Majorityrights News > Category: Islam & Islamification

Clinton sell-out, Maxwell’s Judeo-supremacism and the hoarding of sexual resource.

Comparing Income & Sex Redistribution

By Robin Hanson · June 26, 2018:

Disclaimer: This post is on sensitive topics of sex and power. I try to make it clear when I make a claim; beware drawing indirect inferences; I rarely value signal.

As promised in my last post, I now return after a civility pause to the topic of comparing sex and income inequality and redistribution. This post will be unusually long, as I’m trying harder to speak carefully.

If a feature of individuals can be compared across individuals, and ranked, then we can say that some people have more of it than others. We can then talk about how equally or unequally this feature is distributed across a population. Some features are seen as good things, where most people like to have more of it, all else equal. And the values that people place on some good things exhibit diminishing marginal utility (DMU). That is, people put a higher value on getting a bit more of it when they don’t have much, relative to when they have more.

For good things, we usually seek policies (including informal social norms and formal programs by government, charities, and other organizations) that can raise its distribution, all else equal, and get more of it to more people. And for good things with DMU, unequal distributions are regrettable, all else equal, as any one unit is worth more to those who have less. Any policy that changes a distribution is by definition said to “redistribute” that thing. (If you doubt me, consult a dictionary.) A policy that reduces inequality more might be said to do “more” redistribution.

Eddie Murphy has how many children with how many different women?

Of course all else is usually not equal. People vary in their ability to produce things, in the value they place on things, and in how much those people are valued by their society. Both the things that people value, and the arrangements that produce them, tend to be complex, multi-dimensional, and context-dependent. “Income” and “sex” are both labels that point to such complex, multi-dimensional and context-dependent good things. Both are usually produced via unique pairings, sex between a man and a woman, and income between an employer and an employee. The value of these pairings vary greatly across possible pairings, and also with a lot of other context.

Welfare not only provides money, but frees up the precious resource of time, for people like Desmond Hatchet to have 30 children with 11 different women.

For income, centuries of effort has resulted in several simple accounting methods by which we can define each person’s “income”, though we know that these measures miss a lot of what we care about. For example, regions vary in living expenses, people vary in their health-induced medical expenses, some jobs are easier and more enjoyable than others, some people have more expensive tastes than others, some assets are illiquid and unique, and there’s a key difference between what people own and what they consume. All these issues make it hard to say exactly who has more “income”.

This complexity makes it harder to analyze policies that influence income. Even so, when arguing about policy, people often mention income redistribution advantages or disadvantages of policies, such as regarding taxes, schools, medicine, housing, immigration, and much more. (Such policies usually let either side veto each particular employee-employer pairing.) Reducing income inequality is widely seen as a legitimate policy goal, even if people don’t agree on its priority relative to other goals. Income, and our related informal norms and formal policies, have changed greatly over the last few centuries, though less so over the last half century.

On sex, we might in principle compare individual counts of simple sex acts to get a rough indication of sex inequality, though we know that such a measure would miss a lot that matters. But even though sex is complex, hard to specify, and varied, it is also clearly important to many (both male and female). As is income. People often explicitly mention effects on sex when arguing for and against policies in many areas, such as marriage, prostitution, dating, birth control, nudity, pornography, drugs, child care, housing, and recreation. In the last half century, we’ve seen big changes in both informal norms and formal policies related to sex. People seem to be more sensitive today on the topic of policies related to sex, relative to those related to income, perhaps in part due to recent changes being bigger.

In my April 26 post, I noted that recently some people (self-labelled “incels”) have explicitly and publicly sought less sex inequality, a few via violence, and I wondered why they are so few relative to, and overlap so little with, those seeking less income inequality. I mentioned a few specific possible policies, such as cash transfers conditional on individual sex rates, legalized prostitution, and stronger support for monogamy and marriage. (I did not support or oppose any specific policies.)

But these were just examples; the fact that sex is so complex and integrated into so many social practices implies that a great many policy levers must exist. Who has how much sex with who is influenced by what we count as status and beauty, where people live, where and how they meet, how they talk to each other, what they can learn about each other, and especially by where and when they can talk and meet privately.

I’m far from the first person to consider such policies. Historically, societies have passed laws to discourage premarital and extramarital sex, and to limit how many wives or concubines each man could have. Informal gossip and propaganda has tried to lower the sex appeal of rakes, foreigners, and the promiscuous, and to raise that of soldiers. Policies have limited where and when people might meet in privately, such as segregating student dorms by gender, and prohibiting unmarried couples from renting hotel rooms.

READ MORE...

Hello and Welcome!

