nomenym
10d ago
I watched like 15 mins of this video. I think this video is very instructive in teaching people just why I dislike the lower classes. People should watch this and see if they are not immediately revulsed themselves by what they see across many different scenes and different groups of these "nightlife enjoyers"; it's not something particular to any one individual or small group; it's all pervasive amongst this class of people.
It feels, at times, like observing a different species.
nomenym
10d ago
ACAB, but whose bastards? They're bastards whether they serve the left or the right. The left don't hate UK cops because they are their bastards. In the US, the situation is more mixed depending on where, but cops tend to be more culturally on the right. This is the difference.
This may offer a less malicious explanation for the behavior, but it doesn't really deny the problem. In fact, it makes the problem more intractable, since they will never admit to this explanation. It also incentivizes even more tribalistic behavior to dissuade law enforcement actions. If the purpose of the police is to manage relations between ethnic groups to prevent large scale public disorder and inter-ethnic conflict, then they cannot also treat people as individuals before the law. Every law enforcement action must be first evaluated by the likelihood of it undermining "community relations", and so the ethnicities of the people involved should be at the forefront when deciding when and how to enforce the law. Because whites have lower levels of ethnic solidarity, the trade-off will almost always be to target the whites. This makes a lot of good sense given the new priority to manage ethnic conflicts. The question is how stable this strategy is longer term.
Presumably, these concerns are also driving the abolishment of juries. It allows judges to concern themselves not with individual actions but rather balancing competing ethnic resentments to maintain public order.
Quietly, the entire tradition of British law is being repealed and replaced by merely changing "guidance" documents.
The issue is rather simple, though you may dislike it. Men are attracted to youthful features combined with developed secondary sex characters, and it's around 15-ish that most girls begin to really exhibit that combination. That is when most men start to notice girls sexually, even if they are not especially interested in actually having any kind of relationship with them for other reasons. Probably around 25 percent of men have a strong preference for women who look like they're about 15-18 years old, whether they are actually that old or not. The actual age has nothing to do with it.
It seems like ethnic Europeans might be outliers in having a stronger preference for women in their 20s, since Europeans have long practiced later marriage and tend to remain fertile longer than other groups. I suspect this might be genetic, and this makes Europeans unusual. For the rest of the world, the preference for younger girls is even stronger and much more culturally normative for most of their history. Just look at all the recently arrived doctors and engineers literally chasing after unattended schoolgirls in Europe today. You might as well try to train your cat to not chase the mouse.
Now, all these preferences are telling us something about the human evolutionary history of sexuality. We have inherited these instincts because they were successful among our ancestors. We're all descended from men and boys who got with fertile teenage girls at least some of the time, and so preventing that is going to have consequences for overall sexual behavior and fertility. There are trade-offs here along multiple dimensions, and it's not clear to me that the maximizing the taboo is the best solution in all circumstances.
nomenym
11d ago
Yeah, it's going to create a small cohort of highly capable individuals and a much larger cohort of ne'er-do-wells. The number of diamonds in the rough will diminish over time. It will create the hyper unequal dystopia the left fears, but it will be even more intractable unless we figure out a technological solution to the genetic rot. The accumulating genetic load must also be addressed by similar means, or else natural selection will eventually do it for us and that is likely to be rather unpleasant.
nomenym
14d ago
But remigration isn't a solution. First, because I can't imagine how to do it remotely ethically.
The question now is whether the alternative can be done remotely ethically. Frankly, I think it's too late for a remigration policy in the UK, but by the end of this process you might wish it hadn't been.
nomenym
18d ago
Tribalism is too baked into human psychology. You can taboo all the old tribal markers, but then people will just find more indirect, abstract, and novel markers to be tribal about even while earnestly believing themselves to be non-tribal. Tribalism is not optional. Its excesses can only be mitigated. It cannot be effectively mitigated by denying or hiding it, but only acknowledging and restraining.
nomenym
21d ago
The relevant issue is that there are significant number of your Pakistani neighbors who could call up some friends to gang rape your daughter and their extended clan network will overlook it while the police ignore it to preserve "community cohesion". There is no way back from here.
One materialist explanation is that this has to do with housing, which has increased by some 5-600%, which the safety nets don't help with at all unless you're truly destitute.
This is kind of like saying the house collapsed because there was a stronger than normal wind. I mean, sure, that may be the proximate cause, and if the wind were a little lighter that day then the house would not have collapsed. But, fundamentally, the problem is not really the wind but the extremely poorly built and fragile house. Until yesterday, human fertility rates were incredibly robust across time and place under myriad different circumstances such that everyone agreed that overpopulation was an impending catastrophe, but then suddenly it all collapsed because the wind changed direction.
Most of these policy wonk discussions set the implicit frame as "the last domino fell, so how do we prop it back up?".
That's so old that it's mentioned in the Vesuvius scrolls.
More options
Context Copy link