physics then execute the bottom 90% of the class. Keep that up for three generations you might have some people capable of white civilization.

    Natural evolution of humans since the neolithic–with gene-culture co-evolution–has been really, really fast by pre-neolithic standards … but it never goes warp speed. Count on Africans being not very bright for a while yet. (Until ubiquitous gene therapy.)

    • Replies: @Svevlad
    @AnotherDad

    You fail to take into consideration their overpopulation - or better said, population density. No density, no Malthusian conditions. No Malthusian conditions means a very slow selection

    The very reason they're so backward in the first place - their absolutely disgusting diseases prevented high density necessary for that to occur. Heck, we couldn't actually live below the Sahara until the 19th century medicinal discoveries.

    Really what I want to say, the more bottlenecks a population passes through, the more competent they become. And if the potential bottleneck is ludicrously severe due to human meddling - which would increase the population far over their competence level, but therefore also increase the absolute numbers of the smart fraction, the effect would be insanely strong too.

    Really the one population that would benefit the most from this would be the Indians. It seems they at some point entered a high level equilibrium trap (Africa, Australia and the Americans would be in a low level trap) and kinda just skirted around all kinds of disaster. But if it were to strike now...

    , @JohnPlywood
    @AnotherDad


    even with a tanked economy white countries are way more productive and pleasant
     
    That is untrue. You have no idea what white countries would be like if their economies collapsed, because no credit-consumer economy has ever collapsed.

    Strictly speaking, white countries produce nothing. There's no major industrial activity in white countries, besides farming. Most of the productive, industrial economy is in Asia.


    If the white countries collapsed economically, they would essentially be 4th world countries, because white economies basically revolve around people sitting around and talking. Take away the powerful currency and the value of human speech, and you wake up in a world where no one is producing anything except whining.


    The widespread drug addiction, alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicidal tendencies, etc, make the USA and much of Europe seem like a less pleasant place than the third world. Indeed most people find life more pleasant in southeast Asia, Japan, or Latin America, than they do in European-majority countries.


    So it is looking as if your goal of ending immigration and keeping the economy is a classic case of wanting to eat your cake and have it too. You can't end immigration manually but a broken economy would stop it.

  46. @AnotherDad
    @Jay Fink


    The African immigrants I have met over the years seem to be high quality people.
     
    African immigrants to the US are highly selected. You don't get here in a rubber raft. Over half (i believe) have college degrees. They skew heavily from the African professional and middle classes. But their regression toward the mean is notable. And it's a mean that is quite a bit lower mean to regress toward than for white people. (And then there's the whole issue of picking up our extant "elite" ideology of minoritarianism and developing authentically "black" attitude and/or grift.)

    They are not immigrants you want, and we don't need any immigrants period.

    And ... they are the absolute cream of what you'll get from Africa. If we start getting mass immigration of the African masses ... our civilization is finished.

    Replies: @128, @A123, @Mr. Rational, @JohnPlywood

    If we start getting mass immigration of the African masses … our civilization is finished.

    The Africans already here are doing a bang-up job of trashing it.

  47. Are they going to be able to adapt to a world in which profits are steadily declining?

    Invent a different way to calculate profits.

  48. @dfordoom
    @neutral


    Western civilization already ended in 1942 at the battle of Stalingrad.
     
    Western civilisation did not end in 1942 (or 1914 for that matter although 1914 was a much more significant date) and it's not likely to collapse. At the moment western civilisation dominates the entire planet.

    There has never been a western civilisation as such. There's been a series of civilisations in the West, each one radically different from the preceding one. These western civilisations periodically transform themselves into something entirely new and quite unrecognisable from the preceding version.

    The Reformation and the Industrial Revolution both created entirely new versions of western civilisation. But western civilisation did not collapse and was not destroyed. It transformed itself into a new civilisation.

    I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing. In some ways the new civilisations have been better than the previous version, in some ways they've been worse.

    At the moment we seem to be going through another period of transformation, the seeds of which were sown in 1914 although it really hit its stride after WW2. We're going to end up with a version of western civilisation that would be unrecognisable to anyone alive in 1945. All the signs point towards this new western civilisation being much much worse than the preceding one. The results are likely to be very unpleasant.

    Replies: @Talha, @Alexandros, @neutral, @Wency

    There has never been a western civilisation as such. There’s been a series of civilisations in the West, each one radically different from the preceding one.

    That’s a good point. There are of course some common threads, but quite stark differences in each stage of the evolution as well.

    Peace.

  49. @dfordoom
    @neutral


    Western civilization already ended in 1942 at the battle of Stalingrad.
     
    Western civilisation did not end in 1942 (or 1914 for that matter although 1914 was a much more significant date) and it's not likely to collapse. At the moment western civilisation dominates the entire planet.

    There has never been a western civilisation as such. There's been a series of civilisations in the West, each one radically different from the preceding one. These western civilisations periodically transform themselves into something entirely new and quite unrecognisable from the preceding version.

    The Reformation and the Industrial Revolution both created entirely new versions of western civilisation. But western civilisation did not collapse and was not destroyed. It transformed itself into a new civilisation.

    I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing. In some ways the new civilisations have been better than the previous version, in some ways they've been worse.

    At the moment we seem to be going through another period of transformation, the seeds of which were sown in 1914 although it really hit its stride after WW2. We're going to end up with a version of western civilisation that would be unrecognisable to anyone alive in 1945. All the signs point towards this new western civilisation being much much worse than the preceding one. The results are likely to be very unpleasant.

    Replies: @Talha, @Alexandros, @neutral, @Wency

    1914 means nothing because that was just your typical Germany. Their victory would only mean a slightly more honest and rational Europe. Until the inevitable.

    The Adolf Hitler era is something completely different. If victorious it would have spelled a golden age for Europe. Something not seen since the days before Rome. The chance to transform the West into a real civilization instead of just an advanced pyramid scheme benefiting hostile elites. Which is basically what West Civ has always been about.

    No, the West is not dead. But it should and must die.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Alexandros


    1914 means nothing because that was just your typical Germany.
     
    And that war destroyed that particular Germany. That war also destroyed the Russian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian empires and totally destabilised eastern and central Europe. That war destroyed the Ottoman Empire, with results for the Middle East that have been mostly disastrous and have embroiled the West in endless wars. That war established the United States as the dominant global power, with catastrophic results. That war doomed the British Empire.

    That war brought the Soviet Union into being.

    That war changed people's social attitudes, permanently. It marked the beginning of the Age of Hedonism for the West. It doomed Christianity and guaranteed the complete triumph of materialism and secularism. It changed people's attitudes towards marriage. After WW1 the concept of marriage as a means to personal happiness replaced the concept of marriage as a social duty. It changed people's attitudes sex. Victorian sexual mores were swept away. Sex became something that was seen increasingly as a recreational activity rather than a moral question.

    That war created the conditions that allowed an insane Austrian painter to take control of Germany and eventually complete the destruction of the existing European civilisation.

    I'd say that 1914 meant quite a lot.
  50. @Alexandros
    @dfordoom

    1914 means nothing because that was just your typical Germany. Their victory would only mean a slightly more honest and rational Europe. Until the inevitable.

    The Adolf Hitler era is something completely different. If victorious it would have spelled a golden age for Europe. Something not seen since the days before Rome. The chance to transform the West into a real civilization instead of just an advanced pyramid scheme benefiting hostile elites. Which is basically what West Civ has always been about.

    No, the West is not dead. But it should and must die.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    1914 means nothing because that was just your typical Germany.

    And that war destroyed that particular Germany. That war also destroyed the Russian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian empires and totally destabilised eastern and central Europe. That war destroyed the Ottoman Empire, with results for the Middle East that have been mostly disastrous and have embroiled the West in endless wars. That war established the United States as the dominant global power, with catastrophic results. That war doomed the British Empire.

    That war brought the Soviet Union into being.

    That war changed people’s social attitudes, permanently. It marked the beginning of the Age of Hedonism for the West. It doomed Christianity and guaranteed the complete triumph of materialism and secularism. It changed people’s attitudes towards marriage. After WW1 the concept of marriage as a means to personal happiness replaced the concept of marriage as a social duty. It changed people’s attitudes sex. Victorian sexual mores were swept away. Sex became something that was seen increasingly as a recreational activity rather than a moral question.

    That war created the conditions that allowed an insane Austrian painter to take control of Germany and eventually complete the destruction of the existing European civilisation.

    I’d say that 1914 meant quite a lot.

  51. Anon[477] • Disclaimer says:
    @TG
    "Why should affluent Western countries continue to strip mine human resources from poorer countries that no longer have an excess population to spare? Seems greedy. It should stop."

    I'm sorry, this is missing a very critical point.

    Rich countries got rich by first moderating their fertility rate, and then slowly accumulating real per-capita wealth.

    Places where people have the maximum number of children that is physically possible have burned up their opportunities, and they remain miserably poor. Now their fertility rates are indeed declining - BUT ONLY BECAUSE THEY NO LONGER HAVE THE RESOURCES TO BREED SEVEN KIDS A POP.

    It is not a good thing when a population stops growing because there is no more food left for it to do so.

