This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Just draw the rest of the owl.
For a more realistic and coup-partial rather than coup-complete solution, I’d suggest a citizenship buyout program, which I believe I’ve commented about before. This is something the “dissident right” could possibly implement if they somehow manage to get some representatives in power.
In exchange for relinquishing citizenship, Americans could receive a sum and a one-way ticket to a pre-arranged West African country. A la the Will Rogers phenomenon, this could increase the average IQ of both the United States and the receiving African country.
Such a program would be akin to how Birthright is marketed to US Jews, but somewhat less temporary. It could be race-neutral, but by its nature it’d appeal more to the “We Wuz Kangz” types, which social media marketing could help target. The program would be voluntary and non-violent, which warms the libertarian parts of my frigid heart. The US government spends a lot of money, might as well put a small fraction of it to good use.
According to the US Treasury, the U.S. federal government spent about $6.5 trillion in fiscal year 2022. Suppose 1% of that were allocated to a citizenship buyout program—that’s $65 billion. If $10,000 is offered to each citizenship buyout participant, that’d potentially be 6.5 million Americans that can be relocated. Each year! Shedding 6.5 million Americans that are disproportionately low in wealth and IQ, and high in discount rate, would more than move the needle on average GDP, criminality, and net-tax transfers. Not only would it behoove the US to have fewer low IQ, low impulse control citizens—but to have fewer of their children, as well, given the high heritability of cognitive traits.
The 6.5 million Americans would be largely composed of black Americans, thus depriving progressives a large chunk of their IdPol foot-soldiers. Fewer net-tax recipients, fewer no-go neighborhoods and school districts, fewer affirmative action claimants in schools and work-places. With a large voting constituent thinned, both the Democrat and Republican parties would shift away from IdPol progressivism. Republicans, in current form, are supposedly the White Supremacist party, but mainstream Republicans play by the progressive rulebook and try to claim DR3: “Democrats Are the Real Racists.”
$10,000 is obviously some nice round number that I arbitrarily picked out of a hat to temporarily serve as an example. Maybe The Number is lesser or greater than $10,000. I know $10,000 might not sound like much to readers here. Many of us make well-more than 10,000 USD on days like today just due to stock market fluctuations. However, the median American household net worth is under $10,000 for those under 30. So $10,000 is a lot of money for a lot of Americans, especially young people of low IQ and high time-preferenced, a key demographic given the potential of children.
This could be a massive win-win. Perhaps some people are in need of a change of scenery, especially disaffected young men on the left side of the American IQ bell-curve. Maybe it’s better to be a big fish in an small African pond than a small fish in a big American pond, especially with the tail wind of some quantity like $10,000. If a young man is into black chicks, $10,000 can support a harem of girlfriends and “girlfriends” in West Africa for quite a bit. “I spent my citizenship buyout payment on women, alcohol, and gambling. The rest I wasted” — some hypothetical citizenship buyout participant, possibly.
Black Americans could find themselves much higher on the totem pole in West Africa, with a higher IQ genetically (due to higher white admixture) and any environmental factors. They had a pretty fun go at it in Liberia last time... although perhaps not as fun for the local Africans.
Just enforcing current US immigration and equal protection laws for Whites and Asians would go a long way, and better policing/punishing of crime—especially violent crime—in general. Less anarcho-tyranny toward the treatment of crime and self-defense. #StopAsianHate quickly lost momentum when it became too apparent who was actually committing acts of Asian hatred. #RooftopAsians never made it positively in mainstream, just relegated to crime-think corners of the internet like /r/politicalCompassMemes at the nearest to the Overton Window. Don't think I need to beat a dead horse with regard to the treatment of purported white-on-black crime vs. confirmed black-on-white crime.
But even that’s also coup-partial and something that would require the dissident right to make some major moves.
A question.
How do you keep these guys from just being robbed of their $10,000 once they arrive in Africa? If you can't solve that problem, only a few fools go for this program, get robbed/killed for their money, and then everyone realizes this is a terrible idea.
Same way the local who own more than $10k avoid getting robbed?
Mostly through security companies, gated communities etc
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
this is almost certainly false. Black Americans are the descendants of west african slaves sold overseas, so not a random sampling of west african peoples, and the slaves cohort would have had a lower average iq than the non slave cohort, and the slaves sold overseas would probably have been lower quality than the slaves kept locally, at least you can assume the pretty women were not sold off but were made into wives of the victorious tribe.
Black Americans are something like 17% white on average due to interbreeding. They have substantially higher IQs than stock Africans.
More options
Context Copy link
Except it's exactly what happened the first time the U.S. tried this - founding Liberia. That country was run by a cabal of slave-owning, ex-U.S. freedmen, who dominated mostly-illiterate locals for the better part of a century before it all fell apart incredibly bloodily.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fewer than 200,000 American Jews have emigrated to Israel since the Jewish State was established in 1948. Out of a population of over 5 million. They weren't given financial inducements, but Israel is a much more attractive option than Ghana, and Ghana is about as good as you're going to get in West Africa. How much would I have to pay you to agree to leave your home country permanently for a country that was, by all objective measures, less desirable?
