Immediate_Bit
6d ago
I don't think you have grounds to deport the ancestors of slaves, but you do have grounds to deport recent immigrants who were brought in under cynical circumstances or who have stronger allegiances to foreign governments/populations than they do their new nation.
You don't need to eliminate the burden. You simply need to manage its size.
I just had this thought of moving to China one day to get away from Brazil like conditions and getting bullied by Chinese for being from a retard nation that destroyed itself with immigration.
The liberalism of Jews is an interesting connection, because is it their will-to-power driving them towards the dominant ideology like other elites (in which sense they are captured) or is it because they support liberalism because it promotes Jewish interests (much easier to compete in a society as a Jew if you don't have compete with White enthnonats coordinating against you)?
I think in the Palestinian question, liberalism hurts them as they are simply another Right wing apartheid state that progressives want to crush (continue the march of Unitarianism). White enthnonats would not much care if they seized all Palestinian territory and paid them to leave (might trigger a local Middle Eastern war, I know). Conflicting incentives all round.
Immediate_Bit
6d ago
There is a sense of victory in that, even in a troll post, people have to quite accurately reflect our views.
Immediate_Bit
6d ago
This is correct. Jews do what Whites are culturally not allowed to do: leverage their ingroup bias to help one another in society. You can understand why they do this but this is going to make them unpopular.
Any acknowledgement of this begs the question: should Whites be doing the same? Obviously Jews don't want this and progressives don't want this understood as a (justifiable) tit-for-tat behaviour.
Immediate_Bit
7d ago
There is a way to test this, though I'm not sure he would submit to it: https://reactionaryblog.substack.com/p/using-fmri-to-remove-gays-and-paedophiles
Immediate_Bit
8d ago
Piers is an entertainer. He's not that smart, but that works because the audience isn't. He's plays a normal person's caricature of a smart person. His main appeal is he's non-threatening.
Immediate_Bit
8d ago
Many people view themselves highly until they actually have to do something.
Immediate_Bit
12d ago
The buttlicking superiors and lording over subordinates is really pernicious because whites hire them (especially the competent ones) and are impressed by how energetic and agreeable they are. But beneath them is a very different experience. People who buttlick expect the same from their subordinates and when they don't get this they are not pleased.
Immediate_Bit
12d ago
I was going to add some observations but they've already been pretty well made by others.
What I would say is, if freedom of association was real, what is the tax you would pay to work in an organisation without Indians? 5% of salary feels too low. 10% feels slightly high. But if the choice was an organisation with 100% Northern Europeans and one 50/50 Indians and Europeans, I'd take the 10% hit in a heartbeat.
Immigration is interesting because when you have a few token people from different countries, especially if well selected, it is very interesting. But as soon as you have lots of them it is shit. Really is a dose makes the poison.
My very spicy take on immigration is that it is basically "retard colonialism" where you take the people but not the land.
People are always trying retarded shit to see what they can get away with. I think with modernity you just see the enforcement incentives are very different to smaller tight-knit communities. Everyone has so little to gain, and there are so many more interactions, and it is hard to coordinate because people are more atomised, and the person you are trying to enforce the norm on can just tantrum and you have to deal with that.
I think this "humour my bullshit or I'll throw a tantrum" is always present, just harder to enforce against in modernity. So you get a race to the bottom.
This problem is much less bad in rural areas due to this dynamic.
Also the elderly. I can see the tendency but they have grown up in a world where they feared repercussions if they did this.
I'm moving to a new area that will have a lots of agricultural development which will greatly boost the economy of the area. What would be some good businesses to get involved in this kind of place? Not a wealthy place. GDP per cap US$4k and population low 6 figures. Year round hot climate. Projects planned could increase local economy by multiples over time.
Immediate_Bit
1yr ago
He's not that serious. And he especially doesn't want to do things that will create personal risk for him or his family. He'll happily make friends with neocons that now he has the top status job; so long as they stay loyal to his image. He'll go for the easy wins. The hard wins will be ignored. Constitutionally, I don't think he cares at all about the hard wins. He just sees them as a bad investment.
Immediate_Bit
1yr ago
I don't like people using JVN's stance on pre-emptively striking the Soviets to dunk on him. People who were close to the action in the cold war have said they thought there was a 1/3-1/2 chance of nuclear use during the conflict.