    Mind you, as Malthus pointed out, this is not typically due to famine. The main restraint on population growth is grinding subsistence level poverty, which causes women to be malnourished and be physically unable to bring large numbers of pregnancies to term, it increases infant mortality, and the like.

    In India now, the provinces with the highest levels of malnutrition have the lowest fertility rates. Of course, because they are hitting the limits. The provinces with high malnutrition and low fertility are not "running out of people."

    It takes about 300 kg of grain per year per person to sustain the most miserable level of subsistence. Food production per capita can't go below that level because people can't live without food. If you take the total annual grain production of places like India, and divide by the population, you get: about 300 kg/person. India's population simply cannot grow faster than food production can increase, and it isn't.

    But just because a third-world country has a low fertility rate does not make it harmless to the rest of the world. It is like a tank of compressed gas, it looks quiet, but crack it open and it can explode. India's population could remain stable, and yet it could still export enough refugees to easily drag the rest of the world back to the living standards of the 9th century.

    No, every third world refugee the developed world accepts will not in any way reduce the number of people in their sending countries, that's just wrong.

    For over 50 years the establishment has been saying that we don't need to worry about population growth and poverty in the third world because any day no these countries will all become rich and stop having so many children and illegal immigration will stop and outsourcing will stop - and for over 50 years these prediction have been utterly false. They were clearly just propaganda, to deflect attention away from a problem by falsely claiming it will soon go away of its own accord...

    And just now the establishment that for many decades has been constantly claiming that the third world population explosion will soon stop, has suddenly sprung on us that the population of Africa will balloon to over four billion by the end of the century! Ooopsie!

    "Running out of people?" Not a. chance.

    Replies: @Anon

    In India now, the provinces with the highest levels of malnutrition have the lowest fertility rates. Of course, because they are hitting the limits. The provinces with high malnutrition and low fertility are not “running out of people.”

    You keep saying this but it’s not true. The states with the lowest birthrates in India are the southern states and tribal areas in the northeast, who generally score lower on levels of malnutrition and higher in terms of life expectancy. The states with the highest birthrates are overwhelmingly the northern states in the Hindi belt, particularly Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. These states score higher on levels of malnutrition and lower in terms of life expectancy.

  52. @AnotherDad
    @Svevlad


    Immigration ceases to be a problem if our economy gets torpedoed. Then they have nothing to get, and mother nature takes natural eugenics with a speed never seen before.

    But hey if we tank it now and become dirt poor, in 3 generations Africans would probably be 1/4 of the current size, but at white levels of intelligence. Everyone wins, really.

     

    LOL.

    First off, even with a tanked economy whites--ergo white nations--are way more productive and pleasant.

    And seriously 2 or 3 generations?

    Native American Indians are maybe 10-15 IQ points below whites. They were at the dawn of agriculture in a few places. If Europeans hadn't shown up they would have gradually developed--really needed to tame bison for a draft animal--and in maybe two or three thousand years they might be building something akin to ancient white civilization.

    African are further behind than that in IQ. Even with the genetic and cultural backflow Africans accomplished .... nothing. No pre-contact civilization was even at the level of ancient Egypt.

    Do you plan to teach them physics then execute the bottom 90% of the class. Keep that up for three generations you might have some people capable of white civilization.

    Natural evolution of humans since the neolithic--with gene-culture co-evolution--has been really, really fast by pre-neolithic standards ... but it never goes warp speed. Count on Africans being not very bright for a while yet. (Until ubiquitous gene therapy.)

    Replies: @Svevlad, @JohnPlywood

    You fail to take into consideration their overpopulation – or better said, population density. No density, no Malthusian conditions. No Malthusian conditions means a very slow selection

    The very reason they’re so backward in the first place – their absolutely disgusting diseases prevented high density necessary for that to occur. Heck, we couldn’t actually live below the Sahara until the 19th century medicinal discoveries.

    Really what I want to say, the more bottlenecks a population passes through, the more competent they become. And if the potential bottleneck is ludicrously severe due to human meddling – which would increase the population far over their competence level, but therefore also increase the absolute numbers of the smart fraction, the effect would be insanely strong too.

    Really the one population that would benefit the most from this would be the Indians. It seems they at some point entered a high level equilibrium trap (Africa, Australia and the Americans would be in a low level trap) and kinda just skirted around all kinds of disaster. But if it were to strike now…

  53. @dfordoom
    @neutral


    Western civilization already ended in 1942 at the battle of Stalingrad.
     
    Western civilisation did not end in 1942 (or 1914 for that matter although 1914 was a much more significant date) and it's not likely to collapse. At the moment western civilisation dominates the entire planet.

    There has never been a western civilisation as such. There's been a series of civilisations in the West, each one radically different from the preceding one. These western civilisations periodically transform themselves into something entirely new and quite unrecognisable from the preceding version.

    The Reformation and the Industrial Revolution both created entirely new versions of western civilisation. But western civilisation did not collapse and was not destroyed. It transformed itself into a new civilisation.

    I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing. In some ways the new civilisations have been better than the previous version, in some ways they've been worse.

    At the moment we seem to be going through another period of transformation, the seeds of which were sown in 1914 although it really hit its stride after WW2. We're going to end up with a version of western civilisation that would be unrecognisable to anyone alive in 1945. All the signs point towards this new western civilisation being much much worse than the preceding one. The results are likely to be very unpleasant.

    Replies: @Talha, @Alexandros, @neutral, @Wency

    There’s been a series of civilisations in the West

    Western civilization is not defined by democracy, liberalism, Aristotle and Plato or even Christianity. It is simply a society run and populated by white people, so what exists now cannot be called that, in fact those that rule you are no longer using that term (and when they do they use it in the negative).

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @neutral


    Western civilization is not defined by democracy, liberalism, Aristotle and Plato or even Christianity. It is simply a society run and populated by white people
     
    If you define western civilisation as "simply a society run and populated by white people" the term becomes meaningless. Before the neolithic agricultural revolution there were societies run and populated by white people but they weren't civilisations.

    And the current version of western civilisation most certainly is defined by democracy and liberalism. And secularism. It has been so defined for a couple of centuries now. This is the version of western civilisation created by the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. You might not like this version of western civilisation but lots of things exist that you (or I) might not like.

    The mediæval version of western civilisation was defined by Christianity.

    Civilisations are defined to a large extent by their ruling ideologies/worldviews (ruling ideologies can of course include religions).

    Replies: @neutral

    , @dfordoom
    @neutral


    Western civilization is.....simply a society run and populated by white people
     
    The various western civilisations have been created by white people. What's really interesting is that those same white people have created about five radically different civilisations.

    So whatever it is that defines the nature of a civilisation is it clearly not race.
  54. @neutral
    @dfordoom


    There’s been a series of civilisations in the West
     
    Western civilization is not defined by democracy, liberalism, Aristotle and Plato or even Christianity. It is simply a society run and populated by white people, so what exists now cannot be called that, in fact those that rule you are no longer using that term (and when they do they use it in the negative).

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    Western civilization is not defined by democracy, liberalism, Aristotle and Plato or even Christianity. It is simply a society run and populated by white people

    If you define western civilisation as “simply a society run and populated by white people” the term becomes meaningless. Before the neolithic agricultural revolution there were societies run and populated by white people but they weren’t civilisations.

    And the current version of western civilisation most certainly is defined by democracy and liberalism. And secularism. It has been so defined for a couple of centuries now. This is the version of western civilisation created by the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. You might not like this version of western civilisation but lots of things exist that you (or I) might not like.

    The mediæval version of western civilisation was defined by Christianity.

    Civilisations are defined to a large extent by their ruling ideologies/worldviews (ruling ideologies can of course include religions).

    • Replies: @neutral
    @dfordoom

    This is total nonsense, you are actually proving my point. If you say Western civilization keeps changing from one version to another then you need to have point out something that it has in common, otherwise it is meaningless to even use the word. If liberalism and secularism defines "the West" now do you include places like India or South Africa or Mexico or any other place that has democracy and things like a secular government? People in the non Western world today (and in the past) knows what Westerner means, it's white people, it was never Christian, liberal, Greek philosophy adherent, etc.

    The common theme is white people, AND ONLY white people. The key word is "West" as in people from the Western part of Europe.

    Replies: @dfordoom

  55. @neutral
    @dfordoom


    There’s been a series of civilisations in the West
     
    Western civilization is not defined by democracy, liberalism, Aristotle and Plato or even Christianity. It is simply a society run and populated by white people, so what exists now cannot be called that, in fact those that rule you are no longer using that term (and when they do they use it in the negative).

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    Western civilization is…..simply a society run and populated by white people

    The various western civilisations have been created by white people. What’s really interesting is that those same white people have created about five radically different civilisations.

    So whatever it is that defines the nature of a civilisation is it clearly not race.

  56. @dfordoom
    @neutral


    Western civilization is not defined by democracy, liberalism, Aristotle and Plato or even Christianity. It is simply a society run and populated by white people
     
    If you define western civilisation as "simply a society run and populated by white people" the term becomes meaningless. Before the neolithic agricultural revolution there were societies run and populated by white people but they weren't civilisations.

