Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
Hello back frens
User ID: 2022
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
29d ago
And as a source, I'd point to the massive free-market demand for urbanization implied by unfulfilled immigration kept under control by legislative fiat.
Im not sure why you interpret demand for immigration as demand for urbanisation. Mexicans wanting to urbanise can move to mexican cities - and prefering US cities of mexicans ones is not demand for urbanisation. And besides, the limiting factor for american city growth are city-level laws, not the US population.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
30d ago
To maintain the analogy, you can leave any time and start something new elsewhere with your savings. I imagine there would be a constant trickle of people trying that, but if it keeps failing... whites accepting that theyre not on the Cosmic Task anymore is going to be a big change either way, who knows how it ends. That doesnt really depend on living there though, just the existence of that state.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
30d ago
Seconding this as an austrian. About 1/3rd of my history school time was spent on the nazi era, and Ive never heard about the soap, the lampshades mentioned below, or anything of this sort. Just the gas chambers a bajillion times over.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
They could get away with a tactical nuke, it's just that doing so would incur various costs.
Yeah I was to vague about this. Of course they wouldnt be strategically nuked back. What I meant is that it might have been viewed a lot more like doing the same thing with conventional explosives (modulo radiation).
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
The Russians have secured a swathe of territory in Donbass, they took Mariupol.
Yes, but in the hypothetical different nuclear equilibrium, they wouldnt get to keep it.
I think there must be some concrete reason why all the powers invest so much into conventional forces
The purely nuclear equilibria have very sharp rules. If theres a situation where neither party is allowed to nuke, its a free win for whoever invested in conventional forces. It cant actually, realistically happen outside a toy example world set up with it. In the cold war, I think neither party would have been willing to nuke over losing individual european satellites that somehow happen without a general attack.
I think youre just not confident enough because this mechanism is new to you. Start out small in using it. My example was chosen for illustrating what sort of thing I mean, not for being convincing. Something more realistic might be e.g. the discussions early in this war whether Russia could get away with a "tactical" nuke - they propably cant, but there may well have been a world where they could.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
Are those [racial group] in [percentile] or [percentile] among [racial group]?
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
What are you basing this on? I dont really know much in that regard, but e.g. noone has air superiority in the current war, and thats something I would think the europeans are good at. Of course, a lot of european countries just arent that big individually, and certainly Germany would need time to get its infantery running, but getting overwhelmed? And France has nukes.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
Whites are even wealthier than ever.
Have any numbers on that?
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
GDP graphs of mentioned african countries. Botswana sure has a good thing going, not much else to see. If whites in Namibia or Zambia are noticable better off for their approach, this would have to come out of increased inequality rather than higher productivity.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
It gets better. And better. Unfortunately the data for Venezuela ends in 2014 when they transcended economic reality.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
"To be fair", I wouldnt have known thats what LCU means either. What is rather strange is seeing SA above USA even today, and not at least checking that.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
I agreed that theyre relevant, the question is why theyre relevant, and I think the reason for that is in large part "thems the rules".
He who is not willing to send out his tanks for victory is surely not willing to burn his cities for victory.
Thats true, in the world where actually sending out tanks gains you things. If it didnt, youd just be smart not to send them. So this explains why the rule of respecting conventional gains persists - thats different from explaining why its there in the first place, which is because thats how it worked historically.
It would be rather obnoxious for the US to suddenly demand
Of course, because that would be against the rules. As I said, you cant just change those "because I said so". The "constructed" reasons Im talking about are not something that adds on top of or conflicts with game theory - they show up directly in your judgements of whats reasonable and credible. These judgements cant be derived purely from military capability.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
How did you get the idea that that is or is claimed to be the goal?
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
I guess I expected something stronger. Im from Austria, and we also were and are nominally obligated to be neutral since the end of allied occupation - but in practice, we were and are a western country. Our neutrality is great, we used it as an excuse far more than it stopped us from doing things we want - many americans wont even know it exists. But for that same reason, I doubt this kind of neutrality is much of a concession. Propably NATO Ukraine is equally achievable.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
The additional fact that Russia has been deliberately and freely embracing "grey zone" tactics to achieve their goals (little green men, online astroturfing, etc.) should work against their credit, not in their favor.
