I agree. There aren’t many Mormons in NYC (actually I grew up with a few and they have quite a strong network in finance, but the absolute number is low) and I highly doubt Trump is aware of Mormon theology or any differences with mainstream Christianity, and if he was he wouldn’t care. Mormons tell outsiders they are Christians (this is a big part of their missionary strategy) and they believe they are Christians, so why wouldn’t Trump take them at their word? Even many lay American non-Mormon Christians see them as Weird Christians, just like they do Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mennonites whatever.
I don’t think the specific nature of services, which vary hugely by culture and denomination, means much. Modern Mormon services often seem Protestant, as I understand it, but that’s quite temporal. In the 19th century assimilated Jews reconfigured synagogue services to become essentially Christian in the style of the time (adding sermons, adding organs, adding hymns), but they were still Jewish obviously, and some of those things later became less common - and were never common among the very orthodox.
I certainly agree with that. They say Tokyo has excellent French food, although I can’t remember having had any.
There are a literal handful of good sushi places in Budapest, the reality of having to fly in the good stuff does limit you relatively far inland. That said, it might have the cheapest Nobu in the world, which I’ve always found interesting.
Sports franchise revenue (4 of the top 10 games sold every year are EA sports games, pretty much every year) is probably predictable enough to make them comfortable. This will look stupid eventually for the Saudis and Silver Lake, but for now I don’t think it’s a comically bad loan.
For years, Andrew Wilson has been the most personally ambitious chief executive in the S&P 500. A self-made man, he went from small scale producer to CEO of EA, and then set about reverse-merging it into (or otherwise being acquired by) one of the major Hollywood conglomerates. From there, I imagine he would have gone for CEO of one of the FAANGs, or maybe the Magnificent 7 a few years later. Indeed he almost succeeded in becoming CEO of Disney, although Iger ultimately preferred a company man (and then latterly, of course, himself). He tried with several others.
That unachieved, he can at least facilitate (and make no mistake, this is all him) the largest LBO in history. I hope it makes him happy, though for men like him there is always another hill to climb.
Massive Catholic immigration irreparably changed the character, society, and government of the United States. America is lower trust because of it. The new predominantly Catholic voters in the Northeastern cities altered the political balance of the United States. One can go overboard with this (easy to say that Hart-Cellar wouldn’t have happened without major Catholic and Jewish immigration, but similar things happened in various other Northern European Protestant countries that had very little of either), but there is a limit to calling the impact overstated, too. The world of Anglo-America that existed before the 1880s is dead and buried. Old WASP Boston, old WASP New York, old WASP San Francisco, these places are as vanished as Christian Anatolia or Parsi Mumbai; whether through conflict or simple attrition they have ceased to exist. America is lower trust, more violent, more divided and more selfish than it would have been if the mass immigration of 1865-1920 hadn’t happened. For all the talk at how horrified many Founding Fathers would be at the America of 2025, they would have been horrified too at the America of 1925 and its ethnic character.
Nevertheless, Lovecraft’s shrieking aside, it is also fair to say that America is still extremely wealthy, that its greatest global outperformance followed that period, and that in the end those disparate populations still managed to come together and build a relatively well-functioning civilization, at least for a while.
I don’t think Matt Yglesias has a particularly coherent worldview. He certainly has read Sailer, Murray, Yarvin and others. So has Scott, of course, who is also still a liberal if a less confident one than Yglesias.
My guess is that Yglesias accepts that some form of HBD is true but thinks it can be mediated by rapid economic growth, the flynn effect, affirmative action and deciding not to speak about it ever. This isn’t even an uncommon opinion, it was the default view of a large proportion of the American progressive elite between the 1950s and early 1990s.
The decision to integrate coincided with the general decline of religiosity across the western world that followed the 1950s. Only one major Christian movement - American Protestantism - held on long after the others (European Protestantism, Lutheran and other, and Catholicism in general) fell, and that was in large part because of the unique success of the evangelical televangelists and the Christian revival movement of the late 1960s and 1970s, led by extraordinarily capable preachers like Billy Graham and supported by an embrace of modern media and to some extent music. Catholics tried to copy some of this with happy clappy post Vatican II masses and so on, but it never had the same vitality.