    And the current version of western civilisation most certainly is defined by democracy and liberalism. And secularism. It has been so defined for a couple of centuries now. This is the version of western civilisation created by the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. You might not like this version of western civilisation but lots of things exist that you (or I) might not like.

    The mediæval version of western civilisation was defined by Christianity.

    Civilisations are defined to a large extent by their ruling ideologies/worldviews (ruling ideologies can of course include religions).

    Replies: @neutral

    This is total nonsense, you are actually proving my point. If you say Western civilization keeps changing from one version to another then you need to have point out something that it has in common, otherwise it is meaningless to even use the word. If liberalism and secularism defines “the West” now do you include places like India or South Africa or Mexico or any other place that has democracy and things like a secular government? People in the non Western world today (and in the past) knows what Westerner means, it’s white people, it was never Christian, liberal, Greek philosophy adherent, etc.

    The common theme is white people, AND ONLY white people. The key word is “West” as in people from the Western part of Europe.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @neutral


    This is total nonsense, you are actually proving my point. If you say Western civilization keeps changing from one version to another then you need to have point out something that it has in common, otherwise it is meaningless to even use the word.
     
    The thing that the various western civilisations have had in common is that they were created by much the same people. But apart from that each successive western civilisation has had very little in common with the previous western civilisation. Which is overwhelming evidence that the nature of a civilisation is not determined by race.

    If the factor that defined the nature of a civilisation was race then you would expect each civilisation created by a particular race to be fairly similar. That is clearly not the case.

    So what does determine the nature of a civilisation? It could be technology. It could be belief systems. I'm betting on belief systems because technology appears to be a result of belief systems. Certain belief systems (such as secular liberalism) appear to encourage rapid technological change. Other belief systems (such as Christianity and the paganism of the classical world) appear to result in much slower technological progress.

    Social systems play a major rôle. The classical civilisation was based on slavery. Mediæval European civilisation was based on feudalism. But social systems are largely the result of the ruling belief system, so again it comes down to cultural factors (belief systems are obviously cultural factors). Not race.

    Some people are so obsessed by race that they simply cannot think clearly.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

  57. @Talha

    Mega-corporations will increasingly come to incorporate the state, or the state will incorporate them.

     

    Trying hard not to be black-pilled about western civilization, but it is tough when these corporations, especially the new blood, are touting the LGBT colors as THE symbol of their championing human rights:
    https://www.twitter.com/Teslarati/status/1356248593225703424

    Peace.

    Replies: @neutral, @Johnny Smoggins

    There’s a lot of fertile ground for outreach by Islam to conservative White people who are sick of non stop gay.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Johnny Smoggins

    There is this, but I’ll tell you what I’ve seen more often (in probably 75-80% of cases I have come across); people coming in from the liberal side (at times because they look around and see the liberal left has gone way too far) and Islam makes them more conservative and traditional.

    Peace.

  58. @Johnny Smoggins
    @Talha

    There's a lot of fertile ground for outreach by Islam to conservative White people who are sick of non stop gay.

    Replies: @Talha

    There is this, but I’ll tell you what I’ve seen more often (in probably 75-80% of cases I have come across); people coming in from the liberal side (at times because they look around and see the liberal left has gone way too far) and Islam makes them more conservative and traditional.

    Peace.

  59. @DanHessinMD
    @anonymous

    "According to the 2018 US Census Bureau estimates, the population of Texas was 73.5% White (41.4% Non-Hispanic White and 32.1% Hispanic White), 12.3% Black or African American, 5.0% Asian, 0.5% Native American and Alaskan Native, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 6.0% Some Other Race, and 2.7% from two or more races."

    Replies: @anonymous

    What does a typical white Hispanic look like in Texas? Do you consider them white?

  60. anonymous[126] • Disclaimer says:
    @Yahya K.
    @anonymous


    Average IQ in the US is now 96-97. It will fall to 95 in 20 years and even lower for the working age population. This is the number that probably matters more than anything in predicting the future stagnation of GDP per capita. But one counterpoint I can’t make sense of is the economic performance and demographics of Texas which is currently about 45% white + Asian. The average IQ in Texas is probably in the low 90s. However, Texas still manages a state GDP per capita higher than the national average.

     

    There are many factors involved in determining GDP per capita, from geographic to cultural to political variables. Of course you can consider average IQ to be the most important factor, but it's not the be-all-end-all. And in terms of IQ, its not the average that matters, it's the quantity at the right-tail of the distribution that matters most. And that is determined both by the average and the variance, which differs from group to group.

    One of the more important concepts floating around the HBD blogoshpere is the “smart fraction theory”, which posits that a nation’s GDP per capita is determined more by how many smart people (IQ 120+) there are in a country, rather than merely the average IQ of the population. The underlying assumption behind the theory is that a modern industrial society requires smart people to assimilate the knowledge needed to operate technology, which will provide most of the productivity oomph to that country. Meanwhile, manual laborers are basically interchangeable units of production whose IQ doesn’t matter that much, because their comparative-advantage-induced contributions to productivity will cancel out any lost productivity from their lower IQs.

    So if you have a state like California, whose average IQ is mediocre, but continues to attract the best talent from around the world, it will continue to outproduce most other US states, and many large countries like the UK as well, despite having a Turkish level average IQ of ~95-96 (due to the Hispanic majority).

    Economies of scale also helps large countries with moderate IQ levels because they will only need a few smart people to operate the really important companies. For example, in the US you have the top 500 companies producing 67% of the countries output. If you put high grade management at the top of those corporations, you can really boost the net efficiency and productivity of those companies - and by extension the whole country. I suspect that’s main reason - along with lower tax rates - why the US still maintains a higher GDP per capita than Europe, even though its average IQ has been steadily decreasing at a faster rate.

    Replies: @anonymous

    According to Anatoly Karlin there is an extremely high correlation between national IQ and GDP per capita when political extremes (communist legacy countries) are taken out. But with Texas it is very difficult to see the correlation. That should come as more of a surprise to people here because we talk a lot about race and IQ.

  61. @dfordoom
    @neutral


    Western civilization already ended in 1942 at the battle of Stalingrad.
     
    Western civilisation did not end in 1942 (or 1914 for that matter although 1914 was a much more significant date) and it's not likely to collapse. At the moment western civilisation dominates the entire planet.

    There has never been a western civilisation as such. There's been a series of civilisations in the West, each one radically different from the preceding one. These western civilisations periodically transform themselves into something entirely new and quite unrecognisable from the preceding version.

    The Reformation and the Industrial Revolution both created entirely new versions of western civilisation. But western civilisation did not collapse and was not destroyed. It transformed itself into a new civilisation.

    I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing. In some ways the new civilisations have been better than the previous version, in some ways they've been worse.

    At the moment we seem to be going through another period of transformation, the seeds of which were sown in 1914 although it really hit its stride after WW2. We're going to end up with a version of western civilisation that would be unrecognisable to anyone alive in 1945. All the signs point towards this new western civilisation being much much worse than the preceding one. The results are likely to be very unpleasant.

    Replies: @Talha, @Alexandros, @neutral, @Wency

    Pertinent to this point, I’d take a look at this Scott Alexander piece:

    https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/

    His core argument is that there is a distinction between a truly Western culture that once existed and something called “universal culture”, which has largely devoured the West and has a tendency to outcompete and devour all other cultures in the absence of consistent resistance.

    • Replies: @Wency
    @Wency

    Dang it, sorry about the spam. Something clearly glitched.

  62. @A123
    @Almost Missouri


    The President holds the veto power. For Congress to overcome the veto power requires mustering an additional 1/3 votes beyond a bare majority for their agenda. In an environment where bills often pass by a scant majority, holding a cudgel over Congress’s head worth a de facto 1/6 of the entire Congress make the President the effective Lawgiver.
     
    Your analysis has a huge defect. It assumes that Congress needs to pass things. In practice, the existing Establishment laws & regulations meant that Congress could win by standing by pat. There was no need to give into Trump's veto. Indeed just the opposite, Trump was under pressure to pass laws so that his eventual successor would not have an easy road unwinding Executive Orders.

    there was plenty Trump could have done without Senate confirmations and without Congress’s cooperation.
     
    Much less than you mistakenly believe. The Swamp bureaucracy protected by civil service laws were actively undermining Executive policy changes. Then the Establishment Judiciary further enjoined those weakened efforts.

    Trump inherited a situation that was stacked badly against Populist reform. And, he was further burdened by a bogus Special Prosecutor.

    -- Was he perfect? No.
    -- Did he accomplish a great deal given how bad the situation was? Yes.

    At a minimum, there is now the foundation for a Populist party. Under Swampies including, GW, Romney, and McCain the GOP was the weak half of the Globalist Uniparty.

    Creating a true Populist reform will take time & effort over multiple administrations. Demanding 100% of everything instantaneously is unreasonable. With a system that contains Separation of Powers, no President can deliver unilaterally.

    Or, are you suggesting that the current system must end in favour of one that can deliver faster, such as an Emperor?

    PEACE 😇

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    At a minimum, there is now the foundation for a Populist party.

    The last time our two-party system changed one of its parties was in the context of civil war. So if it happens again, I’m guessing it will be far down the list of priorities when it occurs.