I think a lot of this is just how soft power looks when the enemy does it. The russians of course have their narrative about colour revolutions, and the recent USAID cuts have certainly found a lot of direct state involvement in "independent media". Theres arguments that ours is in some way legit and theirs manipulation, but thats far too deep into the ideological weeds to be the basis of a diplomatic rule.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
The "ideal" outcome would probably be a return to pre-war Ukrainian borders or similar, and a somewhat neutral Ukraine.
How do you intend to achieve a neutral Ukraine? The ukrainians can decide to be pro-western without our consent, and as things stand it seems that they would.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
the constructivists think that the struggle for power is just a social construct that can be undone with nagging, sanctions and judicious use of force
Actually existing constructivists are batshit, which is too bad, because the first-principles logic of realism really is fake, and in the MAD world it was created to explain its more fake than ever. Theres no reason why something like e.g. current front lines should matter to a settlement between nuclear powers, beyond historical ones. And yet it does matter, and you cant unilaterally do away with it either.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
There's so much evidence for it that it could only be wrong in some weird scenario like being a brain in a jar who is being fed completely fake information about the outside world.
The difference is whether your decision is based on predictions. At least thats what I think, because the level of certainty you describe is wildly off-base for predictions about the outcome. There are good reasons of course not to act based on situation-specific predictions in conflict, so maybe a better question would be: Is there any outcome that would change your mind about how to approach future conflicts, not involving Russia or Ukraine?
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
but I think we can both agree that it's almost certainly highly correlated with ΔGDP PPP
Yeah, I think the best approach here is to find some multiplier for GDP to estimate total surplus, maybe with detailed economic study of some sample branches, and then just use that multiplied ΔGDP - his wage. GDP already includes native wages as well, so well never need a decision on that effect in isolation.
Look-- do you actually live in a city?
The entire country of Austria has 8M inhabitants. Our biggest city is Vienna, 2M. The others are all below 0.5M. So, I would say I live in a city, but its propably Bumfuck, Alabama by your standards. But I dont think the facts here are especially inaccessible to outsiders. Really, smaller cities usually densify more from growth than large ones.
There's no fundamental difference between types of immigration
...and that is why the entire US population lives in one contiguous metro area. Or does it? What you initially described was something pretty specific: an entire industry concentrating in one place, benefitting from a unified pool of workers. That effect is real, if IMO not very strong at the relevant margin, and really does require international immigration, because the US alone couldnt produce tech workers for the whole global tech industry without serious quality loss.
Meanwhile, there are great returns to urbanisation if you start out evenly distributed, but that doesnt mean of anything in our actual situation.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
Silesia is in south-western Poland. Schleswig seems to have its own name in english.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
I think rao is wrong.
This seems like the wrong way around. Supposedly, status comes from other people appreciating/having use for/wanting to be allied with you, and then that is aggregated over the other people to get a status-point-total. But then, its obvious why this would break down when zoomed in: the reality are just various instances of people wanting stuff from each other, so maybe in my current situation, the „lower-status“ person really is more important to me.
But venkat starts out with the total ranking of status, and anything going against it must be some sort of collective delusion. Its like starting out with market prices, and concluding that no transaction can ever be mutually beneficial.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
This is really vague, but: The Saudis do a good job not being of our age, Im not so sure theyre great at being in it. Primitive peoples encountering civilisation generally fall for scams. It doesnt help all that much if its the distrustful kind of primitive - the problem is lack of understanding, not a directional error. The Saudis are definitely out of the scam phase - the next one is "failing in society", which they dont because they sit on the oil, but Im not sure they personally are really well equiped. Im not sure they really could be without assimilating more - those parallel societies in the west still move, well, in parallel to mainstream society.
In this context, "justifications" work to some extent just by being restricted. It is in fact possible to have ambitions which are neither in line with international norms nor unlimited conquest, and thats what hes arguing.
Russian goals from here may be achieved by instating a puppet government in Ukraine that they support against enemies internal and external. I think this wouldnt make an important difference, and hasnt been raised as an option largely because everyone agrees with me. In fact, Russia only annexed the northern parts of their defacto 2014 conquest sometime into 2022 - which seems to me like they calculated better odds of keeping it from doing so at that point.
There is a difference between that and Iraq, which can be seen from how quickly the US let their client collapse again among other things, but Afghanistan seems like its getting there. Whats the difference between indefinite occupation and annexation, especially for a non-democratic state?
More options
Context Copy link