There's a model of Biden foreign policy that's very simple and predictive. I will present it in full.
"The foreign policy of the Biden administration is whatever will make the price of gasoline go down before the election."
It's super effective!
For example, what is Biden's policy towards Venezuela, a brutal dictatorship which is responsible for a large chunk of the U.S. border crisis, and which has threatened to seize the territory of neighboring Guyana? Why, ease the sanctions, of course.
What about Biden's position on Iran, a country which funds terror throughout the world, supports the Houthis in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and is rapidly progressing on its goal to build nuclear weapons? Why, ease the sanctions, of course.
But surely Russia, the Greatest Threat to Democracy Since Hitler, will feel the wrath of U.S. sanctions. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting them in Ukraine. We help send hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men into the meat grinder to die. Because it's worth it. With stakes this high, there's no way that Biden would let his lust for cheap gasoline affect the conflict. Right, Anakin, right?
Today, Biden has urged Ukraine to stop its strikes on Russian oil infrastructure. It was causing gasoline futures to increase.
That's it boys. We've found the red line that Ukraine musn't cross. Biden is not very bright, and he's certainly lost a step. But an old dog still knows some tricks and he knows one. If you want to get re-elected you need cheap gas. As usual, the U.S. will support pretty much any tinpot dictator as long as they have oil. Sometimes, it really is that stupid.
jeroboam
14d ago
A Tone-Shift in the Ukraine War
Lately, I've noticed that the tone of the discussion regarding Ukraine both on the Motte and on X has changed considerably. Notably, it seems that people are taking a much more pessimistic view of Ukraine's chances. The default assumption now is that Ukraine will lose the war.
I think a stalemate is still quite possible, but the more optimistic assumptions that Ukraine would regain lost territory (or comically, Crimea) are now a dead letter. So what, exactly, are our leaders thinking? Recently, Macron went off-narrative a bit, suggesting that France could send troops into Ukraine. More ominously, Secretary of State Blinken said that Ukraine will join NATO.
Perhaps Western leaders view this sabre-rattling as good for their electoral chances. And, until recently, the war was seen as a relatively cost-effective way to weaken Russia. (Sadly, this seems to have failed as Russia has freely exported oil to India and China and is making armaments in great numbers).
But what of Ukrainians themselves? Will they tire of being NATO's cat's paw? It's impossible to find good numbers on how many Ukrainian men have been killed so far in this war. It's likely in the hundreds of thousands. Towns and villages throughout the country are devoid of men, as the men (hunted by conscription) either flee, hide, or are sent to the fronts.
User @Sloot shared this nuclear-grade propoganda. While Ukrainian men fight and die in some trench, an increasing number of Ukrainian women are finding new homes (and Tinder dates) in Germany. Concern about female fidelity has always been a prominent feature of wartime propaganda. But, this takes it to a new level, since the women are in a different country, making new, better lives for themselves. How many will ever even return to Ukraine?
Ukrainian men are getting a raw deal in an effort to reconquer lost territory, whose residents probably want to be part of Russia anyway. Why should Ukrainians fight and die for some abstract geopolitical goal of NATO?
jeroboam
14d ago
The idea that Ukrainians are only fighting out because mean old NATO made them do it is absurd.
It's one thing to support a war in the abstract. It's another to volunteer to actually fight the war. There is not sufficient volunteer manpower, so Ukraine is forced to round up men at gunpoint and force them to serve.
I do not believe that the continued prosecution of the war (for what aims?) can justify the human rights tragedy that is unfolding.
jeroboam
13d ago
the Russians will not be kind masters as weirdly envisioned by anti-progressives.
Who is saying that? Maybe someone. On this forum, the idea that Russia is some sort of right-wing paradise has been debunked many times. For one, Russia practices a model of top-down state control that aligns tightly with the modern left. The reality is that Russia is neither right nor left by American standards and is not a useful model to either party.
You can be anti-war without being pro-Russia. And you can also recognize that Russian victory is preferable to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of additional Ukrainian men. And even if you don't recognize this, Russia might win anyway.