    Creating a true Populist reform will take time & effort over multiple administrations.

    We’re not getting any more administrations. Trump’s was our last chance, long shot as it was, and now it’s gone.

    Demanding 100% of everything instantaneously is unreasonable.

    I’m not demanding anything. I’m simply asking whether Trump himself believed in MAGA. The answer seems to be no.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @Almost Missouri


    I’m not demanding anything. I’m simply asking whether Trump himself believed in MAGA. The answer seems to be no.
     
    In retrospect (and a great deal earlier than retrospect, if we are to be honest), Trump's self-conception seems to have been that he was going to act just like a GOPe conservative, only "bigly." His over-the-top infatuation with the Saudis, his moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, his tax cutting, his utter disinterest in draining the swamp all supports this.

    Replies: @A123

  63. @Almost Missouri
    @A123


    At a minimum, there is now the foundation for a Populist party.
     
    The last time our two-party system changed one of its parties was in the context of civil war. So if it happens again, I'm guessing it will be far down the list of priorities when it occurs.

    Creating a true Populist reform will take time & effort over multiple administrations.
     
    We're not getting any more administrations. Trump's was our last chance, long shot as it was, and now it's gone.

    Demanding 100% of everything instantaneously is unreasonable.
     
    I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply asking whether Trump himself believed in MAGA. The answer seems to be no.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    I’m not demanding anything. I’m simply asking whether Trump himself believed in MAGA. The answer seems to be no.

    In retrospect (and a great deal earlier than retrospect, if we are to be honest), Trump’s self-conception seems to have been that he was going to act just like a GOPe conservative, only “bigly.” His over-the-top infatuation with the Saudis, his moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, his tax cutting, his utter disinterest in draining the swamp all supports this.

    • Replies: @A123
    @Intelligent Dasein


    Trump’s self-conception seems to have been that he was going to act just like a GOPe conservative, only “bigly.”
     
    ROTFLMAO

    Obviously & objectively untrue. And, so ludicrous as to be hysterically funny.

    President Trump kicked the NeoConDemocrats out of the GOP and sent them home. He was the first President in modern history who did not start a foreign war. This is despite sociopath Khameni's brazen provocations.

    He also kicked the GOP(e) MegaCorporations really hard when he reduced Elite CCP exploitation of U.S. workers and patent owners.

    It takes total detachment from real world facts to conflate Trump and the GOP(e) as the same side.

    His over-the-top infatuation with the Saudis, his moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem
     
    Sorry. The Palestinian Jews of Jewish Palestine are keeping the ancestral homeland of Judaism. The non-Palestinian Muslim occupation of Judea & Samaria is coming to the end. You are just upset that the Saudi's are not willing to support Iranian al'Hamas violence against unarmed Palestinian Jews.

    If you want an anti-Semitic President you are going to have to join the DNC. The new Populist GOP is rooted in Judeo-Christian values

    PEACE 😇
     

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/presidentswars-600x312.jpg

    Replies: @anon

  64. The Zionist Occupational Zone is going broke.
    GDP is a fake made up number.
    The productivity is going into a tailspin.

    There is no longer an economy for the parasites to pillage.
    It has moved offshore. The parasites are getting nervous.
    The domestic population sees who and whom the problem is now.

    The Left calls them the “Rich”. The Right calls them “parasites”.
    There is no more middle ground.
    The best way to rid ourselves of the parasites is to get the left to EAT THE RICH.

    The corporate media cannot squash that. They won’t.
    Getting one’s enemies to destroy each other.
    PRICELESS.

  65. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Almost Missouri


    I’m not demanding anything. I’m simply asking whether Trump himself believed in MAGA. The answer seems to be no.
     
    In retrospect (and a great deal earlier than retrospect, if we are to be honest), Trump's self-conception seems to have been that he was going to act just like a GOPe conservative, only "bigly." His over-the-top infatuation with the Saudis, his moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, his tax cutting, his utter disinterest in draining the swamp all supports this.

    Replies: @A123

    Trump’s self-conception seems to have been that he was going to act just like a GOPe conservative, only “bigly.”

    ROTFLMAO

    Obviously & objectively untrue. And, so ludicrous as to be hysterically funny.

    President Trump kicked the NeoConDemocrats out of the GOP and sent them home. He was the first President in modern history who did not start a foreign war. This is despite sociopath Khameni’s brazen provocations.

    He also kicked the GOP(e) MegaCorporations really hard when he reduced Elite CCP exploitation of U.S. workers and patent owners.

    It takes total detachment from real world facts to conflate Trump and the GOP(e) as the same side.

    His over-the-top infatuation with the Saudis, his moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem

    Sorry. The Palestinian Jews of Jewish Palestine are keeping the ancestral homeland of Judaism. The non-Palestinian Muslim occupation of Judea & Samaria is coming to the end. You are just upset that the Saudi’s are not willing to support Iranian al’Hamas violence against unarmed Palestinian Jews.

    If you want an anti-Semitic President you are going to have to join the DNC. The new Populist GOP is rooted in Judeo-Christian values

    PEACE 😇
     

    • Replies: @anon
    @A123

    The new Populist GOP is rooted in Judeo-Christian values

    It is too early to tell if a populist GOP can even exist.

    You're not too well informed on US demographic trends, but I guess that shouldn't be a surprise.

  66. @A123
    @Intelligent Dasein


    Trump’s self-conception seems to have been that he was going to act just like a GOPe conservative, only “bigly.”
     
    ROTFLMAO

    Obviously & objectively untrue. And, so ludicrous as to be hysterically funny.

    President Trump kicked the NeoConDemocrats out of the GOP and sent them home. He was the first President in modern history who did not start a foreign war. This is despite sociopath Khameni's brazen provocations.

    He also kicked the GOP(e) MegaCorporations really hard when he reduced Elite CCP exploitation of U.S. workers and patent owners.

    It takes total detachment from real world facts to conflate Trump and the GOP(e) as the same side.

    His over-the-top infatuation with the Saudis, his moving the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem
     
    Sorry. The Palestinian Jews of Jewish Palestine are keeping the ancestral homeland of Judaism. The non-Palestinian Muslim occupation of Judea & Samaria is coming to the end. You are just upset that the Saudi's are not willing to support Iranian al'Hamas violence against unarmed Palestinian Jews.

    If you want an anti-Semitic President you are going to have to join the DNC. The new Populist GOP is rooted in Judeo-Christian values

    PEACE 😇
     

    https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/presidentswars-600x312.jpg

    Replies: @anon

    The new Populist GOP is rooted in Judeo-Christian values

    It is too early to tell if a populist GOP can even exist.

    You’re not too well informed on US demographic trends, but I guess that shouldn’t be a surprise.

  67. @Wency
    @dfordoom

    Pertinent to this point, I'd take a look at this Scott Alexander piece:

    https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/07/25/how-the-west-was-won/

    His core argument is that there is a distinction between a truly Western culture that once existed and something called "universal culture", which has largely devoured the West and has a tendency to outcompete and devour all other cultures in the absence of consistent resistance.

    Replies: @Wency

    Dang it, sorry about the spam. Something clearly glitched.

  68. @neutral
    @dfordoom

    This is total nonsense, you are actually proving my point. If you say Western civilization keeps changing from one version to another then you need to have point out something that it has in common, otherwise it is meaningless to even use the word. If liberalism and secularism defines "the West" now do you include places like India or South Africa or Mexico or any other place that has democracy and things like a secular government? People in the non Western world today (and in the past) knows what Westerner means, it's white people, it was never Christian, liberal, Greek philosophy adherent, etc.

    The common theme is white people, AND ONLY white people. The key word is "West" as in people from the Western part of Europe.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    This is total nonsense, you are actually proving my point. If you say Western civilization keeps changing from one version to another then you need to have point out something that it has in common, otherwise it is meaningless to even use the word.

    The thing that the various western civilisations have had in common is that they were created by much the same people. But apart from that each successive western civilisation has had very little in common with the previous western civilisation. Which is overwhelming evidence that the nature of a civilisation is not determined by race.

    If the factor that defined the nature of a civilisation was race then you would expect each civilisation created by a particular race to be fairly similar. That is clearly not the case.

    So what does determine the nature of a civilisation? It could be technology. It could be belief systems. I’m betting on belief systems because technology appears to be a result of belief systems. Certain belief systems (such as secular liberalism) appear to encourage rapid technological change. Other belief systems (such as Christianity and the paganism of the classical world) appear to result in much slower technological progress.

    Social systems play a major rôle. The classical civilisation was based on slavery. Mediæval European civilisation was based on feudalism. But social systems are largely the result of the ruling belief system, so again it comes down to cultural factors (belief systems are obviously cultural factors). Not race.

    Some people are so obsessed by race that they simply cannot think clearly.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom


    The thing that the various western civilisations have had in common is that they were created by much the same people. But apart from that each successive western civilisation has had very little in common with the previous western civilisation. Which is overwhelming evidence that the nature of a civilisation is not determined by race.
     
