If I would be an Anglo, I would think that USA has gone downhill since 1861. Personally I just want that the current USAtan, with it’s missionary liberal and universalistic ideas will fall. I don’t much care if it will happen by your country changing into Brazil or into Anglo nationalist state, though isolationist WASP regime in America would probably be better for whole humanity.

Until the rest of the world stops investing in the U.S., any crisis in the U.S. is likely to have more catastrophic effects outside the U.S. Due to its unprecedented factor endowments and relative isolation, the U.S. can afford more destructive behavior than other countries. Just look to Europe for example. The last major world financial crisis begun in the United States but was most catastrophic in southern Europe. American actions in the Middle East have had little impact on Americans but have been a disaster for countries in the Middle East and have been a disaster in Europe via the rapefugee problem.

I see the chances of an isolationist WASP regime as approaching 0%.

A Germany that somehow mostly fulfilled Hitler’s vision (which, to be sure, I view as mostly an insane vision) and won WW2 would probably be a different animal. For a variety of reasons, I think Nazism would have persisted longer if it succeeded in seizing its lebensraum.

It’s a common misconception to think that the lebensraum plans were realistic. In the 1930s Germany had extremely low number of births, the fertility rate was less than 2.0, and later during the war Germany lost huge share of it’s young and middle-aged men, proportionally more than any other age groups. Because of constant labour shortages, Germans brought millions of French and Ostarbeiters to Reich during the war. I think that Lebensraum plans would have gotten botched or there would have been a milder form of colonization than in the wildest dreams of the NSDAP. Germany just had not enough men or children, to realistically colonize Eastern Europe in a grand scale. We also should not forget that Rosenberg and Goebbels were quite sympathetic towards the Slavs, Goebbels even had a Czech lover, though Hitler forced him to break his relations with his mistress and made him reconcile with his wife. So there were many variable factors and cliques inside the NSDAP, lot of would have depended when Hitler would have died after the war, and which clique would had won control over most important institutions of state.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1033102/fertility-rate-germany-1800-2020/

and it didn’t feel like Mexicans as a people had an ‘angle’ or trying to hustle you, like other groups tend to do.

Mestizos from Mexico and Central America aren’t trying to scam. They’re mostly a laid back, passive people in daily interactions. However, people from South America are not the same.

…the only thing Puritan about them is the way in which they try to enforce their particular code.

There were basically two types of European settlement in America:
– Puritans who were settlers coming to work – this also fits the later arrivals who went farming to Midwest…
– “Virginia” type based on people coming so they wouldn’t have to work – they had indentured labor and slaves from the very beginning.

Today’s America is a majority Virginia type society with an admixture of Puritan work-ethic and self-righteousness. The Virginia type migration is people going where life is easier, expecting some sort of indentured or slave labor to help them live well. It is a plunder mentality.

The woke people are an ugly combination of both: unable and unwilling to really work, but with a Puritan style. It was bound to happen eventually – the dynamic was always there. Now it is here and it isn’t pretty.

American pop music is actually a carbon copy of British synth pop, which was influenced by German electronic music.

Well, the one thing that the US didn’t do after mid-19th C is go downhill.

I don’t blame Eldnah for thinking that the US would have become even more prosperous if it had only accepted Anglo-Germanic immigrants but I don’t know how possible that was at a time when it sought large amounts of settlers for its frontier lands and workers for its growing economy.

The frontier was long settled by the time Italians, Irish, Ashkenazi Jews, and eastern Euros were entering the U.S. in massive numbers. They came in as laborers, created ghettos, and had the effect of making the natives leave the cities for other places, which fed more into the “need” for labor. It’s the exact same pattern Blacks had in northern cities. A smaller amount of labor in northern cities would have necessitated higher wages for natives, and probably would have increased fertility. The interests of industrialists should be not be assumed to be the same as the country as a whole. Moreover, the problems these people brought were larger than these supposed economic benefits.

And perhaps it would have also become more liberal, like Northwest Europe. .

The most harmful effects of liberalism are mass immigration and increased crime. The Ellis Islanders were a group of immigrants who caused a large increase in crime(or rather, subsets of them did). So whether the U.S. would be more liberal or not, the entrance of these people has had a radical and negative effect.

Personally I do not think the U.S. would be more liberal without Ellis Islanders. The first reason is because there would be less Jews. The second reason is that the logic of how liberalism operates is to find a minority/victim group and organize them to undermine a majority. With mass immigration you not only get more members of minorities, but you have a less cohesive society as a whole, the latter state being not only a result of the newcomers competing with the older stock, but also competing with each other.

The U.S. being more like Denmark is hardly the worst outcome one can imagine.

The current woke movement looks full of Puritan and Anglo-Protestant streaks to me.

Descendants of Puritans are less powerful and culturally significant by the day, but somehow the frequency with which they are blamed for various ills is increasing. It is at the point that any movement which is moralistic and activist that people don’t like can be called Puritanical. Classic Puritanism has been dead since the latter half of the 18th century, and its New England theology mutation died in the 1880s. The last President who was a New Englander with Puritan roots was Calvin Coolidge 90 years ago. The last intellectual movement I can think of which originated with or was centered by Puritans would be the American eugenics movement.

If I look to immigration reform, I see a lack of Puritans. The Hart-Celler Act which replaced the Coolidge administrations restrictions was created by Jews, and brought into being by Kennedy and his various Irish-Catholic appointees(some of whom later regretted what happened). The Reagan administration’s immigration reforms are another example. Neo-conservatism is a movement from Jewish former Trotskyists. The turn in anthropology away from biology was started by a Jew. Refugee resettlement has been dominated in order by Jews, Lutherans, and Catholics. The next group, Methodists, have been very much a distant contributor compared to the first three. Hollywood has never had much Puritan influence, and since the end of the silent era has been mostly purged of old stock Americans of any sort. Most of the social science “disciplines” which inspire wokeism, I won’t bother to name them all, are European, particularly Jewish imports. In the art world, you will struggle to find many Puritans contributing to modernism art. Instead you see a whole lot of French and Spanish, and an over-representation of Jews.

I fail to see any evidence that Puritans are behind the decline of the United States. It’s closer to the opposite. After WW2 their influence was reduced effectively to zero and everything has been downhill since.

look at Russian demographics on Wikipedia and see “tatars – 5% of population” and think this is some kind of asiatic entirely non-European group…

Well, this is true, but “non-European” peoples represent other ethnic groups (not Tatars). There are places where “Asian” (according to the American classification) ethnic groups make up the majority.

But it will be more of a distant analogue of the American Indians in the United States and Canada, not Hispanic

He is an Anglo supremacist who thinks America had gone downhill since it let in all those Italians, Poles, Irish, etc. If one hates the presence of Italians, naturally one would also lament an influx of Latinos (who are more like Italian peasants than they are like Anglo farmers). If you are a fan of Italy you would probably not mind Latinos too much. I live in a part of the country without a lot of them, but friends who moved to Texas are happy with the Mexicans in their state.