You're assuming this would be good for America because race is a good proxy for IQ and criminality, but even if I agree with that, why use a proxy at all? Why not just focus resettlement offers on criminals and dumb people generally? It's not like these things are hard to measure without proxies. Furthermore, there are 40 million blacks in the US. Relocating 6.5 million of them represents 16% of their total population. All you'd be doing is reducing blacks from 12% of the total population to 10%, which is about what the proportion of blacks was in 1960. It would probably be unnoticeable for most people. During the Civil War there were some serious plans for resettlement of freed slaves, but black leaders such as Frederick Douglass met Lincoln at the White House and voiced strong opposition for the plan. After a failed attempt at resettling some volunteers in the Caribbean the idea wasn't seriously brought up again. It was a dumb idea then and it's a dumb idea now.
Because crime isn't tearing apart the (mostly-white) elite and wrecking our culture; the progressive religion which has as one of its chief tenets the evil of whiteness (always with the lower-case) and the corresponding martyrdom of Blackness (with the capital-b, of course), is.
Then, why not change this official religion, why not turn around propaganda both official and unofficial?
"Blackness good, Whiteness bad" is out.
New line is: "Americanism good, unamericanism bad. What is unamerican? Everything that divides Americans against each other over such minor details as color of skin, everything that splits our beloved Eagleland is unamerican and everything unamerican is treasonous."
"Why are lighter skinned Americans overrepresented among wealthy and educated professions, while darker skinned Americans are overrepresented in poverty and prison, you are asking? Only traitor would ask such question. Are you a traitor?"
If you have power to deprive of citizenship and deport millions of native born Americans, you have power to do this (and tell all media, education and entertainment complex to follow the new line, or else).
No need for full bore white supremacism, imagine normie conservatism with teeth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because identity politics makes people stupid, and HBD is just Id-Pol by another name.
More options
Context Copy link
Hell, just have the offer be the IQ test.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This ignores that people will take the money and then can come back..Pay the danegeld...etc.
I don't think enough people are autistic libertarian contract obeyers for this to work sorry.
More options
Context Copy link
Considering the number of West African elites doing everything they can to immigrate to America despite what they can get with their wealth in their home countries I doubt many people will take up that offer willingly. Perhaps if we were talking about the prison population specifically, more people would be interested in a combination of early release and exile to Africa. Not many countries would accept such an arrangement, but we could have done it somewhere we were occupying like Afghanistan if we had truly wanted to engage in [new] nation building. It should also be noted that in the case of Liberia it ended quite badly for the descendants of American blacks, though it took nearly two centuries to play out.
Yeah, almost nobody is taking only $10,000 to move to [insert random African country here]. Or hell, most countries. This is where "race-conscious" people's views of frankly, black people's intelligence fail them. Even prisoners would realize that 10k isn't getting them far, even in the poorest nation's on Earth.
Like, maybe 100k? Maybe? Even then, it'd only be the very bottom, most desperate, frankly kind of moronic ten percent who'd take the deal (and quickly end up dead, broke, or both), and frankly, that wouldn't make much of a difference, because the smart criminals could find plenty of possible low-level criminals from the next ten percent.
As you mentioned, with Liberia, the native African's had basically no connection with the outside world and the freed slaves had every advantage, including kind of implied American backing. So yeah, drop a aircraft carrier off the coast, and somehow give some poor black people laser guns and they might be able to pull that off again.
yeah the aircraft carrier would need to be there for sure, as the colony full of wealthier than they are scary expats would be like the ultimate honeypot for any local warlords to raid. being sent to africa with 100k in cash sounds more like a death sentence to me than exile. Like getting thrown into a pool of sharks but you get a free duffel bag of wagyu beef.
Yep. This plan does not account for these dudes just getting fucking robbed. That's the biggest damn hole in the plan. Maybe you could have some Special Forces guys train these guys and build a fortified compound? But at that point, you're just another bushleague African warlord, this time you speak English and have great training. And don't forget that $10k, you'll need it to buy guns, ammo, food...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Instead of 10k * 6.5M people, I think 100k * .65M people would work much better. 6.5M is 2% of the country, which might be rather destabilizing, especially if (likely) concentrated geographically.
Given the cost per capita of citizens in low income brackets, even if they're not involved in crime, you could bump that up greatly while still net spending the same. Back of the envelope, five trillion in US income taxes is 17k/person, or 170k/decade/person. Assuming half of people generate twice their share and half generate none and consume the other half's, you then double the per-person savings: 340k/decade.
Either my math is terrible, or you could give real near half a million bucks per person (100+340)!
The bottom 50% actually pay about 2.3% of total tax revenue. Source. I really wanted to get pre-2020 data, ideally straight from the government, but had a hard time on mobile.
What’s really bothering me is that, even with this data, I still can’t tell if your half-and-half split is generous or stingy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link