Will Russia be kind masters of Ukrainian territories? I don't know. It won't be a paradise. But it beats dying in a ditch. And even if you personally don't think so, you have no moral right to condemn other people to die in a ditch against their will.
jeroboam
16d ago
Israel hasn't exposed and humiliated a rival country in awhile, so I suppose it's due.
Iran has blundered badly here. Israel was taking real damage in the Gaza conflict. Now they get to look like the victim again which means the US and its clients will rally to their cause.
I expect these attacks to fail hilariously, and for Iran to be revealed as a paper tiger that is capable of funding terrorists but little else militarily. In fact apparently Iran is already saying that this is the last attack. Their exact words: "The matter can be deemed concluded".
With Iran's threats proven (I'm assuming) to be completely toothless, and with newfound political cover, Israel might now choose to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. I hope they do.
With enemies like this...
jeroboam
13d ago
I've said it before, I'll say it again: bleeding Russia is on sale right at an amazing discount right now, so we're buying a bit.
I think this is the rationale.
It doesn't seem to be working. The sanctions have failed. Utterly. It turns out that China, not the West, is the key trade partner of any commodity producer. Russian oil and commodities freely trade on the world market, and the West is actually afraid to sanction Russia more strongly because it hurts them more than Russia. Sanction Russian metals? Great, welcome to higher prices and China will scoop up all Russian production for cheap.
The bigger issue is that the Russian army is 15% larger than before the war and apparently Russia is outproducing the West in key armaments by large margins.
But even if this strategy was effective, killing 1 million people to "weaken" an adversary is just incredibly evil.
jeroboam
4mo ago
Average age of "World's Sexiest Man" in People is 38.
You attractiveness is almost certainly far higher now than at 23 (unless you went bald or fat).
Nevertheless, women are still tethered to age expectations, so a typical 23 year old isn't going to date you at age 38 even if she finds you attractive. But it does happen, a lot more than people like.
It's not always bad to be a quokka.
Scott's star has never shined brighter. How many billionaires read his writing? I think I remember he's making 600k/year from Substack. Probably more now.
Scott may be a quokka but it's working for him.
Meanwhile nobody cares about this Cade Metz creature except that he wrote about Scott. That will probably be his epitaph: "Wrote a hit piece on a beloved and respected public intellectual". Writing that just now makes me feel sorry for the guy. Scott crushed him like a bug without even meaning to.
jeroboam
9mo ago
take back our country
I guess the problem is who are we taking the country back for?
The people most responsible for making America great in the first place are some of the wokest people on the planet. The backbone of the country, the people whose grandparents went to a mainline protestant church, are cheering on their own extinction.
White southerners and ruralites? While I appreciate their contributions in keeping our nation freer than most during Covid, and for their willingness to serve as cannon fodder during our many wars, they were not the ones who made America great.
The problem is not with foreigners, IMO. It is that the best and strongest of our people, my people, are so thoroughly corrupted with woke ideology that there's not much worth saving.
jeroboam
16d ago
Not to mention that this is a country roughly the size of the eastern United States with a population of 90 million.
90 million poor Iranian people are not an asset. They are a liability. Zergrush is not a viable strategy in the 21st century. If Israel and Iran shared a land border it might be different, but only because the millions of Iranian casualties would affect public opinion.
Israel has just show that Iranian missiles and drones are essentially worthless. Yeah, if they launched their entire arsenal in one night, they'd do some damage. But they wouldn't affect warfighting ability.
You can't generalize from that and say "oh I guess invading Iran would be a cakewalk."
I didn't say this. No one is saying this. What I am saying is that Iran is powerless to hurt Israel directly. I'll go further. Iran is also powerless to stop Israel from flying over it and bombing whatever it wants. The reason that the U.S. "failed" in Iraq and Afghanistan is that it was trying to invade countries and make those countries like them. This is impossible. On the other hand, killing people is easy. Unless you're Iran of course.
I'm probably going to be corrected by some theology major (I don't care) but let me give my best explanation of Calvinism:
Before you're born, it's already predetermined whether you're going to heaven or hell.
"So why, pastor, should I be good and righteous"
"My son, when you sin, it reveals that you're wicked and going to hell. Best, therefore, to abstain from sin."