Fair enough description, although I don’t really value English people over Scottish or Dutch for example. I wouldn’t mind the Irish if they weren’t corrupt anti-English papists. Some Ulster Scots mixed with local Irish people, and I have so-called Scots-Irish background so it is quite possible I have Irish ancestry. Poles are ok personally, the kindest person I have ever known in my life was a Catholic American of Polish ancestry, but I think the entrance of large number of them introduced an undesirable foreign element. On the other hand, mixes of British with Poles tends to produce entertaining results. See Mike Ditka for an example. Germanic Swiss people were the best immigrants of the Ellis Island era.

I’m more of a cultural supremacist for Protestant British Isles culture as it evolved in the Americas and a pseudo-Nordicist. So Poles are much higher in my totem pole than Italians.

There are differences between Italians and Hispanics. In particular, sex crimes. Italians may have murdered each other a lot in the past, and been involved in all sorts of corruption and vice, but they’re not commonly rapists, child molesters, or gropers. Hispanics are. This is always ignored by people who talk about how great Hispanics are. Sex crimes against strangers in the United States is mostly a crime committed by Blacks and Hispanics.

California Hispanics have tended to be more troublesome than the ones in Texas. Puerto Ricans in New York have historically been criminally inclined and involved in gangs. Florida is a mixed picture compared to Texas or California.

I’ve noticed that educated Latinos (often Cubans and South Americans) mix well with Slavs. On average they are a bit more dramatic, a bit more sexualized, they prefer rum over vodka – but there is a certain closeness of spirit; Anglos and Germanics are more distant. The Slavic and the Mediterranean worlds are sympathetic cousins.

There are more important things in life than a shared affinity for sour cream.

The GOP fiscal policy as far as I can tell is to run up the deficit in office, and then claim to want spending cuts when the Democrats are in office.

Researcher Joe Francis casts doubt on the official story on Argentina. In particular, he doesn’t think the data is of good quality. Some examples from his blog:

https://www.joefrancis.info/argentina_decline/
https://www.joefrancis.info/argentina-in-1800/

Depends. Whenever a Latin American country gets taken over by Leftists (e.g., Cuba, Venezuela), its middle- and upper-class flee to the US en masse, and typically become American rightists.

I don’t consider Republican voters to be “rightists.” Just one example, while Cubans voted about 38% for Clinton 1996, in 2000 they only voted 17 percent for the Democrats. Why the big change? Did Cubans hate Al Gore that much? It was because of the Elian Gonzalez saga. The “rightist” Cubans were unhappy the U.S. was sending back an illegal alien to Cuba. So yes, Cubans are rightists in the sense that they are open borders Reaganites.

Their children are even less Republican though. Democrats have gotten over 40% of the Cuban votes in the 2012 and 2016 elections. 2020 was totally different, as Trump’s vote tallies among Hispanics went up considerably.

In all seriousness that forcing through the legislature allowing gay marriage in Taiwan was only to use “wokeness” as solidarity with the Hollywood crowd. They new they would all start to support a lesbian “president” and “the first place in Asia to allow gay marriage”. Makes me wonder if some foreign Soviet bloc nations might try the same…??

The people voted in a referendum AGAINST having gay marriage taught in schools and then the DPP legislature forced the actual thing through. Politics are disgusting.

However, this is not always so clear-cut and there is overlapping and leakage across these groups – for instance, there are of course many millions of Hispanics who are either totally Spanish/Italian in origin

You’re wrong. Even “white Hispanic” countries like Argentina are significantly mixed with Amerindians. Look at genetic studies if you don’t believe me. There are very few Hispanics who are totally Spanish or Italian. If I take a trip to Brazil, I would probably have an easier time finding purebred Germans than I would for Portuguese.

Italians Americans are swine whose largest contribution to American culture has been in the sphere of crime. The result of more “white Hispanic” immigration is that instead of Italians mixing with people of Germanic/Celtic extraction, which at least creates a diluted Italian mix, you get more Italians mixing with Latinos. It’s a race to the bottom.

Why people think the corrupt “White Hispanics” of Latin America are in any way desirable is itself puzzling. These people have a horrible track record of running countries.

It seems to me that the Norman elites were quite elitist assholes.

No kidding.

Cultural Marxism is just a colloquial synonym for followers of the Frankfurt school, who were not Marxists, but vaguely leftists criticisers of Marxism(Leninism, Stalinism etc) and capitalism. In other words they were leftists who, after the happenings of 30s and WW2 had lost hope in the genuine workers revolution as a true source of societal transformation. After all common European men and workers had chosen in masses Hitler and Stalin, over the original anarchist and socialist principles. People too often forget how originally both Marxism and Anarchism had the same goal, a just society without state, and without those who take what belongs to the workers and farmers. In other words a world without lords and bosses.

Too add to this, there is also a genealogical point to the label “cultural Marxism.” The Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt University was set up and staffed by Marxists and had a distinctly Marxist bent at its inception. Integrating Freud with Marx was one of the early goals of the Frankfurt School academics and Critical Theory’s origins can be traced to this project. More generally, Marxism was the dominant paradigm at one time among the left and it influenced a great many of the ideas later to come. Even though these ideas would later mutate in such a way as to be distinct from Marxism, if you look to their origin you will find Marxism looms large.

While I think Dmitry’s sperging over the definition of “cultural Marxism” is a bit much, I have to admit I can’t be 100% unsympathetic. Applied to Adorno for example, the term “cultural Marxism” isn’t really a useful descriptor, and it’s going in the direction of labeling all left-wing critiques* of Capitalism or modernity as being Marxist. That’s not good.

I also agree with what Coconuts said about Gramsci.

*maybe not the environmentalist one, to the extent that really is a left-wing critique

Yes it does lead to inflation because governments don’t print massive amounts of currency just to store them in a warehouse. They print money to spend it because their budget is in the red. Not sure why you quoted the word print when that is exactly what happens. Even if Robert had payed his bills by adding zeroes to a central bank account they would still have to print currency for it to work.

Have you been living under a rock the last decade? We have had a massive increase in the money supply and zero inflation. Japan has decades of it, and deflation. One of the great things about economics is it’s a field where empirical evidence doesn’t count for much.

If you read the literature about the “Great Moderation,” it’s all trying to explain how independent Central Banks are responsible for low inflation and everything great in the world. Or if you read Milton Friedman/Anna Schwartz’s work, they believe the Great Depression was a result of the Central Bank failing to increase the money supply, and the New Keynesians more or less agree. Contrary to your fantasy view, the idea of increasing the money supply without an accompanying fiscal policy is mainstream dogma. The exact situation today is a result of mainstream economic ideas which you are obviously not familiar with.

Are you saying he was right the whole time while economists outside of Zimbabwe were wrong?

