functor
2yr ago
that the freedom to refuse service will generally amount the freedom to get out-competed.
People pay a fortune to live in an area with "good schools". Groups that are overrepresented in causing trouble can cost far more money than the revenue they bring in. When I worked in a ghetto the gym I went to had outrageous prices on the door, yet offered discounts to almost every pro social group such as students, office workers, retired people. Basically they priced everyone they didn't want out of the gym.
A handful of crazy people can scare away a hundred mild mannered customers.
functor
2yr ago
The main goal at a major company is to not rock the boat. Companies barely have owners, they have managers with poor job security. The "owner" is a collection of pensionfunds who are run by managers who run a double digit risk of getting fired every year. The higher up management of the company also have below average job security compared to most white collar workers. Compentence isn't the most important factor when it comes to getting promoted at big companies, avoiding scandals is.
The people who succceed in politics and in the corporate world are the people who have an excellent talent for feeling which way the wind blows. A car salesmen will act very differently when a sterotypical biker walks through the door compared to when a vegan feminist walks through the door. These people are tremendously skilled at reading the room. The ability to read the room and adjust accordingly is probably the most indispensable skill if one wants to be highly successful.
This leads to people high in anxiety struggling with what to say when simply agreeing with everyone else in the room is no longer an option.
I am actually surprised at how well right leaning military men have cooperated with the system. The war in Afghanistan ended with large numbers of migrants comming to Europe. Afghans are the second most overrepresented minority in crime stats in Sweden. The war flooded Europe with heroin. What exactly was going to be conserved by that war? What socially conservative agenda was ever going to be promoted by that war? Yet, thousands of right leaning white men volunteered to die or get their legs blown off to defend the military industrial complex and globalization. The war in Iraq caused a million migrants to come to Europe and has been a disaster for the Middle East and Europe. I can't see any socially conservative goal ever have been achieved through that war. Yet, thousands of right leaning white men got killed in Iraq in order for their kids to be in a class full of refugees.
Libya ended with a million migrants a year coming to Europe and a jihadist trained by the UK government killing 22 girls at an Ariana Grande concert.
Taiwan is important because the globalists wanted to dump wages by moving electronics production to a lower wage country. If China tries to take Taiwan, the counterattack that gets mowed down will be manned by conservative white men. Towards the end, a few elite forces will walk over the bodies of dead polish Catholics in order to raise the pride flag over reconquered Taiwan. In the movie, the white men will be replaced by women of colour.
Israel/Palestine is a conflict between those who want Arabs to live where their grandparents live and those who want millions of arabs to move. The same conservatives who say they are opposed to arab migrations will be more fanatically zionist than what is allowed on Israeli TV.
I am nor surprised that the western militaries are skeptical of conservative white men. The shocking part is how loyal they have been.
functor
5mo ago
A lot of the people panicing aren't concerned about bribes and corruption being unconvered. There are plenty of people panicing over that but they are fewer than the number of people freaking out online and those who actually risk having crimes uncovered are probably less vocal. The big fuss is about the recession that is about to hit upper middle class people who only are employable in the public sector. They react in horror seeing George town pol sci graduates being tossed out and told to "learn to code". The Chief diversity officer, or the person with a cushy high status USAID job that allows them to fly business class to Tanzania twice a year doesn't want to learn about all the new exciting opportunities in nursing. This can be compared to the freakout over lots of PMCs being tossed out of twitter. Those people aren't supposed to be treated like factory workers who get laid off.
With 4 years of Trump we could really see a 10-20% reduction in public sector cushy PMC jobs. That is a sizeable downshift in employment equivalent to a proper recession. I would be freaking out as well if I thought it was realistic that there would be a 20% reduction in employment in my field over the course of the next four years.
functor
10mo ago
Labour got fewer votes in this election than the last one. There was no labour hype, there was just a collapse of the tories. Labour got 33.7% of the vote in an election in which the turnout was 60%. About 21% of those eligible to vote voted labour. Among ethnic british people less than 20% voted labour.
functor
5mo ago
The electrical grid needs baseload power. In this graph green represents wind production in Sweden each day. A serverhall or steel mill has a fairly constant consumption rate. During During various Dunkelflautes the wind power production has dropped to low single digit percentages of installed capacity.