The evangelical revival preserved a religious Christian (not social customs; divorce and single parenthood still rose of course) identity among otherwise deracinated American Protestants and the many, many Catholics who converted to it for almost two generations after most Europeans largely abandoned regular churchgoing Christianity. It didn’t really die, not wholly anyway, until the mid-2010s, and even today hangs on due to comparatively higher birth rates and the large scale conversion of Latin American Catholics and their descendants, both in their homelands and in the US.
Catholics didn’t have that, and so a combination of suburbanization due to white flight clearing out the old ethnic neighborhoods and throwing various white ethnics and founding whites together in suburbia and the decline in Catholic mass attendance led to intermarriage and the merging into a shared American identity. Sometimes this is laid at the feet of WW2, but I disagree. The New York or Philadelphia of, for example, 1949 was still very much a place with distinctly separate white ethnic identities. It happened 10-30 years later.
Maybe the TikTok algorithm is advanced enough to know I’m Jewish (I’m not even kidding), but Instagram and YouTube both recommend me by far more overtly anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic content than TikTok does. If anything, I think the Chinese - to avoid entangling themselves not only in foreign conflicts with America but with various other countries besides - have overtly toned down political content on TikTok, whereas Meta and Alphabet (both still controlled by their Jewish founders in terms of voting rights and in Meta’s case day to day leadership) don’t care and no doubt just prioritize by engagement, which necessarily favors political content.
It depends. Annual immigration as a proportion of the total population is low relative to other Anglo countries and most of Western Europe.
It seems to me to be a massive screw up if you do not become a citizen through marriage if you are not already a citizen.
If you’re an illegal immigrant can you easily naturalize by marriage? Presumably you’d have to leave the US (and they would have recorded no exit stamp from his student visa 20 years ago, which means he’d have to pretend he left the country without passing through any controlled emigration point), pretend you’d lived abroad for 20 years, and then apply from abroad for a marriage visa (concocting another fake narrative about how you met).
It’s flawed for sure, but there is substantial anecdotal evidence that the percentage of men willing to engage in homosexual activity, especially in substantially or entirely male communities (men at war, men in prison, all-male boarding schools, male-only religious institutions) is probably higher than the 3-5% estimates of gay men.
Many male porn addicts seem to be in sexually active relationships though. Besides, I don’t think it’s clear that men with trans ‘girlfriends’ couldn’t find female partners, that seems spurious.
My understanding of the data we have on sex and partner count is that you had the sexual revolution in the 60s, which took until the ~late 1970s/early 1980s to filter down into mainstream society. From that point (ie the youth of Gen X) everyone has been having pretty similar amounts of sex. Millennials weren’t much more promiscuous than GenXers, and Zoomers are as or less promiscuous than millennials.
The emergence of apps, online dating, social media, none of these seem to have substantially affected population-level promiscuity, only shifted it. The (heterosexual) people hooking up with dozens of people on the apps are the kind of people who would hang around dive bars and clubs until closing time to pick up the best option left had they been born twenty years earlier.
I think it may be different for gay men, although large parts of that are surely increased social acceptability and the fact that HIV is no longer a death sentence, but even then, my guess is many people racking up 4-digit grindr body counts would have been anonymous bathhouse regulars back in 1977 too.
Trump is a catty queen, which unfortunately only works in politics for men.
I think she has cringe but harmless wine aunt energy, a soft-ish voice, she’s not shrill, she seems somewhat befuddled, she doesn’t seem smart enough to screw you over. I felt sorry for her in some of the bad interviews, whereas I never felt sorry for Hillary.
I think a gay candidate could win a presidential election and I think a woman, including a black woman, could too.
I feel strongly, though, that it’s a question of type. A woman president could be maiden, mother or crone (there are examples of all three winning elections in recent history), but she must across as kind, at least to her allies, and wise. Kamala seemed kind enough, but not wise, and Hillary did not seem kind.