I’m not interested in discussing Zimbabwe, mal can do so if he wishes. But you have to be subhuman to think economics aren’t wrong all the time.

So? The USSR did the same too. The USSR would bring in experts from America/Britain/Germany/Italy/etc to help it buildup industry and to teach its own people what was needed to build their country in the 20’s. Nobody saw an issue with it then. Furthermore, Nazi Germany brought in Soviet equipment and Engineers to help it rebuild after Versaille. The fact that countries use the talent of other nations to build themselves up is pure pragmatism. Why would they not?

The US had no problems with exporting equipment and talent into China because it was politically suitable. Nor has it any problems with working with Communist Vietnam when it suits its interests.

Thanks for confirming my point. The experience of World War 2 might suggest that those countries made a mistake.

The US was built on stealing German and British tech. That isn’t a very good argument for Capitalism if you need to steal other countries tech to build your own economy.

Lol. Countries don’t need to re-invent the wheel to develop.

Its not ‘complaining’ to mention that sanctions on North Korea significantly hinder its development.

China being North Korea’s dominant trade partner is inevitable. If North Korea’s exports to China were say 80% instead of 90%, and it had more imports from other non-hostile Asian countries, would the country be significantly more developed? I doubt it. I’m essentially describing countries like Mongolia or Myanmar, which aren’t particularly rich. The very existence of South Korea means North Korea is always at a disadvantage except for raw materials.

Widespread sanctions against North Korea have not even been applied for the majority of the country’s existence. You’re also ignoring the fact that isolation from much of the outside world has often been a policy of the North Korean government, economic self-sufficiency was a Juche principle. You also want to ignore the fact that some of those sanctions were responses to North Korean bombings and sinking of ships in South Korea. Sanctions also don’t explain many of the crazier policies of Kim Jong-Il and the people around him. Your starting point is the fact that sanctions against North Korea have occurred, and with that starting point are trying to explain away all of North Korea’s problems.

Its not an argument against communism to mention that due to the fact that North Korea has little oil in its territory and cannot import more because nobody will trade with it for fear of US sanctions (and there are many people interested even in America itself), meaning that it cannot operate industrial farms and feed its people properly.

Too bad for you the world didn’t begin in 2006.

Lol. The RF’s economy is smaller than that of Texas (and Texas isn’t even a country). Or Italy. So much for Capitalist “efficiency” eh.

USSR had its own electronics industry and its own programming languages, chip architectures, and produced computers at home, for example (hence Buran rocket automation). RF can’t even get GLONASS to work properly (which btw was a Soviet innovation – just like everything else RF lives off of) because sanctions prevent it sourcing parts from France and other western countries. LOL. The RF has to source parts for national defense from hostile powers….lol

On North Korea your argument is that the country can’t develop because foreign powers won’t trade with it. On the Soviet Union your argument is that the country was better because it was self-sufficient. Lol.

South Korea and Japan, and China for that matter grew their economies by importing Western capital and building up large export industries to export back both to Western countries and other developing markets. Complaining that Western countries don’t allow North Korea to do the same is equivalent to complaining why the West isn’t subsidizing Communist country development.

Maybe one day the size and sophistication of the Chinese economy will reach a point where countries like North Korea can develop solely by trading with China or other countries not affiliated with the West. Until that happens, you don’t have a good economic argument for Communism.

China is still centrally planned and recently released their newest 5 year plan (and no they’re not doing away with them) and State Owned Enterprises (like in the USSR) are some of their most productive and largest companies (for example COSCO Shipping.

Five year plans are just targets set by the government. If that’s all it takes to be Communist, we shouldn’t even be discussing this. Every country is Communist by this definition. We can even call the Kyoto Protocols Communistic, even if we accept your definitions.

2. USSR had a better economy than the RF. Even the RFSR was doing better than modern RF (its surprising that RF surpassed peak economic car production even with modern tools and development techniques – only goes to show how dysfunctional RF economy is). Hell, even the Ukranian SSR was more economically developed than modern Ukraine.

Lol.

What are you saying? Do you think the fed would like runaway inflation but has no means of doing so? They do the opposite which is try to control inflation. In fact they set inflation goals every year.

The Bank of Japan falsely believes deflation has been a problem and have been attempting to use monetary policy to induce inflation for decades now. They have failed.

That is thanks to Bob printing money. He ignored “imperialist” (White) economists and turned on the printing machine.

No, it’s thanks to using that printed money to pay off foreign loans, a very similar situation to what happened in Weimar Germany. Just printing money doesn’t do anything. Fiscal policy. Monetary policy. There is a difference. To simplify, when you print currency which you exchange for other currency(paying off foreign denominated debt qualifies), you lower the value of your currency relative to that currency(or relative to many currencies), and this means you need to spend ever more of your currency to purchase anything that is influenced by prices in international markets. You get inflation in other words. When you “print” a bunch of currency and do not have a corresponding fiscal policy, you end up with excess bank reserves(unless we are talking about the gold standard or some fixed exchange regime). This does not necessarily lead to inflation, and we have decades of evidence for this.

I can think of many ways a country could try to deliberately cause inflation, but monetary policy is not the way to do it.

In terms of reducing the pollution for citizens China, there superficially seems to be some small hopes of improvement in the country from their current nightmare.

For example, an interesting report in YouTube, about the famous story of the city in China with 16,000 electric buses, which should superficially be very impressive and hopeful:

Sad thing, however, is that a lot of the electricity will be generated from coal burning power plants, so air pollution will still be killing thousands of local citizens, just by a different mechanism than the automobile.

Needless to say, it should be a higher priority for China to convert its coal burning power plants to gas burning ones, than to convert to EVs, even if the latter is also welcome – and the former is the main thing that Russia can actually be helpful to improve China.

But China’s authorities seem more focused on support for a potential future car industry that becomes possible with the change to electric automobiles (especially with the slowness of Japanese automobile manufacturers in this market), than what should be a higher priority to reduce pollution by upgrading to gas power plants for electricity generation and eliminating use of coal.

Mexicans doing the job white Americans won’t do.

Flyover country whites can look to the plight of American Indians to get an idea what their future will look like.

You’re mixing two different aspects. The general that I quoted was not talking about the Rohingyas primarily but a wider sectarian conflagraton together with political polarisation (same ethnic group can still get to daggers drawn). The goal that the US was pursuing with the Rohingya was part of a larger strategy and shouldn’t be viewed in isolation. A destabilised Myanmar is better from the US’ point of view than a Myanmar safely in Beijing’s orbit without major internal upheaval.

