[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
Marion Maréchal, the niece of National Rally leader Marine Le Pen, recently slammed Black Lives Matter activists for “defiling the memory of our ancestors” and “spitting on our history.”
Yesterday, in a video posted to social media, the former National Rally politician, spoke at length about the Black Lives Matter movement, as well the protests, riots, and looting which have ignited across the West in response to the deaths of George Floyd and Adama Traoré.
“I don’t have to apologize as a white person and a French one,” said Maréchal in a video posted to Facebook. “You can see what we have been reduced to by having to position ourselves that way. I don’t have to apologize for the death of an offender, Adama Traoré, an accidental death that occurred after an arrest unrelated to his skin color, but to the crimes he allegedly committed.”
“I don’t have to apologize because I didn’t colonize anyone… I didn’t enslave anyone in the same way that all these political groups and political activists were never colonized or enslaved themselves,” Maréchal continued.
The 30-year-old former politician then commented on BLM, Antifa, and other radically liberal extremists who’ve torn down and defaced monuments across Europe and America.
They “defile the memory of our ancestors, spit on our history, profane our heritage and break down our statues,” she said adding that “What is being prepared behind this propaganda is terrifying.”
Nice start to Marion Maréchal’s response to BLM, but in the end, a big fail, as she calls for resistance to race based discrimination that comes of conflict.
Watch live coverage as Elon Musk’s SpaceX works with NASA to launch the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon capsule with two U.S. astronauts, the first mission of its kind to the International Space Station in nearly a decade.
Contrasts at present are in high relief:
Between the culture that would launch space colonization in response to natural challenges to one which would open our borders and interpersonal bounds to human and pervasive ecological destruction; lock us down and ruin our agentive capacity for independence in defense of our national and interpersonal bounds; coupled by taking another liberal step back from those who would riot, infringing our private boundaries further in violence and destruction; putting the kabash on economic independence as much as possible; while generally making life on earth miserable; obstructing earthly management, hastening the need to colonize outer-space indeed.
Dr. Frank Salter’s immensely vital academic contributions to the genetic understanding of European ethnic groups, their health and welfare, and the need to safeguard these in a largely multicultural Western world, are explored in this video essay…
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.
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.
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.
.jpg?r=1586936888)
Clinton sell-out, Maxwell’s Judeo-supremacism and the hoarding of sexual resource.
Eddie Murphy has how many children with how many different women?
Welfare not only provides money, but frees up the precious resource of time, for people like 