Oprah would win a presidential election for the Democrats. A gay man in the Scott Bessent / Tim Cook mould (soft-spoken but assertive, not necessarily ultra-masculine but not really camp) could win, probably for both the Democrats and the Republicans at this time. I think a gay black man would struggle, although it isn’t impossible. I don’t think a lesbian could win.
As long as the countries of origin stay the same, sure.
Thank you, interesting. The decline hasn’t been as significant as I’d imagined.
What miracles can withstand scientific scrutiny?
Why would anybody take the deal again if you show you don’t follow through?
India is illustrative: they wanted to latch onto Pax Americana and get something out of it; what have they got so far for India proper?
45% of Indians are agricultural workers. In England, that threshold was last fallen beneath around 1675. In America, it happened around 1880. In India, it obviously has yet to happen.
Everything is downstream of this. In the aftermath of independence, the Congress regime (and that is what it was) decided that adopting state-driven industrial policy in the socialist mould was necessary to overcome this. The result was chaos and food insecurity, because the huge mass of rural Indians still had extremely high birth rates. The response, because in a democracy every peasant farmer had a vote, was to invest a huge proportion of the state's resources into incentivizing those peasant farmers with agricultural price floors while also implementing a highly protectionist policy regime that prevented farm consolidation and agricultural efficiency, which in turn prevented urbanization at the degree necessary for the industrial transition.
The % of agricultural workers is the most important metric for understanding India. You can understand nothing without it and understand everything with it. India has a space program and tech outsourcers, but these are the equivalent of the royal astronomer or the imperial library circa 1237; they have not undergone the industrial revolution, let alone anything after that. Imagine a Western country in which peasants obtained universal suffrage around 1400, but which was too large and well-armed to be invaded. This is India. The masses vote themselves the most generous affirmative action policy in the world, with 60% of all government jobs and college places reserved for lower castes and tribes. They vote a huge percentage of the state budget to be devoted to minimum agricultural prices, which make staple crops more expensive in India than they are in the West, and halt mechanization, which further disincentivizes urbanization (because urban workers rely on cheap food). Interstate commerce is guarded by labyrinthine protectionism, all of which leads to the inevitable corruption.
Modi attempted some tiny, granular reforms. Tens of thousand of haggard peasant smallholders marched on Delhi. The Supreme Court, the only true authority in India, stayed and then forced the repeal of the laws (which the government happily accepted) for reasons of social order and societal stability. But India's problems aren't a result of any allegiance with America, which is limited enough as it is (it is if anything closer to Russia).
No. I don't understand. Why? What happens to the US that did not "win"? Unlike the USSR, China doesn't even have a messianic revolutionary project.
We are, of course, in agreement here.
I doubt it was more than about 200,000. 3 million was obviously laughable. Aerial footage suggests fewer than at some of the largest Gaza protests, which police estimated had ~300k protesters. The largest ever protest in the UK was against the Iraq War, police estimated 750,000 people attended, there was little aerial footage but from some pictures of the route it does appear substantially larger.
A big part of the problem with Western modernity is universal human rights, not in a “some people shouldn’t have rights hahahaha” shitposting way, but in the sense that some people struggle to function in modernity and must, for their benefit and the benefit of wider society, live with a lesser amount of both liberty and responsibility.
We understand this in some cases, people with down’s, late stage dementia, low-functioning autism. But those one or two cognitive steps above them have been granted, by the courts, almost absolute freedom. This was the second components of the emptying of the asylums.
Modernity is complex and confusing, I think Moldbug makes the point that plenty of people who would have been quite capable in historical situations struggle to function in their interactions with the modern state, modern employment market, modern social customs, subtext.
These people don’t deserve to be slaves. They have value as people, and in our materially abundant and prosperous society they should be supported in finding their happiness. But, in their interests and those of wider society, they shouldn’t be as free as us either.
There must be a stage between liberty and being a total ward of the state. A half-freedom.
More options
Context Copy link