I understand the point, I just disagree with the premise. Pointing the finger at the Rohingya is something almost everyone in the country can get behind. Ethnically cleansing them is not a dividing force, but the opposite. Looking at conflicts with the Rohingya as part of larger ethnic conflicts is misleading because the Rohingya problem can easily be solved, and there is nothing to the idea that an escalation of repression against the Rohingya necessarily leads to the same for other groups. I’ll try to put the point more plainly: No one likes the Rohingya, therefore it is a good idea to nip the problem in the bud. If it is the case that outside powers(the U.S. is not alone in this case, the Chinese have a long history as well) are stoking ethnic conflicts, then removing one of the more troublesome groups, who are disliked by the other locals, is actually effective for resolving local conflicts. Not doing so means yet another ethnic/religious conflict in the future. Right now, the Rohingya are weak, so the time is ripe for getting rid of them. Failure to do so will lead to big problems in the future.

I largely agree with your assessment that the Rohingyas are essentially Bangledeshis, but ethnogenesis, if it persists, can become permanent. Ultimately all of our identities are created out of thin air because people decide for long enough, in sufficient numbers, that a new identity has been formed – and then stick to it. Such has the historical process been of all current and past identities.

I agree with this(except for nitpicking the phrase “out of thin air,” since identities aren’t entirely invented, otherwise for example genetic differences would not exist), and it is exactly why I suggest not removing the Rohingya will cause more problems than whatever results from ethnically cleansing them. They have higher TFR than Buddhist locals, if the problem is not sorted out soon, there could be a Bosnia-like conflagration. But Rohingya being driven from their homes and into other countries is the solution to the problem, not a symptom of the problem.

She is quite attractive though, perhaps her eye glow is part of her charm…

. They clearly made the point that if she and the ethnic guerillas that the US came to power, the country would descend into a Bosnian-style conflagration of the 1990s. This statement was prescient given the Rohingya crisis later on.

The Rohingya are less than 1 million people, not even 1/50th of the country, and aren’t liked by the rest of the country. Conflicts with them are not evidence of a Bosnia style conflagration. Myanmar should have ethnically cleansed every single one of them a long time ago. What could the U.S. do about it? Nothing. Keeping these people in the country is more destabilizing than eating sanctions and permanently ridding the country of them. Let the Bengalis deal with the problem.

Your experience of diaspora Indians seems representative. I’ve come across Indians who were quite smart and among the hardest working people in the firm, and others who are totally incompetent. Even in “high skilled” occupations, one can find incompetent Indians. My overall impression of Indians in the United States is that there are both a disproportionate amount of talented people, but also a high degree of variability.

There is a strong case to be made that Austria being a separate country from Germany is illegitimate.

I have a conspiracy theory why prostitution is so legal and open in Germany in comparison with culturally similar Scandinavian countries. Allies probably thought that it’s better that Germans don’t have pent up sexual frustration, that if they have whores, there is lesser chance that a new Führer arises. After all “authoritarian personality” arises from suppressed sexuality, or something, isn’t that what Adorno or Fromm wrote?

That actually sounds like something a leftist intellectual of the time would come up with. However, given the state of Weimar Germany, it is an odd perspective to say the least.

I’m not a Christian.

Before we talk about millions or billions, perhaps we should understand where it comes from…

For those who are interested in understanding what money really is (and how money is essentially a ledger of who owes who and how much), this might be the most important youtube video you will ever watch. Thank me later…

Soro’s foundation was about 20B when I managed a bit of it some time ago…no idea how much is it now.

Looks like Kent Nationalist was right. You are demon a worshipper.

Low IQ post.. Luka is far more of a Russian patriot than most of various grifters and careerists in United Russia, and God knows the political situation in 4-5 years time. This sort of hyper-centralising mentality is the bane of Russian political history, look at the devolved albeit nonetheless extremely close cooperation of the Anglophone countries, or even the Scandinavian block.

In fact, I know a number of upper middle class men with drop-dead beautiful wives, so it is a mystery why the tech billionaires can’t do better.

Women at sperm banks will often turn down a rich professional donor if they find out that they do work with computers. Being an unattractive autist is a bad reproductive strategy. Even money often doesn’t fix the problem.

On questions of heredity and physiognomy, women are more based than men are.

For better or worse, the Japanese have always been much more into war: much higher mobilization, greater valorization of violence, and a ruling caste of warriors rather than scholars. China seems to have exhausted themselves out of valorization of war, perhaps by the end of the Warring States era(possibly earlier, I read some analysis that even very early on, Chinese fiction saw the warrior’s lot as necessary, while Indo-European fiction was much more likely to portray it as a heroic).

At any rate, Confucianists put soldiery among the lowest of professions and while the actual status of it was variable, its definitely has the association of low status, even to this day.

Economy of scale is good for producing more stuff. That’s all. You need people to buy that stuff to generate income. Not a problem in a war economy, but otherwise economy of scale doesn’t automatically make your GDP per capita higher. There is a reason Switzerland is not a backwater.

It also implies there exist highly energetic, imaginative, and ambitious people in these bureaucratic structures. This isn’t true. Such people gravitate towards commercial structures.

There are energetic, imaginative, and ambitious people in DARPA. You’ve been hanging around “rationalist” (I can’t think of a more ill-fitting name) people too long. The private sector itself is next to useless for big projects unless they have large government funding, usually with some connection to the military. Most “new” technology around you is a result of former military research. Otherwise it’s agricultural or energy research, research which wouldn’t exist without government subsidies.

The nearest exception I can think of is a field no one cares about, manufacturing, namely production processes. There, it’s relatively cheap for private sector firms to carry out their own research and implement. But breakthroughs don’t come often in that field. It’s almost all small iterations.

Reliability is maxed out when you have quantity. Black projects can’t do quantity by definition (otherwise they get noticed). Limited scope for iterative improvement.

Maxing out reliability usually comes later in the lifespan of a technology. The critical research and early creation part comes earlier, when private sector incentives would not justify the research.

Many technological deployments don’t require the same type of reliability anyway as consumer products. It’s relatively simple to figure if you’re bomb is likely to work. It’s mostly testing. You don’t have to worry about all the myriad of dumb things a consumer will use the product for that could get you sued, or have to go through the same regulatory process. You can even get away with killing people on accident.

Also, modern corporations have a strong tendency to become conservative, bureaucratic, and full of parasites. They’re not very different from the public sector in this respect, contrary to popular belief.

I cannot agree. I have to remind you that Manhattan Project was a black project. A bunch of incredibly smart, highly motivated people developed a weapon that forever changed the world in almost complete secrecy. If Americans can do it, why do you assume that Chinese can’t? Or even wouldn’t want to?

streets with women tend to be beautiful than streets with manoids.

Well OK, but what are you going to do when all those women get 20 cats and go crazy? Nobody would ride bicycles in cities then for fear of being chased down by packs of feral cats and eaten.

Would you give up your urban renewal dream?