Some countries like Norway and Iceland are blessed with boundless cheap baseload power from hydro and geothermal. The rest of us need to create it. Nuclear is reliable, not dependent on weather and provides a stable and green electrical grid. There wasn't a single hour in which Germany's electrical grid was greener than France's last year. France bet on nuclear, Germany on fossil fuels with wind when the weather is good.
Too much focus is spent on electricity production and not enough on the grid. A nuclear powerplant 50 km from a city requires a 50 km cable that is operating at an average of 90-95% capacity. Windpower requires multiple power lines that can be a thousand km long to connect the city to various different wind parks, where it might be windy at different times. This is not green, cheap or efficient.
functor
6mo ago
The idea of filling up your elite with people who left their home land for a better economic deal that isn't even that much better is absurd. The US is filling the upper class who would ditch their culture, homeland, family and friends for 2-3x salary increase. The US elite is going to drift far from the general population if it largely consists of rich arabs, Vietnamese computer nerds, wealth Chinese business people, eastern European jews and other groups who find Milwaukee as relevant as a white guy in Singapore finds Bhutan. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the US is deeply divided when the elite view the country as a vehicle for their own personal success and have no real ties to it.
functor
1yr ago
DEI is the natural state of humanity, the 90s was an extreme outlier. Throughout history humans have always been tribal and worked for their group interests. A group of people working as a group will easily outcompete individuals. Tribes, clans, nations etc exist for a reason. The US is well over 400 years old, not ignoring the first half and ethnic interests were a central part of conflicts throughout nearly all of that. The 90s were an outlier, not the norm even in the US. Go to other parts of the world and democracy simply doesn't work since people vote for their ethnic candidate.
The 90s required the US to be so white enough for white culture to be the norm. The whiteness was implicit and black people were seen as white people with brown skin. This level of implicit whiteness no longer exists.
The 90s came after decades of rising living standards and a high point of the American empire. There was less competitiveness.
The cat is out of the bag and lots of groups have realized that their lobbying gives results. Good luck convincing black people to adopt meritocracy and opposing government transfers of wealth from haves to have nots. If fighting for your group delivers big results, people will do it. Historically people have been more than willing to die for it so expect people to continue to do so.
functor
1yr ago
The original case of feminists revolting against the consequences of the sexual revolution was oversexualization. Back in the 90s I remember feminists railing against women feeling pressured to look good and be sexy as one of their main points. The fact that the world is a zero-sum game and women that show more skin get more attention doesn't seem to register with them. They created a world with no norms or rules for dress, and blame patriarchy for women dressing in the polar opposite way of how the patriarchy wants women to dress.
If women can do whatever they want with their appearance some women are going to realize that translucent yoga pants gets them ahead in life compared to dressing modestly. Being super slim, investing heavily in looks and obsessing over one's instagram can be a better ticket up in life for a young woman than a university degree. When one woman wears a thong bikini to the beach, she gets the attention. The other women follow, and soon the women in a bathing suit looks out of place. The sexual revolution created incentives for oversexualizing oneself, and women followed the winning strategy. The women who don't sleep on the third date and don't post sexy pictures or do conture makeup lose in the heightened competition.
Feminists seem to want to abolish competition and thereby the need for competing. Women can dress how they want, post what they want on instagram and sex themselves up as much as they want. Yet they are not going to use this competitively to try to get ahead. The idea seems to be to blame patriarchy. If men just followed women who dressed modestly and didn't have attractive bodies on instagram as much as they like attractive women, then women could dress like they want and not have to compete. If men's attraction for women was random, women could do what they want and still get an equal opportunities dating market. Their fundamental enemy is that men's preferences are not random.
There seems to be a trend among gen z feminists to simply drop out and embrace the fact that they can't win a zero-sum game. They dress like Billie Elish, have short hair and nose rings and seem to proudly state that they are dropping out of the arms race. Meanwhile, the other half of women are trying to outmanoeuvre eachother by wearing increasingly thin gym outfits.
functor
2yr ago
Sweden takes roughly 100 k migrants per year. That is the equivalent of the US taking 3.4 million. We are taking fewer refugees but are being flooded in nearly every other quota. Combine that with almost no migrants getting deported.