As a persuasive technique, this probably works just as good as anything. It's often difficult to tease out causality in noisy data. I point this out in the context of Scott's latest post. Look at the graphs here and tell me what you notice:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-polyamory
I notice that choosing to be monogamous or polygamous barely matters at all across many aspects of wellbeing. But there is one key difference: fertility. Polygamous people have many fewer children.
Does polygamy cause infertility or does infertility cause polygamy? Does it matter? It's extremely dysgenic and bound to go the way of the Shakers.
jeroboam
6mo ago
I honestly think you can just ignore it. People still talk about rumored CIA activity in Iran and Congo in the 1950s as the reason those countries still suck today. It's nuclear grade cope and not worth considering.
If Kermit Roosevelt can take a suitcase full of cash into Iran in the 1950s and force them to overthrow their democratic leader (not actually democratic by the way, but whatever), what does that say about Iranians? Why are they so weak? Why don't they have any agency at all? It's all so stupid. The people who would blame the current situation on trivial (or even non-existent) events that happened decades ago are in fantasy land and should be treated as such.
jeroboam
8mo ago
You can have compassion and empathy for the lower classes without wanting them to actually run things.
jeroboam
15d ago
The coming Ukraine/Russia baby boom?
There's a theory that one part of falling fertility is female hypergamy. Since my spellchecker is underlining that word, I'll define it like this:
Female hypergamy is when women seek to marry "up", either into a higher social class or to a mate who is superior to them.
It's harder than ever for women to marry up. Modern femininist societies devalue male traits such as stoicism and aggression but highly value female traits such as conformity and self-control. As a result, women's status relative to men has risen greatly. This has the side effect of making most men undesirable to most women.
You know what raises the status of men? Fighting in wars. It's no secret that women love men in uniform. And many will confess to being aroused by male violence. For better or worse, violence raises male status.
Nearly all nations had a baby boom after WWII. And this wasn't merely making up for lost time. In the United States, the fertility rate peaked at 3.74 children/woman in 1957. Even Russia had a fertility rate near 3 despite a ridiculously lopsided gender ratio where more than 80% of men born in 1922 didn't survive until 1946.
So anyway... I predict that Russia and Ukraine will experience a similar (but smaller boom) in the decade following the end of the war.
Yes, I believe the IDF's numbers. I think they say 103 of 110 ballistics were intercepted, and 100% of drones. Potentially the 7 that got through were let through deliberately as a cost/benefit calculation.
Iran remains completely incapable of affecting Israeli warfighting capability. They are not able to accurately target Israeli military installations.
They could, of course, overwhelm Iron Dome if they shot their wad all at once at densely populated areas.
jeroboam
16d ago
Motte: Wearing SPF30 sunscreen is probably among the cheaper interventions in terms of cost/inconvenience compared to QOL saved. Even if you can't do it 100% of the time, do it 90% of the time since the damage is additive.
This is harmful advice. Skin cancer kills almost no one. If I recall correctly skin cancers only lower U.S. life expectancy by a few days.
On the other hand, people who get more sun live years longer.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/heres-something-unexpected-sunbathers-live-longer-201606069738
Supplement with Vitamin D you say? Not so easy: https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science/
Sunlight is good for you. Go get some. Personally, I use sunscreen on my face because I don't want to look old. I compensate by sunbathing the rest of my body.
jeroboam
4mo ago
I think you missed my point.
I'm not trying to assign blame. I'm showing that few people actually care about ethnic cleansing. Or, at a minimum, they don't care enough to learn a basic amount of history or geography.
They care about tribalism.
jeroboam
4mo ago
I think it'd be good for the country to have a centrist like Mitt Romney in charge just so that everyone can calm down for a bit.
The worry for Republicans, and why they won't nominate a centrist, is that centrist Republicans have completely caved to globalist pressure on core issues like immigration, Covid lockdowns, and LGBT celebration.
I agree with you that the media will lay off any Republican who defects on core issues. Want to cut taxes for the rich and start a couple new wars like George Bush? No problem. Want to stop illegal immigration and shut down youth gender transition? Jihad.
jeroboam
4mo ago
No. I don't. I think the West supports Ukraine because it want to punish Putin and weaken Russia. And Ukraine is acceptable collateral damage.