I don’t understand caste that well. My sense is that caste is a conservative system in the sense that it preserves (or exaggerates) differences in social arrangements society wide. So different groups of people have different temples where they worship, different jobs, etc. Modernity destroys cultural differences and eliminates all connection to the past to create a generic consumer. I don’t think there is enough stability in the current system to allow caste systems to develop. Some pathetic white collar or professional types might wish to identify with people who do similar work as them, but their children will have to jump through ever more hurdles just to achieve the same results as their parents(and they will have less children).

Whereas with techno-serfdom I don’t see any big changes being necessary, just an acceleration of what is already happening. Increased personal debts, less ownership of physical goods and more subscriptions/tenant systems, we’re already on our way there.

Deterritorialization by technology will only accelerate as communications continue to improve. However, I’d propose that we may simply see current-day trends accelerating. The West, Russia and China may increasingly cut off information flows from each other, leading to different blocs with denationalized identities. The future may belong to deracinated technocracy, but the West will have a neolib variant, China authoritarian with a one-party state, and who knows where Russia will end up. In my (perhaps simplistic view) the West seems to be trying damn hard to drive them into the arms of China.

If present trends were to accelerate, I don’t think neoliberalism will have any teeth left. Economic growth is decreasing and demographic trends are going in the wrong direction. If I thought present trends were to accelerate, I would predict the end of neoliberalism and maybe a new form of serfdom.

Buddy, oy vey!

It’s an open secret: Putin is close to Chabad Lubavitch, just like Trump is. Lo and behold, from Russian Israeli sources:

https://detaly.co.il/kak-habad-obespechivaet-svyaz-mezhdu-trampom-i-putinym/

Here is Soloviov / Shapiro (the chief Putinist propaganda mouthpiece) during his pilgrimage to Jerusalem with his Chabad friend:

When Devil plays chess he plays on the four ends of the table.

Oy gevalt!

On my watch it’s 7:40 already.

Gotta run…

(Lively Klyazmer music playing in the background).

Jealousy is often a strong predictor of anti-Semitic feelings.

I don’t think a single conflict in history between Jews and another group can be explained by jealousy.

I don’t think that economic and monetary authorities in the major economies really know too well what they are doing

On this you are certainly right.

That’s nitpicking. So what if got reduced slightly after expanding by $trillions. They tried reducing the balance sheet in 2018 by a few hundred $billion and stock market tanked and economy started going off the rails. The overall trend is going to be up.

It might be nitpicking, but I don’t see any reason to say something won’t or can’t happen. Are you just trying to use more rhetorically assertive language to be convincing? Why not just say “the overall trend is going to be up” at the beginning? Otherwise it sounds like you have some theory about why the Central Bank balance sheet cannot got down, when it can in fact go down(whether that would be desirable is a different discussion).

As for QE mechanics, it withdraws assets (such as government debt) from the market thus raising the price of the remaining assets and lowering interest rates.

Reducing interest payments to the private sector from the largest interest payer in the economy, namely the U.S. government, is deflationary. What I am saying here is the standard line from MMT people. Example: http://moslereconomics.com/2014/10/13/there-is-no-right-time-for-the-fed-to-raise-rates/

It is true that lower borrowing costs combined with low aggregate demand often leads to asset price inflation(but not inflation elsewhere). This is an indirect effect of quantitative easing.

Even with QE, interest expense has become one of the largest items in Federal Government budget. Without QE, interest payments would consume most of the budget and US government would be unable to meet its obligations. Or it would have to issue substantially more paper, far more than private market would be able to absorb. Interest payments to the Fed are a different story.

Interest outlays are 5% of the budget. In any case, why would the U.S. government be unable to meet its obligations, whatever the number?

To bring the topic back to the question of expanding debt, a Keynesian argument would be that the increased federal debt, low growth rates, and low inflation are a symptom of decreased aggregate demand. In a situation where aggregate demand is increased, tax receipts also increase while the economy grows, and debt need not grow. One might argue that many of the general symptoms you are describing(and seem to be interpreting as the “cost” of maintaining growth) are the result of overemphasis on monetary policy and not enough fiscal. If this is not the case, and there is something “structural” (whatever that means) preventing the economy from growing much, then perhaps we shouldn’t be targeting GDP growth anymore.

Thanks for confirming what I said.

Biden Wants You Out of Your Car and on the Train

His $2 trillion plan even envisons tearing down some freeways. Biden already 10X better than Trump, not that it was stiff competition.

Americans Are Buying Up Tel Aviv Homes, Destroying the City in the Process

The eternal burger menace must be stopped, its dangerous advance checked for humanity to prosper.

Conventional economics is outdated, world doesn’t work like that anymore.

Conventional economics was never correct.

The Fed asset side consists of US Gov debt and mortgage derivatives, but they can buy used toilet paper if they wanted to. They create ‘reserves’ out of thin air which banks then use to create money out thin air, and since 2008 there is no real difference because banks operate in ‘excess reserve’ regime meaning Fed gave them $trillions more than they need and today reserve requirement is 0% which basically means banks are free to print as much money out of thin air as they want to.

Banks do not use reserves to create money. Banks create money out of thin air first to meet demand, then find ways to fund it. When bank loans are paid off or go into default, the money the banks created is thereby removed from the economy. The demand for loans and the bank’s willingness to lend are the important variables, if these are unchanged and you get increased reserves, excess reserves is the result.

An assets = liabilities + equation is not a rule central banks must follow, it’s just an identity which describes what happens when central banks carry out some operation. Central bank assets and liabilities are creations of central banks. The equation just describes what happens when a particular account is credited or debited.

Keynes wrote about running government budget deficit in bad times and surplus in good times.

He did. Just not in any of the passages I quoted, as Keynes’ ideas about cyclical fiscal policy are irrelevant to his point about monetary policy setting interest rates to zero.

We are never running a surplus, and we are never going to reduce Federal Reserve balance sheet.

Well, for example, the Federal Reserve balance sheet was reduced(slightly) last June, so your claim that it will never be reduced is surely false. To say the Federal Reserve balance sheet shows a long-term trend of increase is not the same as saying it will never decrease, nor does it necessarily mean the balance sheet must be at x rate to sustain such and such levels of economic growth or living standards.

Federal Reserve balance sheet represents direct monetization of government debt, which is basically what MMT describes. Congress authorizes spending, Treasury funds it via banking system and ultimately the Fed.

You can think of it that way, but the operating word here is “basically.” QE is not permanent, bonds issued to private banking that pay out interest can be re-instated at any time. Also, the current laborious process of creating new “debt” (scare quotes for your benefit) instruments which are then swapped creates a lot of unnecessary makework. A system of overt monetary financing would eliminate this. So there is a difference, although it can be argued that it’s insignificant.

Debt held by the Federal Reserve isn’t really debt. By law, Fed returns excess profits (such as interest on bonds) to US Treasury. Its a weird situation where US Gov is paying itself to borrow. It is true that our definitions haven’t caught up yet and we still call US government debt a ‘debt’. But it really isn’t anymore – nobody buys 10 year bond for glorious 1% yield guaranteed to lose money in real terms. People buy 10 year bonds as capital stock, betting on price appreciation (further yield decline).

