More Demographic Math

Here is a great article from Razib Khan which makes many of the points I made in my “Demographic Math” post, but with more detail and fancy charts.

The Wheel of History Turns to the Gods

He is reviewing a book by Eric Kaufmann,

Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century

The theme is a point I made, that fertility estimates based on population averages that ignore whether there is a structure involving a mixture of high- and low-fertility groups will misjudge the size and composition of the future population. In particular, religious subgroups will tend to predominate and the effect of secularization in slowing this down is the big unknown.

But there is way too much there for me to summarize quickly. I’m very busy working today so I’ll have more to say in the comments tomorrow, but don’t let that stop you from reading there and commenting here.

Advertisements

About Polymath

Discoverable with effort
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to More Demographic Math

  1. Jehu says:

    Differential fertility is a big part of my ‘Reactionary Plan for Victory’. My hopes personally are that my children will marry well, and young, and give us lots of healthy grandchildren. As of about 9 days ago, my little family has grown to 2 children, and the hope is for eventually 3. My own mother is now up to 11 grandchildren—I’m hoping to have a similar number. Those concerned about idiocracy can take heart that my family is fighting it pretty strongly. Those concerned about potential ‘theocracy’ should worry 🙂 But don’t worry, we won’t do anything idiotic to undermine any hegemony we manage to gain, like mandating celibacy or anything like that from our major figures. In fact we’ll do very much the opposite if I’ve any influence 🙂

  2. Alvis Velthomer says:

    The problem with your plan Jehu is that it is very hard for whites to have a high birth rate and guarantee them the same standard of living as their parents. By contrast, many in the underclass don’t care if their children enter a life of criminality. Heck, in Chicago, there is a disturbing trend for black mothers abandoning their children and instead dumping them on the child’s grandmother. Also, the rate for children being born out of wedlock is rising for all ethnic groups. It is at 30% for Whites, 50% for hispanics, and 75% for blacks. I am guessing that the children being born out of wedlock are the one’s whom will have the higher birthrate due to them having little concern about their prospective children’s future and low future planning.

    Also, there is the matter of high immigration into the West by groups that will never ally themselves with the Western “right”. Also, many of these immigrants themselves have a high birth rate. It has been admitted by many leftists that these are their “reinforcements”. Otherwise, the only other way extreme leftists “reproduce” is through the “education” system and popular media. How many left ideals and cool leftish people are there when someone is growing up (practically all of what is taught in history, all of hollywood, and practically everything the child will likely listen to). Contrast, that to how many “traditionalist” heroes there are. Another reason for cultural marxists’ success is that they can always tie in their current struggles with their past victories and past enemies. We see this all the time with anyone with immigration laws being enacted and how they are compared to “nazis” and “nazi laws”.

    If we lived in a place like Japan, then yeah, a pro-natal movement among reactionaries would probably eventually succeed. However, due to the foreign demographics in the West and the constant high immigration by foreign tribes, it makes it quite difficult if almost impossible for reactionaries to create a revolution by way of the womb.

    However, the idea in itself does have some merit. In Israel, the farthest right and most nationalist parties are gaining the most due to the high birth rates of the most religious and nationalistic jews. It was so disastrous for the left, that the left made laws to RESTRICT immigration into Israel due to many of the Jews immigrating there being really religious and nationalistic. Another example of the left condemning Israel’s immigrants was Hillary Clinton blaming the lack of success in the peace process on Israel’s immigrants. The pro-natalist movement among the most religious Jews in Israel has had such success that Avigor Lieberman (an extreme nationalist) won the vote for the prime minister among Israeli high school students.

    However, such a success cannot be replicated in the West due to uncontrolled immigration and difficulty of the most people whom hold reactionary beliefs or sympathetic toward them to secure the resources to give their children a living standard on par with their own.

    Also, Rebelliousvanilla, has said this in the past that a true “ethnonationalist” state tries to make it more difficult for foreign tribes to reproduce and thrive and help the native tribe. Currently, we have policies that make it much more difficult for the native tribe to have a family, but accmodate the underclasses’ reproduction and children.