    Hogwash.  Civilizations built by the same people are different because the past is prologue.  We're still reading Aristotle and Sappho, but we're also reading the KJV and Walt Whitman and Robert Heinlein.  But they are all quintessentially Western.  Japanese, Chinese and Indians produce different civilizations even when they're co-eval and communicating with each other.  Native Americans started very late, and Sub-Saharan Africans can scarcely figure it out.  All of that is due to race.

    Replies: @Yahya K.

  69. @AnotherDad
    @Svevlad


    Immigration ceases to be a problem if our economy gets torpedoed. Then they have nothing to get, and mother nature takes natural eugenics with a speed never seen before.

    But hey if we tank it now and become dirt poor, in 3 generations Africans would probably be 1/4 of the current size, but at white levels of intelligence. Everyone wins, really.

     

    LOL.

    First off, even with a tanked economy whites--ergo white nations--are way more productive and pleasant.

    And seriously 2 or 3 generations?

    Native American Indians are maybe 10-15 IQ points below whites. They were at the dawn of agriculture in a few places. If Europeans hadn't shown up they would have gradually developed--really needed to tame bison for a draft animal--and in maybe two or three thousand years they might be building something akin to ancient white civilization.

    African are further behind than that in IQ. Even with the genetic and cultural backflow Africans accomplished .... nothing. No pre-contact civilization was even at the level of ancient Egypt.

    Do you plan to teach them physics then execute the bottom 90% of the class. Keep that up for three generations you might have some people capable of white civilization.

    Natural evolution of humans since the neolithic--with gene-culture co-evolution--has been really, really fast by pre-neolithic standards ... but it never goes warp speed. Count on Africans being not very bright for a while yet. (Until ubiquitous gene therapy.)

    Replies: @Svevlad, @JohnPlywood

    even with a tanked economy white countries are way more productive and pleasant

    That is untrue. You have no idea what white countries would be like if their economies collapsed, because no credit-consumer economy has ever collapsed.

    Strictly speaking, white countries produce nothing. There’s no major industrial activity in white countries, besides farming. Most of the productive, industrial economy is in Asia.

    If the white countries collapsed economically, they would essentially be 4th world countries, because white economies basically revolve around people sitting around and talking. Take away the powerful currency and the value of human speech, and you wake up in a world where no one is producing anything except whining.

    The widespread drug addiction, alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicidal tendencies, etc, make the USA and much of Europe seem like a less pleasant place than the third world. Indeed most people find life more pleasant in southeast Asia, Japan, or Latin America, than they do in European-majority countries.

    So it is looking as if your goal of ending immigration and keeping the economy is a classic case of wanting to eat your cake and have it too. You can’t end immigration manually but a broken economy would stop it.

  70. @AnotherDad
    @Jay Fink


    The African immigrants I have met over the years seem to be high quality people.
     
    African immigrants to the US are highly selected. You don't get here in a rubber raft. Over half (i believe) have college degrees. They skew heavily from the African professional and middle classes. But their regression toward the mean is notable. And it's a mean that is quite a bit lower mean to regress toward than for white people. (And then there's the whole issue of picking up our extant "elite" ideology of minoritarianism and developing authentically "black" attitude and/or grift.)

    They are not immigrants you want, and we don't need any immigrants period.

    And ... they are the absolute cream of what you'll get from Africa. If we start getting mass immigration of the African masses ... our civilization is finished.

    Replies: @128, @A123, @Mr. Rational, @JohnPlywood

    You definitely need immigrants, because you’re not reproducing yourself, and you haven’t been for 40 years. That’s a fact. That’s why the smart people who actually make it to a position of power have all allowed the migration to flow in, including right-wing politicians. You are not special, you can be replaced, and any argument to the contrary is rooted in the egotistical impulses of a selfish organism. If you think you are more knowledgeable than all of the people who made it to the top of the world, that is exactly what you are. A selfish, annoying, stupid little brat.

    So say it now, “I need immigrants.” You’re never going to get anywhere in life by denying the truth like a stubborn little brat. You may think that acknowledging this will permanently deflate your ego, but in reality, it is only going to make a lightbulb appear above your head.

    So say it… “I need immigrants”

  71. @dfordoom
    @neutral


    This is total nonsense, you are actually proving my point. If you say Western civilization keeps changing from one version to another then you need to have point out something that it has in common, otherwise it is meaningless to even use the word.
     
    The thing that the various western civilisations have had in common is that they were created by much the same people. But apart from that each successive western civilisation has had very little in common with the previous western civilisation. Which is overwhelming evidence that the nature of a civilisation is not determined by race.

    If the factor that defined the nature of a civilisation was race then you would expect each civilisation created by a particular race to be fairly similar. That is clearly not the case.

    So what does determine the nature of a civilisation? It could be technology. It could be belief systems. I'm betting on belief systems because technology appears to be a result of belief systems. Certain belief systems (such as secular liberalism) appear to encourage rapid technological change. Other belief systems (such as Christianity and the paganism of the classical world) appear to result in much slower technological progress.

    Social systems play a major rôle. The classical civilisation was based on slavery. Mediæval European civilisation was based on feudalism. But social systems are largely the result of the ruling belief system, so again it comes down to cultural factors (belief systems are obviously cultural factors). Not race.

    Some people are so obsessed by race that they simply cannot think clearly.

    Replies: @Mr. Rational

    The thing that the various western civilisations have had in common is that they were created by much the same people. But apart from that each successive western civilisation has had very little in common with the previous western civilisation. Which is overwhelming evidence that the nature of a civilisation is not determined by race.

    Hogwash.  Civilizations built by the same people are different because the past is prologue.  We’re still reading Aristotle and Sappho, but we’re also reading the KJV and Walt Whitman and Robert Heinlein.  But they are all quintessentially Western.  Japanese, Chinese and Indians produce different civilizations even when they’re co-eval and communicating with each other.  Native Americans started very late, and Sub-Saharan Africans can scarcely figure it out.  All of that is due to race.

    • Replies: @Yahya K.
    @Mr. Rational


    We’re still reading Aristotle and Sappho, but we’re also reading the KJV and Walt Whitman and Robert Heinlein. But they are all quintessentially Western.
     
    Ancient Greek civilization was never 'Western' - except in the minds of WNs who think that anything putatively white is Western ("We wuz Greek godz and Roman kangz, coz they be wypeeple!").

    Nevermind the fact that Ancient Greeks would have looked in disdain at the Barbarians to the North, to whom they had little ancestral or cultural connection. And the fact that Greco civilization was centered around the Eastern Mediterranean, not Western Europe.

    Replies: @Talha, @Intelligent Dasein, @dfordoom

  72. Yahya K. says:
    @Mr. Rational
    @dfordoom


    The thing that the various western civilisations have had in common is that they were created by much the same people. But apart from that each successive western civilisation has had very little in common with the previous western civilisation. Which is overwhelming evidence that the nature of a civilisation is not determined by race.
     
    Hogwash.  Civilizations built by the same people are different because the past is prologue.  We're still reading Aristotle and Sappho, but we're also reading the KJV and Walt Whitman and Robert Heinlein.  But they are all quintessentially Western.  Japanese, Chinese and Indians produce different civilizations even when they're co-eval and communicating with each other.  Native Americans started very late, and Sub-Saharan Africans can scarcely figure it out.  All of that is due to race.

    Replies: @Yahya K.

    We’re still reading Aristotle and Sappho, but we’re also reading the KJV and Walt Whitman and Robert Heinlein. But they are all quintessentially Western.

    Ancient Greek civilization was never ‘Western’ – except in the minds of WNs who think that anything putatively white is Western (“We wuz Greek godz and Roman kangz, coz they be wypeeple!”).

    Nevermind the fact that Ancient Greeks would have looked in disdain at the Barbarians to the North, to whom they had little ancestral or cultural connection. And the fact that Greco civilization was centered around the Eastern Mediterranean, not Western Europe.

    • Agree: Intelligent Dasein
    • Replies: @Talha
    @Yahya K.

    A more interesting question is...if it is principally defined by race, then - if white people in the West eventually ended up converting to Islam and remaining white...then it would remain “Western Civilization” under those definitions.

    Wa salaam.

    Replies: @Yahya K., @Dumbo

    , @Intelligent Dasein
    @Yahya K.

    You are correct. The culture of the Greeks/Romans was utterly different from the "West." Theirs was the Apollonian culture that was born in the Mycenaean primitive age, had its "French Revolution" in Alexander, ossified into its final cynical form in Julius Caesar, and thereafter faded into irrelevancy to be alternately chipped away by barbarians or stiffened into Byzantinism as the case may be.

    Meanwhile, the "Magian" culture, to which belonged some early Christianity, Neoplatonism, Nestorianism, late Judaism, and finally Islam, began in the Near East around the year 0. This culture is remarkably extended, fragmented, and distorted because it was doomed to grow up under the heavy weight of the Apollonian iron age.

    The "Western" civilization arose around the year 1000 with the emergence of the Gothic style, had its Pythagorean revolt in Martin Luther and Protestantism, entered an "Alexandrian" age with the romantic nonsense of the French Revolution and Bonaparte, and is right now in its brutal and cynical Caesarian period and slouching towards terminal decline.