The "right wing" economics in Sweden isn't even really right wing, it is kleptocratic. Sweden has extreme taxes on income yet zero inheritance tax, low corporate tax rates and low capital gains tax. We tax productivity to death while rewarding a rentier class. The right wing policy isn't lowering taxes and market solutions. It is to have high taxes on labour so that the government can buy services from companies. So Svensson pays taxes and companies run schools and hospitals, getting paid for each student or treatment. The companies lay off staff, bring in cheap romanian nurses and slash costs. The government bureaucracy is still in control, as it is the government buying the service with a multi-thousand page contract. The public sector is increasingly being managed by venture capital firms that barely pay taxes. Svensson still pays 50+% in taxes. It combines the worst of both systems.
functor
10mo ago
It isn't an economic issue. It is the UK no longer being British. It is the loss of a people, an identity, a culture och sovereignty. The UK belongs to the people who built it for the past thousand years and those who will inherit it for the next thousand. It isn't up to the current people to give it away to strangers.
functor
11mo ago
Immigration would be really easy to reverse. Start handing out real punishments for hiring illegal migrants. The US is a surviellence state in which the NSA pretty much knows the physical location of every person in real time and spies on all communication. Yet they can't seem to cut off services to people who are in the US illegally.
functor
1yr ago
The state has been far less repressive even in Europe. I am active in the nationalist scene and we use government services as much as possible. Trying to book a hotel is impossible if you are hosting an even to the right of mainstream politics. Booking a government facility is often possible. People get deplatformed from all sorts of private companies, nobody has been banned from the medical system, the water company or the post office. The government has been one of the best employers for dissident right wingers as it is really hard to fire a state employee for political engagements in their spare time.
The corporate system isn't one with set processes or rules. There is no set law for what can be on social media, there is no appeal process and there is no trial. Even with banks accounts just disappear. The state at least operates on laws and procedures. Dealing with private companies is anarchy since they just do whatever they feel like today.
For any system to function it has to be predictable. I would rather have a system that is more repressive but predictable than to have a system in which one has no ability to predict outcomes. A bad contract is often better than a user agreement that can be changed at a whim.
It never made sense for right wing voters to support neo conservatism.
Iraq ended up with a flood of migrants to the west. Afghanistan ended up with a heroin epidemic. Libya ended up with a massive migrant crisis and terrorism. Expanding the empire into Asia turned the American heartland into a rust belt with extreme supply chain vulnerabilities. Expanding the empire into Eastern Europe has caused millions of migrants to come into western Europe while it has depopulated Eastern Europe. Now we risk nuclear war over the council of foreign relations crowd wanting to expand their empire into Ukraine. The result is always the same, a massive failure, vast number of dead people and a migrant crisis. Vietnam ended with boat people, Afghanistan ended with planes exceeding their weight limit due to the migrants, and Ukraine has exported a mid-sized European country worth of migrants.
Also, I deeply disagree with the council of foreign relations mission. I don't want Taiwan to have the values of the NYC elite, I don't want western jobs shipped there, and I don't want an elite that I despise to control even more of the planet. I see blackrock, the council of foreign relations and the Washington elite as my enemy. I don't support the NSA, I don't support the financial system that blocks dissidents, I don't support elites that want the world ESG-rated.
Ukraine is the next nation building adventure disaster. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead and wounded and Ukraine is destroyed. Ukraine is ramming through LGBTQA+ stuff because it is now a colony of the US and it will be forced to adopt the values of its imperial master. Europe once again is flooded by migrants and we now have a country in absolute shambles that we are going to have to nation build. Ukraine's military is 1.5 times bigger than the French military, and building and equipping it with western equipment is going to cost tens of billions if not hundreds of billions every year for multiple decades to come. Defence contractors get their billions, you get lack of resources.
The elites are too focused on their global ambitions that they completely neglect their own country. They seem more interested in creating a global liberal hegemony with values that I despise than actually fixing their own country. Right wing voters have signed up to die for these attempts to spread liberalism across the world and got nothing in return. Thousands of republican voters were killed in these foreign fiascos. In return their neighborhood now has central American gangs who came when the US was going to defeat communism by letting wall street contol latin American economies and cause massive exoduses of migrants.