    I would wager that the current recession is hurting the white birth rate far more than it is the birth rate for NAMs, primarily because most whites are dependent upon the private sector for their livlelihood, whereas most NAMs rely on the public sector either directly (welfare and government jobs) or indirectly (affirmative action which leads to preferred hiring in the few jobs that are available).

    What I am closely looking at is California. Looking at California is basically looking at America’s future.

  3. rebelliousvanilla says:

    The truth of the matter is that whites can’t have a proper child rearing environment without blowing a hell load of money without some seggregation. Us actually raising our birth rates is inconsequential, in the end.

    If we start breeding like Mark Steyn wants us to do, for instance, in Sweden, in two generation there will still be 40% of the new borns of Muslim descent.
    http://conswede.blogspot.com/2007/06/catholicismbirth-control-and-birth.html
    The math is done fairly well there.

    By the way, Poly, read this:
    http://conswede.blogspot.com/2009/05/discussion-about-future-scenarios-part.html
    He answers your questions that I was too lazy to answer. 🙂

  4. Jehu says:

    Alvis Velthomer,

    You’ll note that I’m also a hardcore immigration restrictionist. I consider immigration an existential issue. I’ve got a post that elaborates more on this on my blog (The Reactionary Plan for Victory).

  5. rebelliousvanilla says:

    Polymath, one of your links proved what I said. A Christian nation can function well only under a non-Christian ruler. 🙂

  6. FortitudineVincimus says:

    Would a Christian leader then do well in a non-Christian nation?

  7. RV,

    Yes, I’d seen the 2007 CS thread on demographics, it’s very good.

    The 2009 thread clarifies a lot of the things you have said, and I don’t have any real disagreements with CS’s brilliant analysis of how Europe got into the state that it is today.

    My discussion with you on the earlier Demographic Math post is more about the situation now and where it can go, not how we got here, and you got lazy and quit that discussion prematurely when we were making progress — if you look at my final two comments you’ll see I clarified a lot of things, and granted several of your points while pointing out where you needed to further explain others.

    Here’s another good thread related to these discussions:

    http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/08/darwin-at-work.html

  8. Polymath, one of your links proved what I said. A Christian nation can function well only under a non-Christian ruler.

    Can you be more specific? What do you mean by a “Christian nation”, and how does the link show this? The link I posted a minute ago, where Baron Bodissey explains how Christian ethics don’t scale up, means that the state shouldn’t take the role of the Church and the Church shouldn’t depend on the state; but you can still have a state full of Christians with a Christian ruler as long as the state doesn’t try to reproduce or replace what the Church should be doing.

  9. Alvis Velthomer says:

    The problem with most of the Churches is that most of them are open borders and mass immigration under the belief of total nondiscrimination is in the Bible (we see this taken even further with some liberal denominations that openly embrace social liberalism, which is ironic considering those are the ones dying out the fastest) and also that these high fertility foreigners will produce new members that will tithe well and not lose their faith like their domestic counterparts.

    On a sidepoint, I keep hearing from some forum-goers blacks are “social conservatives” that vote Dem, however, I don’t really see it. The statistics alone on how many black children are born outside of wedlock (72%), show that if they are Church going, that a lot of them forget the Bible’s stance of family formation. The only issue I can see that can see that blacks have in regards to possibly being “socially conservative” is that they oppose homosexual marriage in an almost monolithic bloc. I heard an alternative theory that much of black churches preach the “prosperity gospel”, so maybe that is why perhaps if they are church-going it is not reflected in the statistics. However, perhaps its non-urban blacks that are church-going and the culture for them is different in the South that it is in Northern cities.

  10. rebelliousvanilla says:

    FV, not really. Unless he was a bad Christian, like most European leaders were. None really acted out of Christian belief. I mean, take all the Romanian rulers who kicked the butt of the Muslims in the name of Christianity and also built nice churches. They didn’t mind outright committing genocide against Muslims. Vlad Tepes is a great example of this – he didn’t mind slaughtering over 50,000 Muslims before a battle, a lot of them being civilians, not really Ottoman soldiers – the Bulgarian Muslims were a case of this. Look at how he slaughtered them. Impaling innocent people isn’t really a Christian concept, is it?

    You need leadership that doesn’t act out on the basis of a slave morality and inverted ethics. A Christian population means that that population will more or less submit to the ruler, who would rise to that position because he is badass and since he will be part of the group that he leads, he will act in their interest. This happened more often than not. When it comes to a Christian ruler, you really think that a population with a master morality will submit to someone who is weaker? And to answer Polymath, a Christian nation is a nation with Christian ethics as their morality.

    Polymath, I already said there what I had to say. I don’t see repeating myself a productive thing to do. I already said there that Europeans need to see Americanism like they see Nazism now if you want America’s collapse not to be a factor. Obviously, we could do the thing that CS talks about – begin seeing ourselves as oppressed and identify Americanism and what we imported from the US as the source of our problems and then destroy all the institutions that the US sponsored around Europe(ranging from the UN to the EU to NATO, to all the American model institutions we developed) and then acquire superior military means to kick out America out of Europe and all the areas that we want to influence. Because yes, without Americanism imploding, it will end in war. The reason why I prefer Americanism imploding is because in that way, Europe and America could actually be friends, instead of foes and on the long run, white Americans would be better off too. It’s funny how Britain got it so wrong though. I mean, it would have been in their interest to get on the side of Germany in WW1, instead of the other side, if they could foresee the future.

    To make an analogy, Americanism is like heroin. In order to get cured, you need to get through withdrawal in both situations. What we are doing now is that we are trying to be more equal and all that, which is the equivalent of shooting ourselves up with more heroin each time the high begins to wear off. And sure, withdrawal isn’t fun, but it is necessary in order to get healthy. Also, just like heroin, Americanism destroyed any group that is willing to get involved in it. And by the way, CS explains why we are importing your culture, despite it being trash. Since the institutions that exist in Europe are on the same model and the values that we pretty much had forced upon us, we are bound to do it. I’d also like to point out that people like Soros are funding quite a bit things that are tearing apart the culture of Eastern European countries. And Jews wonder why everyone hates them after things like this. lol

    By the way, I will answer what you said on the demographic math post here since I don’t want to have five conversations on the same topic. Political freedom is good as long as not everyone has it. We talked about quite a bit about voting systems. Also, you should read Hans Hermann Hoppe’s opinion on monarchy vs democratic republics. He is fairly accurate and history proves him right. Oh, and a monarch can’t be legitimate if he oppresses the people he rules. Unlike in, so called free systems, his legitimacy is given by the propserity he offers to his people(this is why the Chinese government is obsessed with growth). In ‘free’ systems, the legitimacy comes from what the people want and if the people want half of your wealth, that’s about it. James Buchanan actually explains this. A monarch couldn’t in any wet dreams he might have had think about spending 40-50% of a country’s GDP. I’d want to point out that political freedom is a relative term. Somalis being politically free in the same constituency as me makes me have less political freedom than them being oppressed. So we get to the type of political freedom that we want – should it be equal? I reject that notion. This is why idiotic ideas like equality are fashionable. It’s easy to just ramble about how we all should be equal than get to the truth of the matter and understand that everything is relative in this regard.

    Your citations of my blog is the reason why I thought about deleting it. Citing things I wrote 2 years ago is inconsequential, considering that back then I also had fairly feminist thoughts of the sense that women should be allowed to go out topless and how it is unequal for that to not happen. Anyway, liberty and freedom are great things when it comes to economic matters. Any proper monarch would promote them since that would make him richer too and you can look at the German empire. It had no income tax until it became a republic and their government spent like 5-10% of GDP. lol.

    About Muslims and China. I see the Chinese way as superior in quite a lot of ways to America. Their economy is far better(30% savings rate, huge current account surpluses and so on), they don’t have deranged social views and I’m unsure if their governments spends as much as America’s. I doubt it, so we can safely say that their government doesn’t steal everything. This doesn’t mean that China is problem free, but China is a nation. Nations can cooperate. With America, any nation that cooperates is deranged, in my opinion, considering that America promotes the things that lead to national suicide. And you are not what the founding fathers wanted. They didn’t make slaves citizens, the government spent 5% of GDP and you barely had any taxes or regulations, women weren’t empowered and so on. You’re far more to the left than the founding fathers wanted America to be and I want things to be slightly more to the right than they were.

    And while debate is smothered in Europe, the overwhelming majority of Europeans dislike outsiders, for example. Heck, even 80% of Swedes said they shouldn’t get more immigrants, if I recall correctly. You can also look at the fringe things created here. We don’t discuss economics and get into harangues about how we should reduce government. That’s irrelevant, in the end. We discuss the key issues – what it means to be Swedish for the SD and how to preserve Sweden for Swedish people, for example. I’m missing any serious debate over how being American means being on the pale side of the hue variety and how America should be preserved for those people. None whatsoever. Except on Alternative Right, which isn’t really of any political relevance in America. So the US is far behind Europe in terms of ‘progress’ towards reality. While big governments are hinderance(and I despise them), the things debated in Europe are existential issues.

    I’d also want to underline that a backlash like the tea parties is a normal occurence when governments meddle with the status quo. Spending far more money is that, just like austerity measures are. If you had austerity measures, you’d have the mob rioting about that and the left would be all excited and motivated.

    People aren’t brainwashed into obeying authority. That’s how people are. They acquiesce to people who are stronger than them. And this works at the country level too – weaker countries do it towards stronger countries. I’d also like to point out that the institutions we have aren’t really European. Take keep Germany down, Russia out and America in NATO. CS explained this really well so I won’t get into further detail. Most people are sheeple and slaves. Actually, if most people had a bit of coherent independent thought, I’d be waving a white flag right now since gaining enough support would be impossible. But replacing current institutions is far easier – then the sheeple will follow. Just look at the US Constitution. Any white person who supports it is screwing himself, but because it helped white people when the US was overwhelmingly WASPy and all that, people still follow it. Just like most Americans didn’t mind the king that much until the founding fathers. Sure, they whined and moaned about it, but they didn’t do squat. And their slavish instincts towards institutions were shown when they wanted to make Washington king(I’m not sure how true that was, but I know that the overwhelming majority of Americans didn’t do that much against the British).

    Now, getting to economics, if creditors will begin looking at sovereign risk, you are foolish if you think that they will miss America. If European states will begin to fall like dominoes, everybody will dump sovereign debt of any nature of big debtors. Besides, in case you didn’t figure it out, we enslaved the Germans to bail us out so we are good. 😉

    Related to occupations, when did all the American troops leave Germany and the UK? Because from what I know, Germany is still under American occupation. I mean, sure, after you destroy the leadership and a people themselves and replace their institutions and whatnot, the fact that the institutions you created in their country declare peace and whatnot is hardly relevant. Just like the South being annexed back into the Union makes all the amendments that were passed without them inconsequential, even if they ratified them later.

    And yes, Soros can’t be blamed for the US. All the American governmental agencies or agencies that get federal funds that sponsor similar stuff as Soros can be blamed on the US.

  11. Alvis, Open Borders is not part of Catholic theology but it is part of Catholic practice today. I am going to have a post on this and on Vatican II and related issues in a few days. Regarding Vatican II, and related changes, the short summary is the bishops now are better than they used to be, this Pope is good, and it’s important that the next one be good, the supertanker is turning but the process is slow. Unfortunately the American church has lots of progressive bishops and even if the Pope replaces them with better ones much damage has been done; however if strong laws are passed against illegals the Church will not hinder their enforcement, this Pope won’t permit that. The Protestants have become just as open-borders as the Catholics now and there’s no Pope to turn things around for them, so they will continue to encourage immigration, which is demographically even a bigger win for them than it is for the Catholics because they are concentrated in the USA and are making converts of the immigrants, while the Catholics are just moving people between dioceses in different countries.

    Blacks are not “conservative” in significant numbers in any respect; though you can get their votes on single issues like gay marriage, to the extent that they are Christians they will follow their church leaders who are almost completely bought and paid for by the Democrats. So forget that. (Except for black Catholics who are less liberal than other blacks, there’s some chance of appealing to them via the Catholic church.)

  12. Jehu says:

    RV,
    I’m pretty sure that a population with a master morality has never existed, at least as a competitor for regional hegemon. Frankly, you need the neurotypical buy-in and group solidarity to be anything resembling militarily competitive with typical societies. A society composed solely of non-neurotypical people like myself would have some serious issues, particularly if the ‘virtual me’s’ didn’t deeply trust each other.

    You’ll notice the the Israelite kings that God liked had no shortage of necessary ruthlessness, including my namesake. Old Vlad might well have gotten on well with them.

  13. rebelliousvanilla says:

    Having a master morality doesn’t mean being a psychopath and not trusting others. lol

  14. Jehu says:

    RV,
    It doesn’t mean you’re a psychopath, but I’ve a hard time envisioning those with a master morality willingly making sacrifices for the benefit of others, particularly when those others aren’t blood relations for them. You’d also be quite foolish if you trust anyone with a master morality when you want them to do something that is contrary to their self-interest 🙂 This is what military basic training is all about in the final analysis, and it doesn’t take well for those with a master morality, or, for that matter for those with any morality other than a slave one. But an army without that pervasive willingness will lose badly to one with it nearly every time. It’s behind most of the obscenely lopsided battles throughout history.
    I wouldn’t describe my own personal morality as either a master or a slave morality. I’m willing to be commanded, but only by God or someone that I respect tremendously towards a goal that I support wholeheartedly. This doesn’t really fit either of Nietzche’s descriptions all that well. Were I non-Christian, my morality would default to a master morality though.

  15. rebelliousvanilla says:

    /sighs. You don’t get what master morality is. Have you actually read anything about it?

    But even with your notion of it, if you are not doing anything for the group, then why shouldn’t all the others expell you? I mean, it’s in their self interest to do so. So if you don’t commit the sacrifices that others expect from you as part of group membership, then you’re kicked out of the group and since being part of a group is a positive more often than not, it is in the self interest of anyone to be altruistic. I’m not even going to go into evolutionary psychology on this one. This works exactly like markets do. Sure, if I sell used condoms, it’s in my interest to sell them for $500 billion each, just like it’s in your interest to get them for free(well, nobody really wants them, but just go with it lol). Obviously, in the end you will have a market price for used condoms since both of us will be forced to compromise. Self-sacrifice towards your group is in your own interest. Actually, a group with a master morality will always cleanse itself of leeches and people who don’t do their ‘fair share’. Only groups with slave moralities are willing to allow people to free ride on them.

  16. Jehu says:

    RV,
    Achilles and some of the other Greek legendary heroes are the exemplars of Master Morality. They didn’t generally play well with others being a very fractious lot. Master Morality produces some great warriors but it doesn’t produce masses of good soldiers. Masses of good soldiers are what win the lebensraum for your culture. Good soldiers are overwhelmingly produced by cultures with slave moralities where the masters are smart enough not to leave them without a stake in the continuation of the culture. And while relatively trivial day to day sacrifices can be had by way of enlightened self-interest, the kind you need to be pervasive to win wars for carrying capacity can’t be produced that way reliably.

  17. RV,
    I wouldn’t ask you to repeat yourself, and we are mostly in agreement now, but there are still a few points to say more on. (ADDED 2 hours later: major understatement, your reply was so epic that it took me this long to get through it even though I skipped a lot. I hope you enjoy wasting my time like this. 🙂 )

    And to answer Polymath, a Christian nation is a nation with Christian ethics as their morality.
    Fine, but in many historical examples the ruler was not only a Christian but in many cases a “good” Christian in the sense of being personally pious and so on. The point is this is still compatible with doing what a ruler needs to do, it’s only in the last couple of centuries that Christian leaders really became wimps. You don’t have to have a non-Christian ruler, he just has to be the old-fashioned kind of Christian.

    Obviously, we could do the thing that CS talks about – begin seeing ourselves as oppressed and identify Americanism and what we imported from the US as the source of our problems and then destroy all the institutions that the US sponsored around Europe(ranging from the UN to the EU to NATO, to all the American model institutions we developed) and then acquire superior military means to kick out America out of Europe and all the areas that we want to influence. Because yes, without Americanism imploding, it will end in war. The reason why I prefer Americanism imploding is because in that way, Europe and America could actually be friends, instead of foes and on the long run, white Americans would be better off too.

    This makes perfect sense if you assume that America would not leave if asked. But if Germany asked America to leave, we would. The major mistake you and CS make about America is in thinking that we know what we are doing and are ruthless rather than blundering. Furthermore, it’s politically realistic for a German party to win on a kick-America-out platform exactly because America would leave if asked; obviously CS’s idea of going to war with us to kick us out would not happen through normal politics. Believe me, most Americans are fed up with defending you (not because of military danger, but because we’ve spent a lot of our GDP and freed up yours for your welfare state) and would be happy to bring the soldiers home.

    And by the way, CS explains why we are importing your culture, despite it being trash. Since the institutions that exist in Europe are on the same model and the values that we pretty much had forced upon us, we are bound to do it.
    That doesn’t explain why your own culture died. That’s not our fault, you did it to yourselves. The war only lasted 6 years, and the occupation, though oppressive in a political and economic sense, didn’t prevent you from continuing to produce culture, or from remembering what non-trashy culture was like. The Nazis and Communists did much more damage to culture than the Americans did.

    Political freedom is good as long as not everyone has it. We talked about quite a bit about voting systems. Also, you should read Hans Hermann Hoppe’s opinion on monarchy vs democratic republics. He is fairly accurate and history proves him right.

    I don’t disagree with this, but you’re not addressing my point that you can’t give up all political freedom in exchange for prosperity and security because you have no defense against tyranny then. Now you’re retreating to saying that it’s OK if there is political freedom for a dominant group but that wasn’t what I was criticizing.

    Somalis being politically free in the same constituency as me makes me have less political freedom than them being oppressed. So we get to the type of political freedom that we want – should it be equal? I reject that notion. This is why idiotic ideas like equality are fashionable. It’s easy to just ramble about how we all should be equal than get to the truth of the matter and understand that everything is relative in this regard.

    Again, I’m not disagreeing with this, just saying that your models of Singapore and China and absolute monarchies where there is NO political freedom have a serious drawback.

    Your citations of my blog is the reason why I thought about deleting it. Citing things I wrote 2 years ago is inconsequential,

    Very funny. I did not quote you, I merely reproduced quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Plato, and Samuel Adams which you had endorsed. Those quotes made my same point that unaccountable governments will become tyrannical. Do you now disagree with these quotes (here are just 2 of the 4)?

    The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men. – Plato

    Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with the power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

    Why can’t you just admit that you went a little bit too far in denigrating political freedom before? Apparently you can backtrack like you did above as long as you don’t actually admit you were wrong, I guess I’ll have to settle for that. 😛

    By the way, I’ll be very angry with you if you delete your blog. I think it’s great and enjoy all the old posts, and a lot of it is not about politics.

    About Muslims and China. I see the Chinese way as superior in quite a lot of ways to America. Their economy is far better(30% savings rate, huge current account surpluses and so on), they don’t have deranged social views and I’m unsure if their governments spends as much as America’s. I doubt it, so we can safely say that their government doesn’t steal everything.

    I didn’t say that. I was extremely careful to link the places you cited as models in to their associated problems in proper respective order — Muslims enslaved women, China’s government imprisoned and tortured dissidents, Russia’s government stole everything. I didn’t say China’s government stole everything. But other than that I’m not disagreeing with you that China is superior to America in many ways.

    You’re far more to the left than the founding fathers wanted America to be

    We don’t disagree here about this, we disagree on whether America is too far gone to be saved through ordinary politics (the disagreement is not an opposition, you say “yes” and I don’t say “no”, I say it’s still too early to tell).

    And while debate is smothered in Europe, the overwhelming majority of Europeans dislike outsiders, for example. Heck, even 80% of Swedes said they shouldn’t get more immigrants, if I recall correctly. You can also look at the fringe things created here. We don’t discuss economics and get into harangues about how we should reduce government. That’s irrelevant, in the end. We discuss the key issues – what it means to be Swedish for the SD and how to preserve Sweden for Swedish people, for example… So the US is far behind Europe in terms of ‘progress’ towards reality. While big governments are hinderance(and I despise them), the things debated in Europe are existential issues.

    America is definitely debating the existential issue of immigration now, there is a huge amount of political potential energy there.

    I’d also want to underline that a backlash like the tea parties is a normal occurence when governments meddle with the status quo.

    The size of this backlash is very abnormal and it will lead to bigger changes than previous backlashes.

    People aren’t brainwashed into obeying authority. That’s how people are. They acquiesce to people who are stronger than them. … I’d also like to point out that the institutions we have aren’t really European. Take keep Germany down, Russia out and America in NATO. CS explained this really well so I won’t get into further detail. Most people are sheeple and slaves. Actually, if most people had a bit of coherent independent thought, I’d be waving a white flag right now since gaining enough support would be impossible. But replacing current institutions is far easier – then the sheeple will follow.

    The point I was making is that people naturally obey authority when there is a clear and unitary authority, but they still have their own interests and opinions and principles which come into play when they have a real alternative. Milgram’s experiment was shocking not because the subjects had no morals, it was shocking because they DID have morals and yet the authority figure overrode them for nearly 2/3 of the subjects. I explained that in the replication of the experiment where some of the subjects were shills who objected and rebelled, only 10% of the real subjects continued to follow the experimenter’s authority and the other 90% were emboldened to defy the experimenter and follow their original moral impulses. This is the same old question — can an alternative be plausibly presented, or is it too late so that only a violent takeover can change the people’s minds? I am not giving up on politics yet.

    Just look at the US Constitution. Any white person who supports it is screwing himself, but because it helped white people when the US was overwhelmingly WASPy and all that, people still follow it.

    You saw what I wrote about American propositional nationhood on the Christian ethics thread, we don’t really disagree about that, though I will say that actually following the Constitution would be a huge improvement over what we have today.

    Just like most Americans didn’t mind the king that much until the founding fathers. Sure, they whined and moaned about it, but they didn’t do squat. And their slavish instincts towards institutions were shown when they wanted to make Washington king(I’m not sure how true that was, but I know that the overwhelming majority of Americans didn’t do that much against the British).

    It was basically 1/3 rebels, 1/3 Loyalists, 1/3 “whatever”.

    Now, getting to economics, if creditors will begin looking at sovereign risk, you are foolish if you think that they will miss America. If European states will begin to fall like dominoes, everybody will dump sovereign debt of any nature of big debtors. Besides, in case you didn’t figure it out, we enslaved the Germans to bail us out so we are good. 😛

    I’m not disagreeing here either, but there will definitely be European states failing before the US does, and if it actually comes to a war in Europe the US will again come out ahead. If Germany cares enough to help hold Europe together then the dollar will collapse eventually and the US will implode economically, good luck keeping them enslaved. 😛

    Related to occupations, when did all the American troops leave Germany and the UK? Because from what I know, Germany is still under American occupation. I mean, sure, after you destroy the leadership and a people themselves and replace their institutions and whatnot, the fact that the institutions you created in their country declare peace and whatnot is hardly relevant. Just like the South being annexed back into the Union makes all the amendments that were passed without them inconsequential, even if they ratified them later.

    We don’t disagree about the past. But do you think, seriously, that if the Germans or British elected a government that told us to go home, that we would insist on staying? Your point of view is distorted by all those years of American hegemony, you don’t realize that America doesn’t care about Europe anymore. Now that the Soviet Union has collapsed we don’t feel any geopolitical need to keep you down — there is bureaucratic inertia to do that in the institutions, but an American politican campaigning on getting us out of Europe could get elected even if you wanted us to stay, and if you asked us to leave we would not support our government going to war over it.

    The South has no right to complain about those amendments, that’s what happens when you lose a war, you lose your political freedom for a while. They shoulda thought of that before seceding.

  18. By the way, RV, you never answered several other questions I had asked you in that thread, but I’ll just repeat this one:
    When you say “I don’t feel loyal to society. The current society is against my ethnic group and my values, so I root for its complete destruction.” does that mean you feel no loyalty to Romania as a society? How does a country that is still 90% Romanian manage to be against your ethnic group, so much so that you despair of waking them up without “complete destruction”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s