The first sentence is playing around with definitions. I can accept one definition of debt, you can accept another, or we can agree to a definition, but no new information is revealed either way. Personally, the only difference I see is that in one scenario the government chooses to go for corporate welfare in the form of paying interest to private institutions, in the other, it does not. In neither scenario is it the case that the U.S. government is being financed by the private sector.

Basically US Government issues stocks to absorb excess liquidity and throttle down inflation. Same as any other financial asset creation. Thinking about this process as ‘debt’, that is, something to be repaid (as per Keynes) is no longer valid. MMT is a better description for what’s going on i think.

Ideas have changed since 1930, and so has the financial system. For example, Britain was technically still on the gold standard in 1930, they would abandon it the next year(with Keynes’ support). In the MMT account of things, “debt” just represents an accounting relationship. The key distinction is between issues of currency and users of currency.

Basically QE provides end demand for US Government ‘debt’ that nobody would buy otherwise, at least not at interest rate US government requires to survive. Without QE US Gov would run out of money due to interest on debt skyrocketing and US economy would collapse in a crisis that would be worse than Great Depression.

The Federal Reserve sets the federal funds rate, which is sufficient to control interest rates. Demand for money is also controlled by the federal government, by the requirement of its use to settle federal transactions(most crucially tax payment) and by setting reserve requirements. Not only is the above paragraph incorrect, the view it espouses is literally the opposite of MMT:

http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-Natural-Rate-of-Interest-is-Zero.pdf
https://modernmoneynetwork.org/sites/default/files/biblio/Setting%20Interest%20Rates%20in%20the%20Modern%20Era.pdf

In essence, it seems like MMT is already official policy with “Quantitative Easing”. The professionals are just dancing to avoid the term MMT.

No it isn’t. Quantitative easing is an old idea Keynes suggested in 1930 in Chapter 37 of his Treatise on Money:

My remedy in the event of the obstinate persistence of a slump would consist, therefore, in the purchase of securities by the central bank until the long-term market rate of interest has been brought down to the limiting point, which we shall have to admit a few paragraphs further on. It should not be beyond the power of a central bank (international complications apart) to bring down the long-term market rate of interest to any figure at which it is itself prepared to buy long-term securities. For the bearishness of the capitalist public is never very obstinate, and when the rate of interest on savings deposits is next door to nothing the saturation point can fairly soon be reached. If the central bank supplies the member banks with more funds than they can lend at short term, in the first place the short-term rate of interest will decline towards zero, and in the second place the member banks will soon begin, if only to maintain their profits, to second the efforts of the central bank by themselves buying securities. This means that the price of bonds will rise unless there are many persons to be found who, as they see the prices of long-term bonds rising, prefer to sell them and hold the proceeds liquid at a very low rate of interest…If the effect of such measures is to raise the price of ‘equities’ (e.g. ordinary shares) more than the price of bonds, no harm in a time of slump will result from this; for investment can be stimulated by its being unusually easy to raise resources by the sale of ordinary shares as well as by high bond prices. Moreover, a very excessive price for equities is not likely to occur at a time of depression and business losses.

Thus I see small reason to doubt that the central bank can produce a large effect on the cost of raising new resources for long-term investment, if it is prepared to persist with its open-market policy far enough.

He later discovered that an increase in share prices would not necessarily lead to investment, which he explained by liquidity preference in his 1936 General Theory:

For whilst an increase in the quantity of money may be expected, cet. par., to reduce the rate of interest, this will not happen if the liquidity-preferences of the public are increasing more than the quantity of money; and whilst a decline in the rate of interest may be expected, cet. par., to increase the volume of investment, this will not happen if the schedule of the marginal efficiency of capital is falling more rapidly than the rate of interest; and whilst an increase in the volume of investment may be expected, cet. par., to increase employment, this may not happen if the propensity to consume is falling off.

Needless to say, despite being one of the most famous economists, almost no one has learned anything from Keynes work.

Quantitative easing is an asset swap to banks of central bank reserves for other securities. It has nothing to do with MMT, as MMT people do not believe governments need to issue debt at all. See here: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=31715

To drive the point home, I will quote from Ben Bernanke himself(all of this I’m stealing from Jan Kregel*) about the purpose of quantitative easing:

The monetary authorities can issue as much money as they like. Hence, if the price level were truly independent of money issuance, then the monetary authorities could use the money they create to acquire indefinite quantities of goods and assets. This is manifestly impossible in equilibrium. Therefore money issuance must ultimately raise the price level, even if nominal interest rates are bounded at zero

None of this is MMT. Bernanke’s argument is from a Quantity Theory of Money perspective(the same one Keynes used in 1930, and later rejected in his General Theory) and he is also assuming equilibrium. MMT rejects general equilibrium or similar ideas and believes in endogenous money.

* http://www.levyinstitute.org/conferences/minsky2013/D2_S6_Kregel.pdf are Kregel’s slides from his presentation and

is the actual talk

I need to check-out “provincial Russia“, any boom-towns? (I spotted a Gypsy on a street-car few days back, and there is an Indian flag above a ugly non-descript office building, time to look for greener pastures :)…

AP usually talks of Slovaks as a bunch of cowards who fold at the slightest tip of the hat but I never took him seriously. Maybe I should. At any rate, why would someone panic just because of more Indian immigration? Great food, great music, and great architecture. My sole complaint is that Indians often assimilate too much and their 2nd gen kids because too westernised. I want more of this in my country:

Agricultural gains often result in the importation of agricultural workers. See: Chile and Haitians. I do not see it as a boon.

Europe is arguably already in radical decline, certainly parts of southern Europe have not done well the last decade and a half.

Uncle Sam’s alliances are a giant cost with little benefits. Europe is aging into oblivion and the U.S. trade with them is a small percentage of GDP. Militarily speaking, European countries are weak and a more multipolar world actually makes them weaker relatively. Since there is little gain from the current alliances, I see no reason to assume the U.S. will never withdraw from these countries. Radical policy changes do sometimes happen, and the U.S. reliably betrays its partners.

Australia/New Zealand do not depend on what happens in Europe. They do depend on what happens to USA or China.

That’s true. But in a scenario where USA and China both decline, the whole world declines, not just Australia or New Zealand.

New Zealand’s agricultural industry by the way is kicking ass and taking names all over the place. They eventually will face constraints, they don’t have the same land mass as the United States, but in the meantime I expect New Zealand agricultural exports to continue their expansion.

Could also be used as a softer version of lobotomies, electro convulsive therapy or digital depression therapy?

This sounds like a realistic vision of future dystopia. Just imagine what gifts the Sacklers would bestow upon humanity with this technology.

And here you lost me. Chechens were running slave markets. Please don’t tell us about civilians casualties.