    It is not true that race makes culture. Different landscapes and historical experiences of course impress the man-plant with their own unique terroir, but these are modes of being that we somewhat confusingly call "races," and while this impress does invariably feed back into cultural expressions, it is not the meaning thereof. In the grand sense, it is rather culture that makes race. It is culture that forged the Apollonian, the Magian, the Western type out of the various peoples within their spheres.

    Replies: @Wency

    , @dfordoom
    @Yahya K.


    Ancient Greek civilization was never ‘Western’ – except in the minds of WNs who think that anything putatively white is Western
     
    That's a good point. The mediæval Christian civilisation was really the first western European civilisation and of course it was based on a non-western religion.

    Replies: @Talha

  73. @Yahya K.
    @Mr. Rational


    We’re still reading Aristotle and Sappho, but we’re also reading the KJV and Walt Whitman and Robert Heinlein. But they are all quintessentially Western.
     
    Ancient Greek civilization was never 'Western' - except in the minds of WNs who think that anything putatively white is Western ("We wuz Greek godz and Roman kangz, coz they be wypeeple!").

    Nevermind the fact that Ancient Greeks would have looked in disdain at the Barbarians to the North, to whom they had little ancestral or cultural connection. And the fact that Greco civilization was centered around the Eastern Mediterranean, not Western Europe.

    Replies: @Talha, @Intelligent Dasein, @dfordoom

    A more interesting question is…if it is principally defined by race, then – if white people in the West eventually ended up converting to Islam and remaining white…then it would remain “Western Civilization” under those definitions.

    Wa salaam.

    • Replies: @Yahya K.
    @Talha


    A more interesting question is…if it is principally defined by race, then – if white people in the West eventually ended up converting to Islam and remaining white…then it would remain “Western Civilization” under those definitions.

     

    You'd have to ask Mr. Rational that question. It would be interesting to see also if he thinks Bosnians and Albanians are part of his race, even though they are predominantly Muslim.

    Personally, I don't think it's wise to define civilization by race, because of three reasons:

    (a) While there is a genetic basis to 'race', its still very much a culturally defined construct, which can and did change over the ages. I.e While modern-day Greeks may be comfortable with grouping themselves in with other Europeans as part of one big 'white race' (though this is also debatable), Ancient Greeks almost certainly would not have liked to be lumped in with the uncivilized barbarians to their North.

    (b) Genetic relatedness between groups is a relative matter, not absolute. That means there is a certain amount of fluidity between groups. One big example is the continuum between Middle Easterners, Southern Europeans and Northern Europeans. Despite the people who think that all Europeans are one race, its not at all clear than Southern Europeans are more closely related to Northern Euros than Near Easterners. If you look at this plot you'll find that Greeks cluster closer to Northern Middle Eastern/Caucasian populations than to Northern Europeans.

    http://i.imgur.com/yOvLQq5.jpg

    This even though, according to Razib Khan, modern day Greeks have substantially more Slavic blood than Ancient Greeks, due to the "the Sclaveni migrations" by Slavic peoples who migrated south - as far as the Peloponnese - after the Byzantine Empire ceded the Balkans to barbarian groups due to threats in the east from Persians and then Muslims.

    (c) And finally - I hope this known to everyone and I don't have to expound too much on this - its silly to define a race by its 'whiteness', because not all 'white' people reside in Europe. There are plenty of Armenians, Georgians, Azeris, Persians, Arabs, Turks and even Indians (i've seen some) who are both white-skinned and Caucasian. Matter of fact, many of these West Eurasian whites are even *whiter* (i.e paler) than many Europeans. Are they part of Mr. Rational's Great White Race as well?

    *Like Ayatollah Khamenei (Azeri Iranian)

    http://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BOWMyMjVmMjUt[email protected]._V1_.jpg

    Replies: @Talha

    , @Dumbo
    @Talha

    No it wouldn't. Whatever it would be, it would be something else. Probably bad. Hopefully, such conversion will never happen!

    Anyway, I think what forms a "civilization" as we call it is many things - race (genetics), culture, religion, ideas and even things as land and climate.

    What we call "West" is really a mishmash of things. The current "West" is no example to anyone.

    Replies: @Talha

  74. Yahya K. says:
    @Talha
    @Yahya K.

    A more interesting question is...if it is principally defined by race, then - if white people in the West eventually ended up converting to Islam and remaining white...then it would remain “Western Civilization” under those definitions.

    Wa salaam.

    Replies: @Yahya K., @Dumbo

    A more interesting question is…if it is principally defined by race, then – if white people in the West eventually ended up converting to Islam and remaining white…then it would remain “Western Civilization” under those definitions.

    You’d have to ask Mr. Rational that question. It would be interesting to see also if he thinks Bosnians and Albanians are part of his race, even though they are predominantly Muslim.

    Personally, I don’t think it’s wise to define civilization by race, because of three reasons:

    (a) While there is a genetic basis to ‘race’, its still very much a culturally defined construct, which can and did change over the ages. I.e While modern-day Greeks may be comfortable with grouping themselves in with other Europeans as part of one big ‘white race’ (though this is also debatable), Ancient Greeks almost certainly would not have liked to be lumped in with the uncivilized barbarians to their North.

    (b) Genetic relatedness between groups is a relative matter, not absolute. That means there is a certain amount of fluidity between groups. One big example is the continuum between Middle Easterners, Southern Europeans and Northern Europeans. Despite the people who think that all Europeans are one race, its not at all clear than Southern Europeans are more closely related to Northern Euros than Near Easterners. If you look at this plot you’ll find that Greeks cluster closer to Northern Middle Eastern/Caucasian populations than to Northern Europeans.

    This even though, according to Razib Khan, modern day Greeks have substantially more Slavic blood than Ancient Greeks, due to the “the Sclaveni migrations” by Slavic peoples who migrated south – as far as the Peloponnese – after the Byzantine Empire ceded the Balkans to barbarian groups due to threats in the east from Persians and then Muslims.

    (c) And finally – I hope this known to everyone and I don’t have to expound too much on this – its silly to define a race by its ‘whiteness’, because not all ‘white’ people reside in Europe. There are plenty of Armenians, Georgians, Azeris, Persians, Arabs, Turks and even Indians (i’ve seen some) who are both white-skinned and Caucasian. Matter of fact, many of these West Eurasian whites are even *whiter* (i.e paler) than many Europeans. Are they part of Mr. Rational’s Great White Race as well?

    [MORE]

    *Like Ayatollah Khamenei (Azeri Iranian)

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Yahya K.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaMJKNfXkAA6WFo.jpg

    Wa salaam.

    Replies: @Yahya K.

  75. @Yahya K.
    @Talha


    A more interesting question is…if it is principally defined by race, then – if white people in the West eventually ended up converting to Islam and remaining white…then it would remain “Western Civilization” under those definitions.

     

    You'd have to ask Mr. Rational that question. It would be interesting to see also if he thinks Bosnians and Albanians are part of his race, even though they are predominantly Muslim.

    Personally, I don't think it's wise to define civilization by race, because of three reasons:

    (a) While there is a genetic basis to 'race', its still very much a culturally defined construct, which can and did change over the ages. I.e While modern-day Greeks may be comfortable with grouping themselves in with other Europeans as part of one big 'white race' (though this is also debatable), Ancient Greeks almost certainly would not have liked to be lumped in with the uncivilized barbarians to their North.

    (b) Genetic relatedness between groups is a relative matter, not absolute. That means there is a certain amount of fluidity between groups. One big example is the continuum between Middle Easterners, Southern Europeans and Northern Europeans. Despite the people who think that all Europeans are one race, its not at all clear than Southern Europeans are more closely related to Northern Euros than Near Easterners. If you look at this plot you'll find that Greeks cluster closer to Northern Middle Eastern/Caucasian populations than to Northern Europeans.

    http://i.imgur.com/yOvLQq5.jpg

    This even though, according to Razib Khan, modern day Greeks have substantially more Slavic blood than Ancient Greeks, due to the "the Sclaveni migrations" by Slavic peoples who migrated south - as far as the Peloponnese - after the Byzantine Empire ceded the Balkans to barbarian groups due to threats in the east from Persians and then Muslims.

    (c) And finally - I hope this known to everyone and I don't have to expound too much on this - its silly to define a race by its 'whiteness', because not all 'white' people reside in Europe. There are plenty of Armenians, Georgians, Azeris, Persians, Arabs, Turks and even Indians (i've seen some) who are both white-skinned and Caucasian. Matter of fact, many of these West Eurasian whites are even *whiter* (i.e paler) than many Europeans. Are they part of Mr. Rational's Great White Race as well?

    *Like Ayatollah Khamenei (Azeri Iranian)

    http://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BOWMyMjVmMjUt[email protected]._V1_.jpg

    Replies: @Talha

    Wa salaam.

    • LOL: Yahya K.
    • Replies: @Yahya K.
    @Talha

    OT: Talha, i've been reading into South Asian history and genetics and am interested to know, if you wouldn't mind, which South Asian group do you fall under? What's your ancestry and appearance like?