You’re A Nationalist, You Just Don’t Realise It Yet

The Future Of Britain

TikTok Video To Stop R*pists…

Invasive Species/Naive Species Analogy

With particular attention to the Manichean (trickster) evolution of those evolved in temperate climates where competition is more against other groups (thus, evolving trickery) as opposed to those evolved in climates where nature, Augustinian challenges (natural challenges) are the greater concern, i.e., in protracted spans when food and shelter are the greatest challenge and threat to survival: we might consider what can happen when Manicheans are introduced to habitats of the northern, “naive” species.

Excerpted from

Paradigmatic Shift: From Pandemic to Pervasive Ecology through Coordinated Ethnonationalism.

There is an analogy to the introduction of invasive species to habitats where the species are naive - not having evolved defense against the invasive; but while this tends to be a phenomenon of accident in the animal world - e.g., invasive species being carried along in ships - it can be compounded by deliberate imposition in the social world.

Naive species and the introduction of manichean species

Social groups evolved in circumstances where brutal and cyclical elements of nature deprive food and ready shelter for extended periods are less the challenge, are put in more direct competition with other groups [hypothesized of Middle Easterners] for easier resource and recourse in shelter; thus develop trickery (“Manichean devils”) to compete with the other groups for resource as opposed to those [hypothesized of Europeans, esp. north] evolved more in the circumstances where the challenge comes more from brute nature (“Augustinian devils”); who become stronger in STEM disciplines but somewhat naive species and socially gauche - dupes compared to Manicheans if they are introduced to their habitat (nation); and providing more reason for them to recognize these groups, despite any crypsis (phenotypic appearance like the in group despite being of a genetic outgroup), more reason to recognize them as out groups - belonging to another nation.

While the powers that be with their liberal “pan-mixia” agenda are of course only reluctant protectors of the borders and ever the more pernicious abusers of control of individual liberties within the borders by means of modern technology and the excuse of pandemic, the key counter to them is, of course, achieving ethnohomogeneity and focusing on how to do it.

This is to be done by means of the DNA Nations and unionization on its basis.

In regard to that issue, Morgoth says:

Kakapo Patriotism

Related at Majorityrights:

Naivete of Native Species Evolved in Isolation

Nordic penchant to confront Augustinian challenges exposes naivete to invasive, Manichean species?

Vlog: Patriotic Alternative Spring Conference

No White Guilt | My Speech at the Patriotic Alternative Conference 2020

Royal Navy allows members of white nationalist group to remain in service

The Independent, 15 Mar 2020:

Exclusive: Men not disciplined over activism with pan-European Generation Identity group

Two sailors have been allowed to remain in the Royal Navy without being disciplined despite being named as members of a white nationalist group.

Mike Lynton and Kenneth McCourt were reported to have been members of Generation Identity, whose “great replacement” ideology was a key inspiration for the Christchurch massacre and other terror attacks.

An undercover journalist said they were serving together at a naval base in Plymouth, where they believed fellow sailors held similar views. The journalist claimed Mr Lynton was the regional organiser for Generation Identity in southwest England at the time, and Mr McCourt was one of his recruits.

After his story was published in August, the Royal Navy promised an investigation but The Independent has learned that they were not disciplined.

The case was dealt with “administratively” and the men were not put to a court martial. They remain serving members of the Royal Navy after being referred to the government’s Prevent counter-extremism programme.

Generation Identity calls for a “remigration” of Muslims from Europe and spreads a conspiracy theory claiming that white people are being eradicated.

The theory’s name – the “great replacement” – was the title of a manifesto posted by Brenton Tarrant before the Christchurch shooting, which itself inspired several other terror attacks.

Tarrant donated money to the Austrian branch of Generation Identity and exchanged friendly emails with its leader Martin Sellner, who has been banned from entering Britain on security grounds.

Ben van der Merwe, a journalist, said he met Mr Lynton and Mr McCourt while spending five months undercover in Generation Identity last year and described both men as “committed” activists.

“They weren’t dabbling,” he told The Independent. “Mike recruited Kenny on the base while they were serving, and Kenny told me about the lower-down ranks had sympathy with all of their views.”

Mr Van der Merwe, who conducted the investigation with campaign group Hope Not Hate, said Mr McCourt disclosed their roles to him at Generation Identity UK’s annual conference in July.

“Kenny told me that his superiors were aware of his involvement with Generation Identity, and said this meant if he got [a new posting] it was a good sign for the group in terms of future activity in the navy,” he said. “He said all the officers were racist, including his diversity officer.”

What are the British forces supposed to do, ultimately? Court-martial servicemen for being patriotic?