That’s why I said “the worst sort” of non-conformity. Failing to conform to evil is a good thing. The Indian diaspora aren’t doing that, quite the opposite.

Competition can also lead to destructive behaviors. Think of the tragedy of the commons. Or think about what would happen if you allowed multiple competing parasites to infect you(my model for the impact of ethnic minorities). You wouldn’t become stronger from this, instead the competition between the organisms would select for greater virulence.

Nevertheless I actually agree with you that society needs a certain amount of strife. I even agree when you apply the idea to conservatives and conclude they are fearful. Conservatives are dumb conformists on the whole.

What is meant by ‘collapse’ is a general economic decline that eventually corresponds to cultural and military decline.

My point is that North American as well as Australia and New Zealand aren’t that interconnected, and that an economic decline in Europe does not spell the same for those countries.

And NATO/US cold war blocs will never be dismantled because the many countries in them are essentially feudal vassals of the US and were forced to adopt their political system and have been convinced that maintaining these systems is in their interests. This also means that these countries feel like they are ‘sovereign’ when they are really not.

None of this means the U.S. couldn’t dismantle the alliance systems if it wanted.

Australia’s no 1. trading partner is China. However, Australia cannot move closer towards China due to the political implications that will cause from the USA.

What China’s trading relationship will be with the Anglosphere and Europe over time remains to be seen, it’s probably one of the more interesting political topics right now. However, Australia doesn’t necessarily need to expand its relationship with China for more growth. Southeast Asia and some other places are growing markets.

I can’t imagine Latvians shaking down foreign governments/banks demanding payment for land they never owned, money from accounts that weren’t theirs, or art deals which failed to make a profit during the Great Depression.

Here is a Prager graphic that is an effective counter.

PEACE 😇

All of this sounds eugenic.

From an economic and geopolitical perspective, “the West” is not a useful analytical framework. The United States is a category of its own, and Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are all in a different position compared to Europe, itself a broad category(my definition of “Europe” here would not include Russia). For Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, look at those countries resource bases, who their primary trading partners are, and what location they are in. You will find they are not like the integrated trading economics of western Europe. When people speak of “the West” collapsing, unless their theory is based on something like a cultural collapse(caused by wokeism or something) or a world war that particularly damages both Europe and North America, it’s probably better not to lump so many countries together. They are in different positions. There is a strong case to be made, at least from an economic and geopolitical angle, that what we call “the West” is really just a Cold War alliance system that could be dismantled at any time without causing drastic changes in all of the countries.

Personally I think “great reset” is more marketing term than reality. To the extent elites actually believe it, I take that as further evidence their incompetence has reached the point that they believe their own bullshit. “Fourth Industrial Revolution” is an old idea, and a half-baked idea about how to deal with declining TFR across the world. All signs point to slow progress in automation(although as always, there are fields which will be exceptional). Green technologies are dubious from an environmental and engineering standpoint, and what declines in carbon emissions that occur because of them will be more than offset by economic growth and the resulting increases in consumption around the world(and in case it needs to be said, if you want to deal with environmental problems like species extinctions for example, fighting carbon emissions is one of the least effective methods). Efforts at “better” governance metrics, equitability, world government, etc. are pure bullshit which no strong country would have any incentive to abide by. My conclusion is that the great reset is either bullshit or it’s the system eating itself.

It’s true that many interests want to push the idea that people should accept inferior living standards. But this is nothing new, and it remains to be seen how far this idea can be pushed without damaging the elites themselves and bringing about a reverse of policy. If living standards decline massively, the cause will likely either be a destructive war or technological stagnation rather than an engineered policy.

Unfortunately, we don’t execute minors in the United States, so these two will probably cause more problems in the future.

Anyone remember the retarded boomer conspiracy of Michelle Obama being a man? It’s basically been removed from Google. Searching for “Michelle Obama man” used to give a bunch of funny results on it. But now the only results I get on the first page is either unrelated or about debunking it.

Not that this subject is any important but it’s just another example of search results being tampered with by Google. In the last few years Google has clearly taken a very active approach in doing this. On Yandex on the other hand you can still find a bunch of “Michelle Obama is a man” links.

Sorry, I think turban wearing is a sign of foreignness and the worst sort of non-conformity. Such people should be banned from any sort of public work as a matter of principle.

I have no problem with men carrying knives, although I think blacks should not be allowed.

But desire to control things drives them to promote weakness and rationing rather than human glory and that is frustrating.

I think they simply believe that they have no other option left, that every other probable development is either a dead end or an outright catastrophe. You have mentioned Space exploration, I believe that one of the pieces of the puzzle is that we will probably be not ready for a massive space exploration program for at least a couple more generations. If we keep business as usual during that period we will screw up the biosphere beyond repair and make our very biological survival as a technological civilization very uncertain. To jump start this type of Space program, we require a World Government and a totalitarian system. To survive as a civilization until we get to acquire the ressources from our solar system we need to cut the consumption of the global (mostly Western) middle class. We need to reorient completely the Capitalist system towards producing long term strategic outcomes instead of short term gains. This is our global Perestroika: an attempt to ensure our survival as technological civilization until we reach the Space Age.

Hostilities can be avoided if Putin would get one of his spies in the Ukraine gov’t to locate all the dirt they have on the Biden family and publish it.

The uproar it would cause in the US would take everything else off the radar. Maybe we could even get some prosecutor to cause Hunter to go to jail and then have Hunter rat out the president forcing Biden to pardon himself and his kin. Wouldn’t that make a wonderful international scandal?

Appearances can be deceiving. Currently the fastest non-black in 100m is a Canto:

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

Su’s best time in 100m is 9.91, in comparison, fastest white guy is Lemaitre at 9.92

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

Here he is next to Usain Bolt

This account would be more convincing 20 years ago. Today, nearly a quarter of men have not had sex at all over the last year. Are you going to argue this state of affairs is because of rational choice and individualism? Many of the trends now are bad for society and the individual.

Modern society has seriously fucked up incentives. A good start to changing incentives would be to eliminate practices that delay young people’s transition into adulthood. Sitting around all day playing video games or partying all the time is bad, but on this account so is having to get a degree before getting a decent job(actually it’s worse because it’s dysgenic).

This same person – and others such – also rail against the alleged tribalism and nepotism of Indian Americans as a reason for them making it, entirely ironically missing their own extreme tribalism – and deep ignorance – in making these comments.

You’re arguing here that people who object to Indian nepotism are themselves nepotistic. This is a classic Freudian tactic. If someone says something homophobic that must mean they’re a closeted gay.

Accusing Indians of tribalism is one of the weaker insults hurled at them. That’s going easy on them. I would accuse the Indian diaspora of being parasitic, unscrupulous, cowardly, corrupt, and shameless. Tribalism is low on my list of complaints against them.