    As I mentioned before, some of my ancestors came to Mecca from India (Gujarat/Maharashtra) as Hujjaj/Merchants and settled there and intermarried with the locals. 23andMe puts me down as 16.7% South Asian (they've since revised it from about ~11% before) and about 4% Iranian, which I used to think was a separate ancestry line, but now that I've dug deeper into South Asian history, realize probably came in through my Persianized Indian ancestors. So overall, i'm about 20% Indian, which would mean my father could be about 40% Indian (unless genetics doesn't work that way). Also I realized that I may be the only Egyptian who has any Indian ancestry at all, which is pretty amusing, unless there is an Indo-Egyptian out there I don't know about.

    Replies: @Talha

  76. Yahya K. says:
    @Talha
    @Yahya K.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaMJKNfXkAA6WFo.jpg

    Wa salaam.

    Replies: @Yahya K.

    OT: Talha, i’ve been reading into South Asian history and genetics and am interested to know, if you wouldn’t mind, which South Asian group do you fall under? What’s your ancestry and appearance like?

    As I mentioned before, some of my ancestors came to Mecca from India (Gujarat/Maharashtra) as Hujjaj/Merchants and settled there and intermarried with the locals. 23andMe puts me down as 16.7% South Asian (they’ve since revised it from about ~11% before) and about 4% Iranian, which I used to think was a separate ancestry line, but now that I’ve dug deeper into South Asian history, realize probably came in through my Persianized Indian ancestors. So overall, i’m about 20% Indian, which would mean my father could be about 40% Indian (unless genetics doesn’t work that way). Also I realized that I may be the only Egyptian who has any Indian ancestry at all, which is pretty amusing, unless there is an Indo-Egyptian out there I don’t know about.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Yahya K.

    No problem, Bro. I may be what people call generic “Hindustani” of the Gangetic Plain area. But my origins are Arab and Persian. My ancestor was a Sufi shaykh (of the Chisti order) from Kirman province in Persia that settled in Uttar Pradesh. People in the area still visit his mausoleum and a city is basically built around his gravesite and mosque in the center. There was mixing with the locals for sure (and possibly invading Turkic people), though I’ve never done one of those genetic tests to find out how much of what.

    As far as looks, I can pass for an Arab or Persian and many Pakistanis do a double take when I tell them I’m originally from Pakistan. Here’s a low res image of me from many years and pounds ago - close to high school age, wearing my favorite Oilers jersey:
    https://imgur.com/pgaEJpY

    Wa salaam.

  77. @Yahya K.
    @Mr. Rational


    We’re still reading Aristotle and Sappho, but we’re also reading the KJV and Walt Whitman and Robert Heinlein. But they are all quintessentially Western.
     
    Ancient Greek civilization was never 'Western' - except in the minds of WNs who think that anything putatively white is Western ("We wuz Greek godz and Roman kangz, coz they be wypeeple!").

    Nevermind the fact that Ancient Greeks would have looked in disdain at the Barbarians to the North, to whom they had little ancestral or cultural connection. And the fact that Greco civilization was centered around the Eastern Mediterranean, not Western Europe.

    Replies: @Talha, @Intelligent Dasein, @dfordoom

    You are correct. The culture of the Greeks/Romans was utterly different from the “West.” Theirs was the Apollonian culture that was born in the Mycenaean primitive age, had its “French Revolution” in Alexander, ossified into its final cynical form in Julius Caesar, and thereafter faded into irrelevancy to be alternately chipped away by barbarians or stiffened into Byzantinism as the case may be.

    Meanwhile, the “Magian” culture, to which belonged some early Christianity, Neoplatonism, Nestorianism, late Judaism, and finally Islam, began in the Near East around the year 0. This culture is remarkably extended, fragmented, and distorted because it was doomed to grow up under the heavy weight of the Apollonian iron age.

    The “Western” civilization arose around the year 1000 with the emergence of the Gothic style, had its Pythagorean revolt in Martin Luther and Protestantism, entered an “Alexandrian” age with the romantic nonsense of the French Revolution and Bonaparte, and is right now in its brutal and cynical Caesarian period and slouching towards terminal decline.

    It is not true that race makes culture. Different landscapes and historical experiences of course impress the man-plant with their own unique terroir, but these are modes of being that we somewhat confusingly call “races,” and while this impress does invariably feed back into cultural expressions, it is not the meaning thereof. In the grand sense, it is rather culture that makes race. It is culture that forged the Apollonian, the Magian, the Western type out of the various peoples within their spheres.

    • Thanks: Talha
    • Replies: @Wency
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Indeed, that's all Spengler. I'm sure you know Spengler better than me, but from what I've read of him, he has some interesting ideas, but these categorizations are all his constructs and not laws of nature. They can be of aid in illuminating some truths, but they're not truths in and of themselves.

    And the truth is there are both continuities and discontinuities between Classical civilization and the European civilization that arose in the High Middle Ages. I conceive of them as more like one-and-a-half civilizations. There's far less continuity than you see in China, which never had a proper dark age, a severing and forgetting of the past followed by a re-launch of the civilization. But it's also nothing like the discontinuity that exists between, say, ancient Babylon and modern-day Iraq. The Classical world heavily influenced Europe while the new civilization was launching off the ground. Meanwhile the Latin language never went out of use, and half of Western Europe still effectively speaks dialects of vulgar Latin to the present day.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @dfordoom

  78. @Talha
    @Yahya K.

    A more interesting question is...if it is principally defined by race, then - if white people in the West eventually ended up converting to Islam and remaining white...then it would remain “Western Civilization” under those definitions.

    Wa salaam.

    Replies: @Yahya K., @Dumbo

    No it wouldn’t. Whatever it would be, it would be something else. Probably bad. Hopefully, such conversion will never happen!

    Anyway, I think what forms a “civilization” as we call it is many things – race (genetics), culture, religion, ideas and even things as land and climate.

    What we call “West” is really a mishmash of things. The current “West” is no example to anyone.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @Dumbo


    I think what forms a “civilization” as we call it is many things – race (genetics), culture, religion, ideas and even things as land and climate.
     
    Very good points here, thanks. I hadn’t thought about land and climate, but that cannot be escaped; for instance the maritime empires/civilizations of the Indonesian archipelago.

    Peace.
  79. @Intelligent Dasein
    @Yahya K.

    You are correct. The culture of the Greeks/Romans was utterly different from the "West." Theirs was the Apollonian culture that was born in the Mycenaean primitive age, had its "French Revolution" in Alexander, ossified into its final cynical form in Julius Caesar, and thereafter faded into irrelevancy to be alternately chipped away by barbarians or stiffened into Byzantinism as the case may be.

    Meanwhile, the "Magian" culture, to which belonged some early Christianity, Neoplatonism, Nestorianism, late Judaism, and finally Islam, began in the Near East around the year 0. This culture is remarkably extended, fragmented, and distorted because it was doomed to grow up under the heavy weight of the Apollonian iron age.

    The "Western" civilization arose around the year 1000 with the emergence of the Gothic style, had its Pythagorean revolt in Martin Luther and Protestantism, entered an "Alexandrian" age with the romantic nonsense of the French Revolution and Bonaparte, and is right now in its brutal and cynical Caesarian period and slouching towards terminal decline.

    It is not true that race makes culture. Different landscapes and historical experiences of course impress the man-plant with their own unique terroir, but these are modes of being that we somewhat confusingly call "races," and while this impress does invariably feed back into cultural expressions, it is not the meaning thereof. In the grand sense, it is rather culture that makes race. It is culture that forged the Apollonian, the Magian, the Western type out of the various peoples within their spheres.

    Replies: @Wency

    Indeed, that’s all Spengler. I’m sure you know Spengler better than me, but from what I’ve read of him, he has some interesting ideas, but these categorizations are all his constructs and not laws of nature. They can be of aid in illuminating some truths, but they’re not truths in and of themselves.

    And the truth is there are both continuities and discontinuities between Classical civilization and the European civilization that arose in the High Middle Ages. I conceive of them as more like one-and-a-half civilizations. There’s far less continuity than you see in China, which never had a proper dark age, a severing and forgetting of the past followed by a re-launch of the civilization. But it’s also nothing like the discontinuity that exists between, say, ancient Babylon and modern-day Iraq. The Classical world heavily influenced Europe while the new civilization was launching off the ground. Meanwhile the Latin language never went out of use, and half of Western Europe still effectively speaks dialects of vulgar Latin to the present day.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @Wency

    Yes, I hear you. With cultures as with individuals, it can be very difficult to discern what wells up from inside and what is imposed from outside, what is character and destiny versus what is incident and accident. It is doubly difficult in our case because the West has always made a passionate cult out of the memory of the Classical.

    It is worth mentioning, however, that some of our most ardent classicists, like Goethe, when he came across the real Classical during his Italian journey, was deeply disturbed by it and retreated back into the cult of remembrance. Our familiarity contains something of falsification in it; we see them as more like ourselves than they really were.

    , @dfordoom
    @Wency


    And the truth is there are both continuities and discontinuities between Classical civilization and the European civilization that arose in the High Middle Ages.
     
    Yes, although I think that the discontinuities heavily outweigh the continuities.