Here's a better question:
"Why should the West still support Ukraine".
jeroboam
5mo ago
Progressivism is not simply a social signaling game, but rather is a coherent worldview.
I'm assuming that the worldview you are referring to is that there are "oppressors and oppressed" and society should enforce rules (even unfair ones) to help the oppressed at the expense of the oppressors.
While this might be a coherent world view, it is not a stable one.
If followed strictly, it would lead to the oppressed classes rising up and becoming the new rulers in a constant cycle of upheaval. (Mao came closest to stating this as an explicit goal).
Of course, in real life, this doesn't happen. Instead, it leads to the powerful adopting a cloak of righteousness as they put the boot on the necks of their social inferiors. As progressivism is mostly just Christianity minus God, it reminds me of nothing so much a pious Christian Crusader praying with true and genuine feeling before going into battle and slaughtering his enemies. This is the social signalling I'm referring to. You can do whatever you want as long as you are a "good" person according to the religion of the day.
I don't understand what a conservative America is supposed to look like.
Who are the backbone of this theoretical new nation? White evangelicals? Based Hispanics/Indians/African immigrants? Because that's not "taking our country back". That's moving in a new and different direction that will be a lot lower trust, lower IQ, and more racially balkanized than what we had in the past. Brazil is probably the best modern comparison.
I don't have any answers here either. I suppose I'd rather have Brazil than whatever we get if we let progressives run things for another 30 years, but there really is no going back. The golden age is dead. Immigration didn't kill it either. The rot came from within.
Edit: The comment below from Hoffmeister25 partially answers my question
And by assimilation, I’m talking about, among other things, marrying into the families who have ancestral ties to the founding of this nation, such that the children and especially grandchildren of these couplings would be visually near-indistinguishable from the historical population of the country, and would feel a genuine blood connection to the ancestral stock that built this nation. This could, in time, create a truly glorious race, syncretizing the best of the Asian world while remaining firmly rooted in, and continuous with, the greatest civilization of the last millennium.
I think this is a noble goal. With much lower immigration for a few decades (like we had from roughly 1920-1970) we could create a strong, singular culture. But first we need to fix our elite. Assimilation in the current context just means taking conservative immigrants and making them into wokists.
jeroboam
13d ago
This seems to be about what to expect for a topic that attracts agenda posters but lies outside of the specialisation of anyone producing the sort of deep dives that tend to cause productive discussion around here.
As the person who made the initial post, I'd like to push back on this. I guess I might have an "agenda". You'll have to take my word for it that my agenda is peace and the preservation of human life.
I think Ukraine is an important topic and one in which mainstream opinion is wrong. The intersection of these two makes it a great topic to discuss here. That's why I've posted about it twice now.
And, yeah, it seems to generate some heat, but I'd argue the amount of light is greater. How many people are even talking about conscription, either on the Motte, X, or on (shudder) mainstream media?
On the other hand, what I don't love about this forum is 5000 word "deep-dives" on some random game developer no one has ever heard of or cares about. I don't view those as productive in the slightest. The stakes couldn't be lower.
Since I think what gets said in places like this matters, I think it's important to discuss real issues.
Yeah, it's weird. To me there doesn't seem to be that much difference between Ukraine and Russia. They're both poor, corrupt, Slavic-speaking countries that share a lot of culture. Sure, a European-leaning Ukraine is probably better than a Russia-leaning one, but it's not a huge difference.
But nationalism fucks with people's brains. No one wants to be ruled by a foreign race, even if that foreign race is only superficially different.
I'm reminded of how Bosnians, Serbians, and Croats all speak the exact same language but insist that they speak different languages. I've heard of courtroom trials where the defendant insists on getting a translator because, as a Bosnian, he can't understand Serbian. And then the translator just recites the exact same sentence back.
The differences between Ukraine and Russia are much smaller than the differences between Ukraine and Germany. And that's perhaps why nubile Ukrainian women vastly prefer to stay in Germany.
So... don't walk in a bad neighborhood if you don't want to be raped?
More options
Context Copy link