Brand books are influential. Black people are pushed into every element of culture. Diversity doesn't mean mongolians, it means people who look like and are culturally african American. This is becoming a defining feature of culture in which add campaigns in places that barely have black people are full of them.
It's what agencies are all keen to avoid.
Why is it cheezy to show British people living in Britain? Isn't it more absurd to show it as an African nation? Is it cheezy when Eritreans don't have lots of white people in their adds?
because it's a cheesy "too perfect" stock image.
The photo looks like something from your neighbour's facebook page. The family looks average and it isn't an overly set up shot.
functor
2yr ago
The underlining axiom is that humans are free spirits accidentally attached to a body. The goal of the new religion is to liberate the soul from the constraints imposed on it by being attached to a body. Men and women are just spiritual essences that ended up in different bodies. The difference in outcome can never not be explained by oppression, and this problem will never actually be fixed. Most groundbreaking research will be conducted by men for biological reasons, which will ensure that affirmative action will always be required.
Wokeness is the natural conclusion of civil rights, assuming that humans have no innate qualities. During civil rights it was assumed that as long as opportunities are equal outcomes will be equal. When the reality of genetic differences struck they had to debug the problem and find new forms of oppression to explain the differences in outcome.
functor
1yr ago
In the non digital world there are a lot more checks and balances. Getting a warrant to search a home is one thing, mass surveillance on millions of users is another. What is happening online is more like the police obtaining a search warrant for every building in a city and sending a robot with drug sniffing capacity into every room in the city. The police may follow a specific suspect around, while the state in many countries forces ISPs to keep a record of all visited websites for millions of people. Governments want to snoop mass amounts of data on cloud servers but don't have the right to routinely search hotel rooms or offices spaces. Why should data on the cloud be less protected than a letter laying on a desk in a hotel? Why can't digital services be as private as a taxi service? If I rent an uber the police can't set up a roadblock and search all documents in every car. So why can they do that for email?
As for GDPR it did make a big difference. In my career as a developer I hear the acronym GDPR on a regular basis, and it has forced companies to be far more careful in how they store and handle data. GDPR put a lot of pressure on companies to think before they acted and made the non-tech portion of companies much more interested in data security. Thanks to GDPR I have had non tech boomers with a business background send long emails asking about how we encrypt data, TLS, when data is deleted and other issues that they never thought about 10 years ago.
Money, job and education matter far less for dating than what people think. I know plenty of people with fantastic careers, high levels of education and high income who are reasonably looking and decent people who barely get any dates. Some end up dating women who are clearly unattractive. I have friends who have low paying jobs, failed high school and are broke but date women noticeably more attractive than them.
The factor that correlates the most with dating success for men is being the guy who would be the one who would stand out the most at a party. Not counting clownish behaviour or someone who stands out because they are a freak but stand out in a more positive way. The guy doesn't have to look that good, he just needs to be the center of attention at a party.
A real estate agent with average looks probably has a far hotter wife than a similar looking man with a masters in engineering who makes three times the money.
As long as you aren't completely broke, unemployed or have a terrible job or a hideous face the main correlate of your dating success will be skills most associated with car salesmen. Rich men aren't more successful for being rich, they are successful because they can buy themselves the attention. If the party is on your yacht it is difficult not be the center of attention.
I have seen too many men optimize their career thinking it will give them an attractive wife. It doesn't. They end up being 29 with a masters in statistics/CS and guys with similar backgrounds think they are cool. For women they are just the same guy drinking the same beer. I have asked guys in this scenario what it would take for them to have met a women. No women rejected them on a night out because of their job and few women even know what they do. Getting the next promotion or increasing their salary wouldn't matter since few women even know what they make or what they do. Unless they become spectacularly rich it won't matter. Most women don't know the difference between tech support or graphics engine developer nor do they know how much you make.
functor
1yr ago
The one big advantage that the conservative catholics have is that they are actually becoming priests. There is a sizeable portion of homosexual priests in the catholic church who became priests when being a celibate priest was the alternative to marrying a woman. Today, homosexuals raised catholic aren't really becoming priests. People who want to dedicate their lives to the church are largely deeply conservative. Once the boomer-liberals die off, they are leaving behind liberals who barely go to church. Meanwhile, the actually conservative catholics are tending to have a lot more children and being more engaged in the church.
functor
2yr ago
From a twin study on crime:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25936380/
Results: For all criminal convictions, heritability was estimated at around 45% in both sexes, with the shared environment accounting for 18% of the variance in liability in females and 27% in males. The correlation of these risk factors across sexes was estimated at +0.63. In men, the magnitudes of genetic and environmental influence were similar in the three criminal conviction subtypes. However, for violent and white-collar convictions, nearly half and one-third of the genetic effects were respectively unique to that criminal subtype. About half of the familial environmental effects were unique to property convictions.
