@Felagund's banner p




1 follower   follows 12 users  
joined 2023 January 20 00:05:32 UTC
Verified Email


User ID: 2112



1 follower   follows 12 users   joined 2023 January 20 00:05:32 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 2112

Verified Email

I read that as you saying that you think they are acting inconsistently, by wanting European powers to (I don't follow the crusade part) open borders, while simultaneously wanting to keep outsiders away.

I don't find this a compelling narrative. Here's the problems with that I see:

First, I assume you have something similar to "the left is led by Jews, Jews are Israel, therefore, Israel causes leftism everywhere" going on, motivating your saying "what actions have been proposed for Europeans by them." Correct me if I'm misreading you. But I don't think that is compelling, as a lot of leftist influence is not by Jews, and Israel itself is currently not very leftist. So I don't imagine that your typical American (or wherever) Jew is representative of Israel. (Nor should we trust ethnic representation in general; I would not be happy with Karl Marx or whoever being considered a mouthpiece of my personal opinions, just because we're both white.)

Second, Israel is not ethnically homogeneous. In Israel (not Gaza/West Bank), there is still about a fifth of the population who are Arab, who also are citizens, live in Israel, have voting rights, etc. I have not heard anyone propose expelling those 2 million or so people.

Third, the situations are rather different with immigrants. The modal Palestinian is in favor of genociding Israelis. The Palestinians as a people have a history of doing so. I suppose I don't know where you are, but my sense is that that is rather more extreme than the typical group of migrants. My sense is that most people coming to the United States, even illegally, still appreciate the country, rather than being hostile. That may be less true for Europe, but I would still venture that the average immigrant to Europe does not hate the nations in Europe.

Additionally, I'd be curious as to what rules Israel is breaking.

I'm not too huge a fan of what's going myself. I only really see a solution in making all the Palestinians leave, but no one wants them as refugees. But nothing is likely to change while Israel remains in the range of Gazan rockets, and so I don't really know what should be done, exactly.

I suppose it depends to some extent what fluency is, exactly. I'd be very impressed by anyone not a native speaker knowing English as well as I do (and, to be honest, a bit impressed even by native speakers when they know sufficiently obscure words).

I would imagine generating the right word on the spot would be significantly harder than grammar—native speakers can fail to do so, on occasion.

That people would know at most 2 or 3 languages well seems unlikely to me. My guess would be that there would be hundreds of millions of people who are natively bilingual, so surely higher numbers have occurred a bunch of times.

I read you as saying that Israel should be acting differently. Was that a misreading?

If so, what is your proposed course of action for them?

Wait, do you pronounce the punctuation?

What other positions are under consideration?

These would just be legal. They'd be allowed to do it because they're diversifying. They don't have to worry about it because their action fell into one of the exceptions.

At least, that's how I read it.

There are exceptions for:

  • self-testing to mitigate unlawful discrimination
  • diversifying
  • advertising things to underrepresented groups

But I think you're right that what you said isn't any of those?

If the NFL decided they don’t want Catholics playing in their league who do real Catholic things and fired Butker it would cause him real harm.

Of course, he's earned 18 million already, so, assuming he's saved it, he'd still be quite well off.

but I have to admit they have us beat!

Well, except in volume. But yeah, if they all moved here, I assume they'd be downvoted heavily, which is a shame.

It's not about race, it's about politics.

Well, not primarily, at least.

You are against affirmative action in favor of "race-blind meritocracy"

Of course. I am in favor of prosperity. This is how best to get it. (And in favor of fairness, and of good racial relations. This gives that, too.)

You are opposed to being "pro-white" in favor of being "pro-meritocracy"

Mostly? I'm certainly pro-white in that I want white people to do well, that I think we've been the most successful race on earth to date, and think that there are some domains where we may need more advocacy. I'm not in favor of engaging in a process of racial competition and spoils-dividing instead of prosperity/wealth-producing.

You are in favor of national over racial identity

Mostly. But not out of any special affinity for national identity, but because it gives something to unite around. And not strictly opposed to racial identity either, just heavily cautious.

The proper location for identity is in Jesus Christ, of course.

You are an favor of American focus on "dynamism" rather than racial issues

Yes, I want success, not squabbling.

So where's the dissidence? That's just standard boomer conservative. Maybe you believe in race and IQ and hate women, that doesn't make you a dissident it basically just makes you a Republican. A lot of Republicans have low-key or implicit HBD views and similar "edgy" views on gender.

To disappoint you further, I like women. Sure, you've convinced me that racial views don't suffice to make me especially dissident; I suppose, now, I'd rather not be dissident, that it is wrong and counterproductive.

Who are the jews in the dissident right?

Hence, the sheep in wolves' clothing. These people act all based and red-pilled with edgy memes or greek statue avatars, but at the end of the day they basically just support republican talking points, are highly defensive of Jews, and don't really care for white identity politics.

Okay, then, good.

Yes, actually, I do think they should have fostered a white identity rather than incessantly critiqued and subverted it, but that ship had sailed. White Americans gave fealty to Jews in the 20th century, none was given in return. That's how it's supposed to work, you can't demand fealty and give none in return.

Do you support Jews having a Jewish identity? Is that good?

But now I just accept they are a political opposition, which is why this is an important issue, and when anon "dissidents" deny that it's an important issue it's a strong tell they are secretly Jewish.

If by political opposition, you mean across party lines, this is not necessary. Jews are trending conservative as secular Jews lose their Judaism and religious Jews are bearing more children, and after 10/7, many Jews are more wary of the left than before.

and when anon "dissidents" deny that it's an important issue it's a strong tell they are secretly Jewish.

A strong tell? Really?

Well, presumably something more nebulous than that: perhaps trust that God would forgive them, by provision of a substitute, and promises of future blessing.

Yeah, that's true. It's just a foreign way of looking at the world to me, I guess.

"Dissident Right" describes an inertia towards White identity politics.

Ah, I guess you might have a narrower opinion of what Dissident Right refers to than I did, which would explain some of the difference, depending, I suppose, on what exactly you mean by white identity politics. I would have considered HBD-ish views, combined with other edginess (e.g. takes on gender), to be sufficient to be dissident right, even without advocating for a group racial identity.

Personally, I suppose I'm pro-white in the sense that I don't think that we deserve the enmity coming our way, but I do think that the more important unit of opposition isn't really about race but about politics. (In the US. South Africa, for example, may be another story.) I don't think it's healthy to intensify racial division (and Hanania's probably right when he argues that the main impulse behind our current racial tensions is due to black racial grievance), as that leads to more societal dysfunction. That is, I'm in favor of defensive action against anti-white discrimination. I'm neutral about positive racial identity, as a celebration of ancestry, past etc, though I think national pride is probably a healthier way to go about that, if anything. But I'm not in favor of making that anywhere near the key component of identity, nor having tribal-ish racial preferences.

It's not laughable for white people to also adopt an outspoken opposition those who engage in group-motivated political and cultural hostility.

Isn't this already the baseline for politics on the right? Hence the opposition to affirmative action, etc. Can you name a single conservative thinker who is pro-affirmative action?

Again, it would be healthier if this were adopted by being pro-meritocracy, rather than pro-white, although in this case for different reasons. Looking at things in terms of attempting to capture spoils leads to socialism (as the frame is around getting people to give me stuff), whereas we need more of the American focus on excellence and dynamism.

it is incredibly obvious that Jewish political and cultural power is a huge obstacle towards those objectives, perhaps the largest.

Maybe? Although you might rather point to the left in general. But I don't know that I agree with your vision of how society and identity should be shaped anyway, so I suppose I don't see this as a terrible thing.

Jews do not want white people behaving like Jews, and they will flex enormous political, economic, and cultural power to stop it from happening.

When you're obviously racist against Jews, it doesn't surprise me that they're opposed to such behavior. I imagine some events, oh, 80 years ago or so might have had an influence on how they approach such decisions. Do you really think they should be cheering you on as you try to form lines of in-group preference and out-group prejudice with them on the outside?

But in any case, I think your final analogy breaks down somewhat because plenty of people identify as both Jewish and white (indeed, before the recent introduction of the Middle East/North Africa census category, that was the government-approved way for Jews to identify). So then, people having a super-white aesthetic and attracting a white audience using super-white memes could still be Jewish and be doing what they're doing authentically, whereas that isn't possible in your analogy.

What do you make of this tweet from Altman, then?

It's worth noting that the way that this is put in some places (e.g. follow the logic of Gal. 3:10-14) would also imply that those in the old testament would also need Jesus, which makes that particular datum a little less demonstrative.

That said, the conclusion is still correct: people cannot be saved without faith in Christ, and the church is the continuation of Israel as God's people on earth.

Why are racist Jews not part of the dissident right? Unless you make the Jewish Question the single thing that matters? This is rather laughable to me.

I don't care about the Jewish Question. Sure, Jews are overrepresented. Sure, there's probably some mild level of in-group preference or elitism somewhere, although much of the overrepresentation is probably just due to high IQ combined with whatever cultural factors lead to more ambition. But, really, why should I care? Whatever's happening is surely not at the scale that it would have much of a concrete effect on my life. I've liked most of the Jews I've met.

(And since you say that everyone who ignores or countersignals the Jewish Question is automatically coded as Jewish, no, I'm not Jewish, though for full disclosure, I think one of my grandparents said I may have had trace levels of Jewish ancestry.)

A few times over the years I've seen people share their lists of their all time favorite Motteposters. Some names are expected, other names make me go "...wait, what? That guy? Why?".

Now I'm interested: who are your top three? (And, anyone else who reads this, yours too.)

I'll go with:

@faul_sname (often does detailed or technical work to figure out what's actually true, which we can always use more of, while still staying easy to read)

@Soriek (for those international posts, once upon a time)

And, ehh, I'll throw in @hydroacetylene because of the high volume of (generally decent) comments and being on the more wholesome Christian side of the forum.

I don't think so. I think the threads drive engagement, as people have to scroll past things instead of just skim the titles (To echo @Fruck). I personally am more likely to give things in the megathread a chance than top level posts already, I think, so the effect is real.

It seems risky to change the core of how the site runs, in any case.

I'm going to get accused of being a "Putinist" surely, but Russia is not waging a war of annihilation.

Well, except that they're both losing much of their youth to combat and emigration.

So it could be an attractive short term play for a certain "Pay me now" segment of the population.

And a terrible long term one. This does not belong in the Overton window.

What I've been saying here all along that within this new landscape of worldwide fiat currencies MMT is the only way to play.

Let me try to understand your model. You are saying something like: the US prints money to buy foreign goods. (Or alternatively, buys loans which it expects to finance by printing money later.) The net effect of this is that we have more goods in the US.

Two thoughts on this:

High inflation is risky, because that could affect how desirable dollars are, which could be bad for trade.

Inflating currency doesn't increase purchasing power, if ownership of it is distributed the same way as before. So if I understood your model rightly, that you want to use it buy foreign goods and services, then the inflating part isn't relevant so much as the spend a lot of money on foreign goods part. But I don't think there's really any reason to spend more resources (Yes, resources. They'll use those dollars, or at least, many of them, if they're not sitting in a foreign exchange reserve or something. And if in a foreign exchange reserve, it's only in expectation of future value, that is, resources.) on foreign goods rather than on development of US resources and investment into our own economy. So why not just let the price system allocate things efficiently, as it will tend to, rather than attempt to force things with government spending funded by a tax on dollars?

What do you think of all the places that decided to hyperinflate their currency? Did it work out well for them?

You don't go back to a gold or crypto deflationary hoarding mentality where the economy is constrained by tokens of wealth.(This caused a few major problems in the past if you recall)


You treat money like what it is, an idea to be experimented and played with for the betterment of your country, to get the most real resources for the least value in return.

Sure. That's just not what your policy does, I don't think.

But in order to sell promises and get real goods, you need promises to sell. Promises are expectation of future goods. If you don't uphold those, you'll have to stop selling promises. This makes it harder to get the real goods you want, since you can no longer just offer promises and then pay them back.

Promises are better—that is, you can trade them for more—the more trustworthy you are. Being more profligate with your promises than you can afford tanks the value of your promises and makes it harder to keep getting those real goods from them.

Worst case you just inflate the pain away.

This is precisely where the problem lies. Yes, you can always just inflate it away. The problem is that this has harmful effects. Namely, a change in trade balance. A high inflation rate will mean nobody wants their wealth in dollars, worldwide. A lot of dollars are overseas. For the past while, we've been able to get more stuff from importing than we export, because everyone wants dollars. This is great. Just now we're at a spot where if that changes, suddenly the economy will be a lot worse, as everyone tries to shed dollars, making everything more expensive in dollars, beyond just the direct effect of the increased money supply on inflation. Because the whole US runs on dollars, dollars going down relative to the world economy beyond just the direct effect of inflation is bad. It becomes harder to buy anything, especially things made overseas.

A lot of countries have tried "inflate the pain away." How did it work for them? (Hint: pretty disastrously)

Yes, they didn't control the world's reserve currency. But give the US dollar enough inflation, and it will no longer be the world's reserve currency, as everyone drops it.

How much of current AI work can be traced back to Yudkowsky influencing people to work on AI?

I was trying to explain to friends who the guy is, but I don't quite have a sense of the scope of his influence.

I think there just aren't that many people who would try.

So you're saying, yes, the move is to pressure others to buy US debt or otherwise prop up the otherwise insolvent US government.

I'm afraid I mostly didn't track what you were saying in that second-to-last sentence.

worthless promises

Promises only have worth because they can be trusted.

Sure, debt's just a human construct. But it's one that we currently depend on heavily in order to do things. Like, yeah, we can just not pay people (ignoring the constitution for a second), but then we'll have a harder time raising enough money to do things, because they won't trust the US's promises. (And yes, you can do things without money, but money's kind of how our whole economic system runs, and it's hard to have efficient alternatives.)

If we have the raw resources and the might to decide how they get divvied up, the rest is just semantics.

To be clear, you're recommending something like a tribute system, since you've mentioned the military? Or is this just divvying up domestic goods? The US is a net importer, I believe. (And incentivizing new innovation and production is an important role of an economic system beyond just dividing existing goods.)