So one then is to believe that Sundar Pichai became head of Google because Larry Page, Sergei Brin, Eric Schmidt et al were crypto-Indians. Similarly with Satya Nadella who was personally groomed by Bill Gates and turned Microsoft around after the disastrous Steve Ballmer. And apparently scientists like these 12 Indians deeply involved in NASA Mars missions https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/meet-the-indians-on-the-mars-perseverance-team/ar-BB1e4aye got their jobs (and many accolades) simply because JPL is sone Indian stronghold (rather than one that attracts highly motivated, intelligent scientists worldwide. There are many other nationalities who also work at JPL).

These same commentators would rail against Wokeism – which is identity politics run amok for the benefit of grifters and power hungry opportunists of all colors – but then apparently objective merit based achievements in the US – which they would otherwise support – in which both EA and SA (Indians) are over-represented is due to “nepotism”.

Silicon Valley Jews hire Indians because they’re a useful golem against white people.

You are simply picking a select number of accomplished individuals and implying they represent Indian people as a whole. What does the ability of 12 NASA scientists tells us about the ability of Indian-Americans in general? Not much. You do realize this method of yours is not any more informative than the one you are attributing to others, namely stereotyping all Indians based on how India as a whole appears. Among Indian Americans, gas station owners or restaurant owners are more representative than the select people you are mentioning.

Also, what is it with online Indians always lumping themselves in with East Asians? I have never in real life come across the idea that these two groups of people are similar, yet often I see online Indians trying to piggyback on East Asian accomplishment. People used to accuse the poster Thomm of being Indian, one time I saw him doing the same thing, so now I also believe he is Indian. Newsflash guy, East Asians in the U.S. also have the same complaint about Indians. Look up Ryu vs Intel Corporation if you don’t believe me. In contrast one of the most common stereotypes about East Asians in the U.S. is that they don’t cause any trouble(the others are that they study too hard, are passive, worship money, and are good at math).

It’s not just the nepotism either. Indians doctors are overrepresented among medical fraudsters and pill mills. Indians have extremely low civic engagement. Some Indians, like Sikhs for example, demand society accommodate their foreign customs. There is also the simple fact that large numbers of the Indian diaspora are openly anti-white.

I won’t go into your point about meritocracy. Ron Unz himself has written good articles on the subject which I recommend you read.

Clearly family based businesses, like small shops or motels etc are “nepotistic” in the same way that any privately held organization – eg the Trump Organization – is nepotistic. (Even publicly owned businesses eg Ford, Walmart were nepotistic and indeed quite exclusionary to people of the wrong color for quite a while. THAT apparently is not nepotistic or tribal.

Nepotism can extend to any form of social organization. Knowing the right people is one of the more surefire ways of getting a job. This creates ample opportunity for favoritism. Mencius Moldbugman describes Indian practice better than I:

Indian worker thread

Recently, great twitter account @qin_duke tweeted about avoiding companies that have high levels of Indian management. I’d like to expand on this… https://t.co/6FHtQDJ5oa

— Mencius Moldbugman (@moldbugman) June 10, 2019

Reading this blog then has reinforced my observation about many people: that they can be highly intellectual and discerning about certain topics but fall back into primitive drooling tribalism and idiocy outside their topic of expertise. In other words, the logic, commitment to reason and inquiry they display in their area is cast aside in favor of their raw emotions and deep prejudices outside it.

Or maybe people have come into contact with real life Indians and know how they operate, especially when there are large clusters of them.

Agreed. Actually it was this passage: “Fighting is rare and, far from being a manly exchange of blows, is waged girl-wise, with scratching and hair-pulling” that most stood out to me as being based upon Cantonese people.

A general rule of thumb for China is that the more west you go(also true of border regions), the more lawless and crazy it is, the more north you go, you get people who are taller and more extroverted, nationalistic, and heavy drinkers. In the southeast, you get shorter, more business-oriented people who know how to bend every single rule. This is a crude generalization with many exceptions(people from Hunan for example are quite nationalistic), but as a crude stereotype it works.

Most people’s stereotypes about Chinese are based on their observations about people from Guangdong/Hong Kong and Fujian. So they sometimes have views about the Chinese which are exaggerated.

That sounds like a description of Cantonese people. Northern Chinese are not like that in my experience.

No people in the world are as conscious about skin color as Indians* are, so your point rings hollow. You are either a master of irony or are totally clueless about people and how they behave.

*ok Chinese women are an exception

Interesting how people refuse to consider nepotism as a factor instead of IQ. If this is true why aren’t WASPs as overrepresented as Jews, considering that Episcopalians actually have a slightly higher IQ than Jews?

Well, was it? British did things to the Irish that could be called “blood thirsty murder and genocide”, why should they not remember it?.

False.

Indian-American IQ is higher than White IQ and even higher than East Asian IQ.

Citation needed.

and Anatoly Karlin previously mentioned seeing a lot of South Asian people… in Poland on his visit there

Disgusting!

…South Asian (i.e. Indians): 0,93%

Over 4,000 Indians – they should be kept safely under 1,000. I had two Indians from France assigned to my team…they immediately tried to move their families from India to Prague, constantly complained about lack of “veggie” food, investigated social benefits (we tracked them), and were useless, probably with fake diplomas that is very common among Indians.

As all Indians do, they constantly complained about Prague and “racism”. Their suppressed hatred of all white people and self-loathing was palpable. After a few months we sent them back to France and they never asked us to take more. Poland needs to watch out, they have targeted it as an easy mark.

I am not sure I can agree. I do not remember voices on the Right that would advocated strong countermeasures except for stopping flights from China. No voices about stopping flights from Italy.

Are SJWs still a thing? I remember they were big on campuses around 2015 but I didn’t think they still existed.

Is inbreeding increasing among third worlders? Given the rates of urbanization, I would expect inbreeding to decrease over time in most populations. So I think AK’s points will increasingly apply in the third world even if what you say is right.

While there are some people who may obsess about Jews and overemphasize them in some contexts, on wokeness you cannot ignore the Jewish question and expect to make a thorough analysis.

AK has called whites “sub-human” because of failed COVID prevention measures. I wonder if he is considering revising his statement. Nordicists again appear to be correct.

Indians should be ethnically cleansed from all of Southeast Asia.

So are we going to count urban liberal Dutch who disliked the Boers also as part of Anglo supremacy? Are international sanctions against Apartheid South Africa part of Anglo Supremacy too?

Since Bashibuzuk wants to emphasize Anglo elites, I will point out that the President of South Africa who oversaw the end of Apartheid was the Afrikaner F.W. de Klerk.

Brainless, irrelvant, statistically unproven nonsense. Not as nonsensical as “typical Galician culture” videos – but quite close. America fertility is declining at higher rate than all other western countries and current levels outside of blacks and hispanics for US are hard to estimate.

The U.S. tracks births by race, so I think we do have accurate measures.

I think everything else you said in the post is right on the money.