Heritability of crime is high. The main benefit of locking people up is that it prevents people with outlier poor mental traits from reproducing. Criminals tend to be psychopathic, lack impulse control, and be low in intelligence. Keeping men with outlier levels of those traits far away from women between 18-and 45 makes sense. The studies he cites are too short term, they don't take multigeneration effects into account.
As for air pollution, reducing crime is an effective way to combat it. Public transit, walkable cities and bicycle commuting become more attractive the fewer criminals are on the streets. If people don't have to live way outside the city to be in an area with low crime, fewer people will drive. Fewer people walk and bicycle and more people will be fat. Crime is a cause of many of the other problems because it creates a low trust society in which people atomize. Cartel-controlled parts of Mexico are not going to have fantastic universities, infrastructure or other institutions since some much energy gets soaked into cartel-wars and their fallout. A well functioning society requires trust, it requires people to feel a sense of common good and to cooperate. Crime and corruption undermine that. A cop taking a bribe is far more damaging than the direct damage caused by the cop not doing his job.
functor
2yr ago
Democrat voters =/= democrat party.
Lots of people vote democrat because they dislike the republicans for no woke reasons. I am sure when I list reasons, people will rightly point out that many of them apply to democrats as well but are more commonly associated with republicans.
a) Health care being expensive/inaccessible
b) Neoconservative warmongering
c) Republicans clearly valuing corporate profits over the environment.
d) Trickle down economics not trickling down.
Thinking all democrat voters are like the democrat party itself is
functor
11mo ago
Also a huge portion of the college degrees require a big left wing government. Sociology majors need a welfare state. Much of the regulation the government invents requires college educated bureaucrats to enforce. A radical reduction of the state would be an absolute disaster for gender studies majors. Lots of college educated women work in child care and other fields that are built around feminism.
functor
11mo ago
Isn't this common throughout history? Women support the powers that be. In Saudi arabia women are more muslim. In the Soviet union they were more communist, in the third Reich they were more national socialist. Young men get fed up with the system and women keep supporting the position of those in power. Young men overthrow the government and install a new system. In 80 years women will be virtue signalling how much they love Victor Orban and Trump while young men will be rallying against whatever comes after the populist right.
functor
1yr ago
There is a niche for a third tier university to accept autistic weirdos who are kicked out of tier one institutions. This is far from just a wokeness issue, a lot of geniuses are difficult people. By creating a safe space for researchers who don't see what is wrong with asking a woman if she is pregnant or fat and giving them long term research grants, a university can increase the chances of getting groundbreaking research. If a university punches high above its weight class in research, it could compensate for other issues.
It wouldn't surprise me if a university in Asia adopted this strategy. Find deplatformed westerners and build a top tier research facility that rivals famous institutions with several times the budget.
If Ashkenazi in the US have an Iq that is a half standard deviation higher than white people, there would still be far more intelligent white people than jews. There are 31 white Americans for every jew and not all those jews are Ashkenazi. Less than half of all jews are at average Ashkenazi Iq or greater, this is less than 1% of Americans. Roughly 30% of white people have an Iq a half standard deviation above 100 or higher. For every average or higher jew there are 19 white Americans with an Iq equal or greater than the Iq of the average Ashkenazi. Additionally there would be several non white goyim in this Iq range for every jew.
For the 98.8% percentile/2.5 standard deviation Ashkenazi, or about 60 000 people in the US, they are equal to the 3 standard deviation white American. 0.17% of Americans are white Americans in the 3rd standard deviation of Iq. There are about 560 000 white Americans in this age range. Add in some Asians and jews would make up less than 10% of Americas Iq elite.
More options
Context Copy link