    The original point I was trying to make is that it's nonsense to talk of western civilisation as if there's been some kind of cultural unity. I haven't read Spengler in depth but I think he had some important insights into the radically different mental universes that characterised the classical and mediæval civilisations. So radically different that any genuine understanding between a representative of the classical civilisation and a representative of the mediæval civilisation would have been quite impossible.

    And the notion that race is the crucial determining factor is clearly nonsense.
  80. @Dumbo
    @Talha

    No it wouldn't. Whatever it would be, it would be something else. Probably bad. Hopefully, such conversion will never happen!

    Anyway, I think what forms a "civilization" as we call it is many things - race (genetics), culture, religion, ideas and even things as land and climate.

    What we call "West" is really a mishmash of things. The current "West" is no example to anyone.

    Replies: @Talha

    I think what forms a “civilization” as we call it is many things – race (genetics), culture, religion, ideas and even things as land and climate.

    Very good points here, thanks. I hadn’t thought about land and climate, but that cannot be escaped; for instance the maritime empires/civilizations of the Indonesian archipelago.

    Peace.

  81. @Yahya K.
    @Talha

    OT: Talha, i've been reading into South Asian history and genetics and am interested to know, if you wouldn't mind, which South Asian group do you fall under? What's your ancestry and appearance like?

    As I mentioned before, some of my ancestors came to Mecca from India (Gujarat/Maharashtra) as Hujjaj/Merchants and settled there and intermarried with the locals. 23andMe puts me down as 16.7% South Asian (they've since revised it from about ~11% before) and about 4% Iranian, which I used to think was a separate ancestry line, but now that I've dug deeper into South Asian history, realize probably came in through my Persianized Indian ancestors. So overall, i'm about 20% Indian, which would mean my father could be about 40% Indian (unless genetics doesn't work that way). Also I realized that I may be the only Egyptian who has any Indian ancestry at all, which is pretty amusing, unless there is an Indo-Egyptian out there I don't know about.

    Replies: @Talha

    No problem, Bro. I may be what people call generic “Hindustani” of the Gangetic Plain area. But my origins are Arab and Persian. My ancestor was a Sufi shaykh (of the Chisti order) from Kirman province in Persia that settled in Uttar Pradesh. People in the area still visit his mausoleum and a city is basically built around his gravesite and mosque in the center. There was mixing with the locals for sure (and possibly invading Turkic people), though I’ve never done one of those genetic tests to find out how much of what.

    As far as looks, I can pass for an Arab or Persian and many Pakistanis do a double take when I tell them I’m originally from Pakistan. Here’s a low res image of me from many years and pounds ago – close to high school age, wearing my favorite Oilers jersey:

    View post on imgur.com

    Wa salaam.

  82. @Wency
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Indeed, that's all Spengler. I'm sure you know Spengler better than me, but from what I've read of him, he has some interesting ideas, but these categorizations are all his constructs and not laws of nature. They can be of aid in illuminating some truths, but they're not truths in and of themselves.

    And the truth is there are both continuities and discontinuities between Classical civilization and the European civilization that arose in the High Middle Ages. I conceive of them as more like one-and-a-half civilizations. There's far less continuity than you see in China, which never had a proper dark age, a severing and forgetting of the past followed by a re-launch of the civilization. But it's also nothing like the discontinuity that exists between, say, ancient Babylon and modern-day Iraq. The Classical world heavily influenced Europe while the new civilization was launching off the ground. Meanwhile the Latin language never went out of use, and half of Western Europe still effectively speaks dialects of vulgar Latin to the present day.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @dfordoom

    Yes, I hear you. With cultures as with individuals, it can be very difficult to discern what wells up from inside and what is imposed from outside, what is character and destiny versus what is incident and accident. It is doubly difficult in our case because the West has always made a passionate cult out of the memory of the Classical.

    It is worth mentioning, however, that some of our most ardent classicists, like Goethe, when he came across the real Classical during his Italian journey, was deeply disturbed by it and retreated back into the cult of remembrance. Our familiarity contains something of falsification in it; we see them as more like ourselves than they really were.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  83. @Yahya K.
    @Mr. Rational


    We’re still reading Aristotle and Sappho, but we’re also reading the KJV and Walt Whitman and Robert Heinlein. But they are all quintessentially Western.
     
    Ancient Greek civilization was never 'Western' - except in the minds of WNs who think that anything putatively white is Western ("We wuz Greek godz and Roman kangz, coz they be wypeeple!").

    Nevermind the fact that Ancient Greeks would have looked in disdain at the Barbarians to the North, to whom they had little ancestral or cultural connection. And the fact that Greco civilization was centered around the Eastern Mediterranean, not Western Europe.

    Replies: @Talha, @Intelligent Dasein, @dfordoom

    Ancient Greek civilization was never ‘Western’ – except in the minds of WNs who think that anything putatively white is Western

    That’s a good point. The mediæval Christian civilisation was really the first western European civilisation and of course it was based on a non-western religion.

    • Replies: @Talha
    @dfordoom


    the first western European civilisation
     
    And part of this definition relies on geography. What does one mean by “west”...where exactly is that demarcated? I mean Persia is “west” compared to China.

    Does Eastern Europe fall under the West? Should it? The Arabs don’t call all of North Africa the Maghreb (west), it starts somewhere in Libya and Egypt is not considered to be part of the Maghreb.

    But then you get into places like Sweden and Norway which certainly seem “west” despite being quite east in European geographic terms.

    Peace.

    Replies: @RSDB

  84. @dfordoom
    @Yahya K.


    Ancient Greek civilization was never ‘Western’ – except in the minds of WNs who think that anything putatively white is Western
     
    That's a good point. The mediæval Christian civilisation was really the first western European civilisation and of course it was based on a non-western religion.

    Replies: @Talha

    the first western European civilisation

    And part of this definition relies on geography. What does one mean by “west”…where exactly is that demarcated? I mean Persia is “west” compared to China.

    Does Eastern Europe fall under the West? Should it? The Arabs don’t call all of North Africa the Maghreb (west), it starts somewhere in Libya and Egypt is not considered to be part of the Maghreb.

    But then you get into places like Sweden and Norway which certainly seem “west” despite being quite east in European geographic terms.

    Peace.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    @Talha

    "West" makes a fair bit of sense talking about Western and Eastern Christianity (as the non-Latin churches in the Catholic church are called Eastern Catholic churches), not so much sense otherwise. Though there are still exceptions-- Filipinos would probably be considered geographically east of most Eastern churches. I suppose, outside of ecclesiastical contexts, it's still a useful term for a somewhat nebulous concept; otherwise, surely, people here wouldn't be spending so much time trying to set bounds on that concept?

    Anyway it's a more accurate description than either "Holy Roman Empire" or "Greenland".

  85. @Wency
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Indeed, that's all Spengler. I'm sure you know Spengler better than me, but from what I've read of him, he has some interesting ideas, but these categorizations are all his constructs and not laws of nature. They can be of aid in illuminating some truths, but they're not truths in and of themselves.

    And the truth is there are both continuities and discontinuities between Classical civilization and the European civilization that arose in the High Middle Ages. I conceive of them as more like one-and-a-half civilizations. There's far less continuity than you see in China, which never had a proper dark age, a severing and forgetting of the past followed by a re-launch of the civilization. But it's also nothing like the discontinuity that exists between, say, ancient Babylon and modern-day Iraq. The Classical world heavily influenced Europe while the new civilization was launching off the ground. Meanwhile the Latin language never went out of use, and half of Western Europe still effectively speaks dialects of vulgar Latin to the present day.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @dfordoom

    And the truth is there are both continuities and discontinuities between Classical civilization and the European civilization that arose in the High Middle Ages.

    Yes, although I think that the discontinuities heavily outweigh the continuities.

    The original point I was trying to make is that it’s nonsense to talk of western civilisation as if there’s been some kind of cultural unity. I haven’t read Spengler in depth but I think he had some important insights into the radically different mental universes that characterised the classical and mediæval civilisations. So radically different that any genuine understanding between a representative of the classical civilisation and a representative of the mediæval civilisation would have been quite impossible.

    And the notion that race is the crucial determining factor is clearly nonsense.

  86. @Talha
    @dfordoom


    the first western European civilisation
     
    And part of this definition relies on geography. What does one mean by “west”...where exactly is that demarcated? I mean Persia is “west” compared to China.

    Does Eastern Europe fall under the West? Should it? The Arabs don’t call all of North Africa the Maghreb (west), it starts somewhere in Libya and Egypt is not considered to be part of the Maghreb.

    But then you get into places like Sweden and Norway which certainly seem “west” despite being quite east in European geographic terms.

    Peace.

    Replies: @RSDB

    “West” makes a fair bit of sense talking about Western and Eastern Christianity (as the non-Latin churches in the Catholic church are called Eastern Catholic churches), not so much sense otherwise. Though there are still exceptions– Filipinos would probably be considered geographically east of most Eastern churches. I suppose, outside of ecclesiastical contexts, it’s still a useful term for a somewhat nebulous concept; otherwise, surely, people here wouldn’t be spending so much time trying to set bounds on that concept?

    Anyway it’s a more accurate description than either “Holy Roman Empire” or “Greenland”.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS