Consider the influx of rich people into your groceries market.
Consider the lower real prices of food in certain countries, in spite of low transportation costs (which should equalize food costs worldwide).
Consider that some think the influx of rich people, will raise their costs.
Consider that some think the influx of rich people will increase available wealth in the area.
To the point:
The balance of benefits and costs is determined by:
Costs: how much does the person buy locally to consume? This is the consumption that you bear. To you, It reduces quantity of goods available and raises prices, marginally.
Benefits: How much does the person produce to sell locally? This is the productivity that you (generally probably) enjoy. To you, It increases quantity of goods available and lowers prices, marginally.
It is possible for people to produce and export worldwide while consuming locally. The reverse is also possible. this of course, would affect the balance. Added to the balance of local/total consumption or production, is also the consumption/production balance. Someone who just produces and never consumers is only a benefit. Someone who consumes more than they produce, by debt or aggression, is a burden.
Microchimerization Test – The Future Of K, And The End Of Roasties
A while back, it was shown a significant number of women carry male DNA in their systems. Many such cases are believed to be from mothers carrying male fetal cells from male babies they carried to term. Some are believed to be from fetuses that were aborted or miscarried. Yet there is a significant number of cases which are not attributable to such sources, and are believed to have come from DNA from sperm from previous sex partners somehow getting into cells and multiplying into a stable subpopulation of cells with male DNA.
Roosh had done a piece on this way back. It referred to studies showing both microchimerization and even genetic effects on offspring from previous male mates, in everything from flies, to humans. There’s another article here, and papers here, and here,and here and here.
I’ve been surfing 4Chan lately, both to find material and because I think the psychologies and memes there may be representative of what is coming in the Apocalypse. On 4Chan, you are exposed to horrors, misery, and amygdala stimulation, and I think this creates an irritable psychology which tends to seek truth over fantasy, for amygdala-relief, and this psychology particularly resents falsehoods such as r-selected memes.
There is also a strong preference for K-selected memes, including a strong urge to embrace K-selected reproductive urges, from a rejection of sexual degeneracy, to a recognition that if you want a marriage to work you need a wife with fewer sexual partners in her sexual history.
One of their foundational ideas is that a large motivator of our present slide to r in modern times compared with the past, was that in the past women did not want to become known for lax sexual mores in the small communities where they spent their entire lives, and from which they needed to extract their life-long mate. Because in small communities gossip spreads like wildfire, women were sexually constrained, and those that were not would suffer the reproductive consequences.
The problem in modern times is that at 18, young women are sent hundreds, if not thousands of miles from their homes, to temporary communities which they will not be a part of for long. There they spend four or more years, where their reputations in any future community will not be impacted by any actions they take on the sexual front. Once they leave that temporary community, they can merely change their behavior in their next adult community, portraying their ideology and psychology as chaste and reserved, in order to snag a long-term mate. Thus for four years or more in their late teens and early twenties, the female psychology is uprooted from a major force which in the past had restricted lifetime sexual partner numbers, and which had promoted longer-lasting marriages and more K-selected styles of offspring rearing.
The existence of microchimerism, or the presence of male DNA lingering in female blood, is a technological force which could return that balance. What it offers is the ability to create a test to detect male DNA in female blood, and I suspect with time such a test may even develop the ability to be able to identify how many different males have their DNA represented in your potential betrothed’s blood. Knowing how divorce likelihood increases with number of partners, and how traits of previous r-selected males who mated with your wife, could manifest in your children due to DNA they left in her, this test could offer men an easy way of increasing their likelihood of a successful marriage and avoiding divorce, as well as securing the genetic purity and health of their children.
If a company develops a test (and they will) which can detect this DNA, and men begin to demand it prior to marriage, suddenly K-selected males will be able to split their reproductive efforts away from those of the r-selected rabbits significantly, and women will feel the pressure in college to avoid becoming contaminated with DNA from every random Chad they happen across.
Watch for this tech, because it will become a hugely popular advance in the K-selected psychological environment during and following the Apocalypse. It will be one blood test that is able to predict marriage success, and in an environment of K-selected psychologies, that will be highly desirable.
What will be amazing is, that one advance will render a large part of the female population totally unmarriable for all but the lowest SMV males, at the very moment when marriage may be the only way women are able to secure any degree of safety and survival in an unbelievably violent and resource-constricted world.
Expect fierce competition among males for a small pool of qualified female mates initially, at least until young girls adapt to the new reality by constraining their behavior in college, and Darwinian selection takes care of the overabundance of r-selected genes presently floating around in our society, cloaked in the decency of K-selection.
A Brave New World is coming, but not all of it will be bad.
In this video, Stefan claims that it is well documented that wealth was a big separator between surviving a plague and dying from a plague. Poverty increased the risk of contagion while wealth reduced it.
Thus we really did have the enlightenment, however imperfect it was, because a lot of the idiots holding us back were disproportionately killed by plagues.
How do idiots hold us back?
If there was a political enslaver alone, he would not be of much trade.
Ah! but if the same political enslaver, has 10000 idiots he can convince of his rule and laws, then you too, are enslaved …. by the existence of the idiots. You are shackled from your potential.
The plebs can easily be brainwashed faster than you can fix them, they are the minions of the evil, an extension of the politician, and that is most obvious in democracy but remains true everywhere.
In the formation of customs and legal systems, every action of endorsement, acceptance or undermining will combine to create the outcome. and the outcome is basically determined by the statistical predisposition of the group’s nature, and plebs simply are not conducive to freedom. The ripples of your individual actions, end soon, and are almost always suffocated by the masses.
Change the composition of the environment, and the consequence of an action upon it can evolve much differently. For example, an idea can be cursed and you thrown of a building for ‘heresy’, or it may go ablaze through the majority’s mind in acceptance.
IQ isn’t the only thing determining of freedom as demonstrated by asian’s who despite being higher, prefer big government to small government significantly more than whites.
Freedom is the plant of a minority’s genetic roots.
Actually, Rome collapsed when it’s government ran out of money. The debt and inflation were too much, the amount of regulation whackamole was gigantic (more regulation to deal with the bigger negative consequences of previous regulation). We’re, sadly, and profitably predictably approaching the same level of crap.
And we do so because human socialist instincts paired with insufficient intelligence and lucky finding (of what would lead one to understand market economies) leads to IMMORALITY and advocacy of IMMORALITY, and it is this economically destructive behavior which leads to critical convulsions shortages and societal collapse.
You can have all the debate you want, but when you can’t start a family, feed yourself, or afford leisure, unrest rises. Until then you can have as much bickering as you want. You can have as much xenophilic immigration and destruction of culture, if it weren’t for the economic consequences.
I hate all lifeforms who advocate legalized theft, of property life or liberty. Fuck you. All I want is the number of lifeforms who understand to be increasing fast enough to have a nation on their own. Everyone else is secondary.
(((trades financial futures on america’s demise))) fuck you plebs! I’m not going to let my destiny be held back!
Stop advocating for peace to those who lead to deadly threats against productivity and wealth. The biggest niggerjew is the state. The biggest burglar is the state. The biggest fraudster is the state. The biggest Burglar is the state. The biggest criminal organization is the state. The biggest religion is statism. the biggest gang of thieves is the state. I’m not sure about rape, nor do I really care about it since it’s never destroyed a civilization unlike theft.
A nation that doesn’t see this will fail quickly and be destroyed less it changes its minds quickly enough no matter how perfectly homegenous it is. Ex: israel
One of the advantage of homogenous gene-isolationist policy is that no matter how many starve and die, you still have the same composition to change your mind with.
highlights. Intelligence and Patience are the biggest factors in whether or not human cooperation takes place.
You may have seen IQ stats over the world but here’s one on time preference:
The article also goes over different tests and results.
Hans Herman Hoppe put it elegantly: (not quote) The process of civilization begins with low-time preference investments into the future, especially when beyond one’s life.
In the 19th hundreds, eugenics and natural human differences where recognized. Over the next two centuries the thought of natural human equality has captured the minds of many, especially whites or those who think they stand to benefit from it.
People instantly reject research that leads to concluding natural differences between humans, especially those mental in difference.
This is despite solid statistical validity in the methodology.
Researchers are scorned by mobs.
Witch hunts take place, defamation and rejecting/firing people for jobs takes place.
The mainstream media is quick to be part of the mob and even set it on fire.
Politicians do likewise.
Laws and threats of violence are put in place to reduce inequalities due to discrimination based on biological or some cultural groups that individuals are a part of.
The only hope are the limitations of reality. For what cannot continue, will not continue, but at what cost will it end? The prospects are bad.
It is my hope that every good individual maximize its survival and reproduction with full prejudice against degenerates.
I don’t easily take pleasure in the negative consequences but I wish I did.
This madness is likely due to either some very good propagandists or a moral/emotional predisposition towards the ideals espoused by this. Of course, many do not care about reality, and for that matter, anything in it, including you, but they do care about their fantasy.
If you are human, you differentiate aspects of reality and see meaning (value) in some of them. You prefer some things over others. You consider different things differently. You choose between options all the time: that is discrimination.
”Discrimination” isn’t limited to discrimination between some things but not others. Anytime someone discriminates between anything, it is called discrimination. There exists no better word to describe action evolving from differing valuations of options, or even random selection between equals.
Discrimination involves both:
The recognition of difference either material or in terms of value.
Action based on that recognition.
The left have co-opted this unique word. They are wrong. They are also wrong that discrimination based on any fact is wrong. The market does this all the time to better serve different consumer groups, for example.
See at bottom for how this system can be used to describe theories of morality based on purely consequence, action or intention.
My ethics system asserts the following:
There is reality.
Some states of reality are preferable to others.
If you do not find all states of reality equally preferable, (if not then you have no use for this tool)
My ethics system prescribes the following:
1.Find overarching values that predict preferences between states of reality.
2. (optional step) Find global arrangements of reality where-in those states of reality are maximized.
3. (optional step) Find behavior based on perfect knowledge that favors a, in total, more preferable ensemble of states of reality.
ex: If you were omniscient, what system for deriving a decision of action from information (morality) would always prescribe the action most aligned with your values in all possible realities (situations)?
4. Find behavior based on imperfect knowledge that if you had in each instance would favor a, in total, more preferable ensemble of states of reality.
ex: If you were who you are now (or the set of agents your moral theory address), what system for deriving a decision of action from the information available to you in any situation would most maximize the alignment of reality with your values?
5. Find best attainable behavior based on imperfect knowledge and imperfect capacity for information processing and decision making that if you followed in each instance would favor a, in total, more preferable ensemble of states of reality as compared to alternative behaviors within your reach.
ex: Given the decision making process of my brain, I am simply not sufficiently well equipped in both speed and quality of cognition to ideally process information into decisions based on step 4. I should be like someone who behaves like X, however I can’t achieve that person and associated behavior. The second best behavior Y can be achieved by me, so I should go for this one instead.
trivia: You might run the risk of not achieving the best behavior you can reasonably expect to achieve, and the rest of the probability, the part in which you don’t achieve it, makes the choice to pursue the best achievable behavior inferior due to the risk premium included. Thus you may prefer to strive in another path that even though you won’t achieve the best that path to offer, you can fall back on some improvements still.
Conclusion: if you completed the above steps, you now have a immediately practical set of instructions to get more of what you like. If you don’t implement it, it’s because you forgot to value laziness or other distracting values or, in an alternative conceptual perspective, have failed to recognize your limitations and have set an unrealistic course of action. If however you achieved a realistic course of action, well now you know so of you go!
Optional steps are helpful intermediates in arriving to the moral system however they are not as well as useful and sometimes irrelevant (such as when simple behaviors are the values themselves)
There’s a lot of rule utilitarianism, how is this compatible with non-consequential theories? It’s compatible if you correctly identify the values that describe those non-consequentialist or only partially consequentialist moralities. If you think otherwise, I welcome the challenge: just message me and I’ll be glad to test it!
I think this system captures the complexity and unfilled gaps of what can be done in ethics. If I remember correctly, I already posted my values and some of my steps.
TLDR: other subjects make prescriptions that people are more agreeable on because the relevant values (such as health for medicine, material utility for science, etc) are more shared and less conflicting from one person to another. Those subjects with enough shared common values are considered objective while morality is not, because the values underlying the prescriptions are not universally shared.
However, values that underpin moral commandments, make many disagreements among people. The underlying values are not shared. This is the prime reason why morality is considered ”subjective” and the rest considered ”objective”. The values underpinning objective things are accepted enough to be pervasive. Imagine:
”why value truth, your science has only brought destabilization to our religious society, what makes you think your science is better than our religion? (you can’t appeal to truth because I don’t care about it as much as the issues I focus on such as not having the destabilization of the social order)”
and so on. Science and math became objective because enough people shared the same underlying values.
I think the most popular problem people have with morality is saying it is subjective because people can choose not to follow it, or they are not forced to. However this is true of other things that are
Math and Science have a prescriptive component. Not everyone follows the scientific method.
Science has the scientific method, and math has its own dispute resolution prescriptions (how to resolve mathematical disagreements).
Yet even if you choose not to follow math science or morality, doesn’t mean that they are subjective. I understand subjective as dependent on the subject. So obviously what goes on in my brain may be subjective to me, but it’s objective to others so long as it does not depend on them.
Prescriptions on behavior, how to go about healing yourself (medicine), eating (diet), how to predict quantifiable information (math), how to predict reality (science).
So what’s the matter? the matter is: while people want to heal themselves, eat well, predict well, they may not necessarily often want to do what morality prescribes.
Science became accepted as objective not just because of how good it would be, but because people *wanted* to follow it.
Science, math are more aligned with a lot of what people want. and sure you will find reality nihilists and moral nihilists. There are people who think of science and math as subjective, a fiction of the patriarchy or whatever.
The problems morality has are not unique to morality. The problems are only more present with morality. First, math and science deal with more popular desires and can usually be summed as : ”if you want to …. then the best way to achieve it is… ”.
But what if you prefer a round about way of doing it because you like the smell or w.e? There are still values involved.
Morality isn’t even clear. It is too broad. It’s most accurate to see that it’s just people saying ”that’s how I want you to act” ”if you act this way, I will approve of you, otherwise if you deviate I will disapprove of you”.
People have much more conflicting values in morality than in science.
That is why we more generally follow prescriptions in math and science, and less generally follow or even agree on morality.
Not everyone does follow prescriptions in math and science.