It would be pretty easy to use nuke's in a limited manner as a warning to force a surrender. You could tell them what cities were going to be hit in advance to evacuate them or even do it in an unpopulated area so they can see the damage level and extrapolate from there. Half a dozen such strikes could have done it.
Immediate_Bit
1yr ago
It's more that there aren't buttons you can push in without affecting everything else. The signalling systems aren't anything like a computer where there is one variable for each discrete thing. If a molecule has one major effect you can ride off and only a few other minor effects you are very lucky. Often molecules have different major effects in different parts of the body because their release is isolated. But they usually also just regulate multiple important things simultaneously, so with GLP-1's you see a lot of GI side effects. You're not pushing a button that decreases appetite, you're pushing a button that greatly upsets the entire downstream digestive process.
Immediate_Bit
1yr ago
Agree it's what it would require.
It'd be interesting because I think the result would actually be to bring America to EU style price controls. I imagine the intelligensia is more in favour of the socialist price controlled system than the US one. The big loser would be pharma RnD (and stock prices). It is crazy the extent to which the US subsidises pharma RnD for the rest of the world. I saw a graph showing pharma investment returns slowly projecting down over time, reaching 0% around 2020 then going negative. I think this is based off a low-hanging-fruit theory and the data supports it.
On Ozempic I am rather bearish. There are very few buttons in the body which can be pushed for gain without many side effects. It sort of violates a no-free-lunch theorem (which I do believe in) regarding pharmacology. I think over time many people will decide the side effects aren't worth the benefits for them and the positive effects are actually quite modest when viewed in their totality.
I have actually seen some things which violate this no-free-lunch recently. Follistatin gene therapies appear to boost muscle mass, QoL and maybe longevity (30% boost in mice). This counts for me; even though it's not a drug it's a single protein and it's impressive you can get so many positives boosting one thing. There will likely be others along this line, but I don't imagine too many being available.
Immediate_Bit
1yr ago
I believe this was written by an LLM.
FWIW I will still add my thoughts. The failing of psychiatry/psychology is in the categorisation of extreme personality differences as disorders. These are not actually disorders but phenotypes. The narcicistic personality, the sociopath, the psychopath, the high functioning autistic etc. are adaptive personality niches. The 'disorder' aspect comes in when the phenotype is so strong that the person cannot break the trait even when they are overwhelmingly incentivised to do so. But this applies just as strongly to say cowardice, which can be beneficial in certain circumstances and detrimental in others. The person who is constitutionally this way won't summon up the courage when it is in there interest but we don't call it a Cowardice Disorder. Likewise, the narcissist may destroy their whole family, but their self obsession may be very effective in pursuing goals that on net promote their reproductive fitness.
My personal issue is any portrayal of these people as victims. They exist as an unfortunate phenotype for society and have been classified as "disordered" due to their propensity to victimise others. I think it is correct to view it as a trait of the person they are responsible for suppressing, and if they fail to suppress it it is fully on them.
A new male lion taking over a pride will massacre all of the previous lion's cubs. Lions don't have personality disorders. They have a distinct phenotype which has been rewarded by natural selection. I think of antisocial human behaviours the same way. This leads to a harsher perspective on punishment.
This is tangential, but I think people underestimate the effect wireheading will play in this. For those unfamiliar, wireheading refers to experiments where rats and people have had stimulatory electrodes inserted into certain parts of their brain and sometimes, due to misplacement in people or correct placement in animals, result in completely addictatory behaviour surrounding the stimulation of the electrode.
We already have this to a large extent in drugs. Anyone with any experience with this knows its incredibly profound the extent to which "push a chemical button" (and a very crude button) changes subjective experience. Societies nearly have (or perhaps have) collapsed under this even with these crude mechanisms which are naturally opposed by evolutionary homeostatic mechanisms.
If we end up with true wireheading a lot of these concerns become redundant. Wireheading without reason is extinctatory so we may see future life as a combination of wireheading with rational self-preservation (in contrast to the self-annihilation of the heroin addict).
A lot of modern suffering is from a brain poorly adapted for modern conditions. Luxury-automated-gay-space-communism is further from the adapted environment. Our experiences with drugs have demonstrated an arbitrariness to experience you can bypass. I think you'll have to be a pretty enlightened creature to overcome the pull of this technology if (or as) it becomes available.
Once this comes online it would greatly affect what you're proposing, but hard to predict timelines.
More options
Context Copy link